Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree2Thanks
  • 2 Post By tristanrobin
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 13th, 2017, 06:52 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 22,393
Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus



Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?

This new study was authored by Rasmus Benestad, myself (Dana Nuccitelli), Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook. Benestad (who did the lion’s share of the work for this paper) created a tool using the R programming language to replicate the results and methods used in a number of frequently-referenced research papers that reject the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. In using this tool, we discovered some common themes among the contrarian research papers.

Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions. For example, in the discussion of a 2011 paper by Humlum et al. in our supplementary material, we note,

The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.

When we tried to reproduce their model of the lunar and solar influence on the climate, we found that the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes. The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.

We found that the ‘curve fitting’ approach also used in the Humlum paper is another common theme in contrarian climate research. ‘Curve fitting’ describes taking several different variables, usually with regular cycles, and stretching them out until the combination fits a given curve (in this case, temperature data). It’s a practice I discuss in my book, about which mathematician John von Neumann once said,

With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

Good modeling will constrain the possible values of the parameters being used so that they reflect known physics, but bad ‘curve fitting’ doesn’t limit itself to physical realities. For example, we discuss research by Nicola Scafetta and Craig Loehle, who often publish papers trying to blame global warming on the orbital cycles of Jupiter and Saturn.

This particular argument also displays a clear lack of plausible physics, which was another common theme we identified among contrarian climate research. In another example, Ferenc Miskolczi argued in 2007 and 2010 papers that the greenhouse effect has become saturated, but as I also discuss in my book, the ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ myth was debunked in the early 20th century. As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth.

This represents just a small sampling of the contrarian studies and flawed methodologies that we identified in our paper; we examined 38 papers in all. As we note, the same replication approach could be applied to papers that are consistent with the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and undoubtedly some methodological errors would be uncovered. However, these types of flaws were the norm, not the exception, among the contrarian papers that we examined. As lead author Rasmus Benestad wrote,

we specifically chose a targeted selection to find out why they got different answers, and the easiest way to do so was to select the most visible contrarian papers ... Our hypothesis was that the chosen contrarian paper was valid, and our approach was to try to falsify this hypothesis by repeating the work with a critical eye.

If we could find flaws or weaknesses, then we would be able to explain why the results were different from the mainstream. Otherwise, the differences would be a result of genuine uncertainty.

After all this, the conclusions were surprisingly unsurprising in my mind. The replication revealed a wide range of types of errors, shortcomings, and flaws involving both statistics and physics.

You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.

If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors. Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form. Instead, as our paper shows, the contrarians have presented a variety of contradictory alternatives based on methodological flaws, which therefore have failed to convince scientific experts.

Human-caused global warming is the only exception. It’s based on overwhelming, consistent scientific evidence and has therefore convinced over 97% of scientific experts that it’s correct.

Thanks from baloney_detector and RNG
tristanrobin is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 08:10 AM   #2
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,013
Just because most scientist agree temperatures have likely gone up .8 of a degree in the last 150 years does not justify implementing policies that condemn millions to poverty.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 08:10 AM   #3
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,013
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...-is-100-wrong/
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 10:23 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Koch brothers-funded author Epstein isn't a scientist but he is a picture perfect example of an industry hack.

Yes Martha, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...s-advanced.htm
imaginethat is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 11:23 AM   #5
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
There never has been a 97% consensus. Never.

Then we have this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth
Hashtag is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:06 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,399
I've always taken a Pascal's wager approach to climate change. I'm not totally convinced we're 100% responsible, but 7 billion people, a billion cars, tens of millions of factories, power plants, etc etc etc have GOT to be taking a toll on the environment. If we clean up our act, invest in renewables and sustainables, what the worst that could happen ?? We leave the planet a little better off for our descendants ?? Maybe just maybe, 6, 8 or even 10 generations down the line, our great great grand kids won't be fighting wars over who controls the oil and other natural resources !!!
BubbaJones is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 12:32 PM   #7
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Koch brothers-funded author Epstein isn't a scientist but he is a picture perfect example of an industry hack.

Yes Martha, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...s-advanced.htm
I've posted that to refute TNV and webguy's posts approximately 159 billion times. It don't take. I guess the words are too big for them.

Edit: And for excalibur, err ... Hashtag's too.
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 03:18 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I've posted that to refute TNV and webguy's posts approximately 159 billion times. It don't take. I guess the words are too big for them.

Edit: And for excalibur, err ... Hashtag's too.
Could you give everyone a little more exact figure please??
imaginethat is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 03:25 PM   #9
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Could you give everyone a little more exact figure please??
I take it you are against the use of hyperbole to stress a point.

How about more than 4 times, will that fly?
RNG is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 08:42 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I take it you are against the use of hyperbole to stress a point.

How about more than 4 times, will that fly?
That's closer to 159 billion than most people think.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
climate, contrarian, here’s, papers, replicate



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Defending the truth about the Panama papers Sabcat Conspiracy Theories 5 April 16th, 2016 10:25 PM
hillary clinton and the Panama papers Sabcat Current Events 7 April 6th, 2016 04:26 PM
Cold fusion: trying to replicate a recent claim kowalskil Science and Technology 0 October 14th, 2010 05:48 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.