Philosophy certainly has changed its definitions and functions in the last 30 years. Soon, fallacies will be facts and facts will be fallicies. Oh wait, we may already be there…..
(I am very familiar with philosophy and logic. I am appalled at what has been done to the field, mostly due to global warming advocates needing new definitions of fallicies to make their claims “valid”.)
Captain Dallas: I’m not sure where latent or sensible heat should come in here, though. If we’re not moving between units, then the error estimates don’t change.
If instead I wanted to turn a temperature error measurement into an error measurement on radiative forcing of a blackbody at my temperature, I’d certainly not use those same errors, thats true, but there are ways to figure out stuff like that. I could sample my temperature from the mean/uncertainty distribution and just use a Monte Carlo method, or maybe I could use a direct equation in a propagation of errors method, as here for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty#Simplification
I would say the advocates are causing all scientists in all fields to lose credibility, not least of the reasons why is those of not within the inner circle who have chosen to remain silent instead of risking being pilloried for speaking our doubts out loud have made it seem like we approve of things like making the pause vanish with questionable statistical manipulations.
Isn’t it a shame all those Argo buoys had the wrong temperature? I think we need better buoys. I sketched an alternate model and left a description in one of those blogs the big shots at NOAA seem to read.
‘Philosophy certainly has changed its definitions and functions in the last 30 years. Soon, fallacies will be facts and facts will be fallicies. Oh wait, we may already be there…..”
#################################
The link I provided covers controversies about the definition of the fallacy that go back quite far. Well beyond the 30 years you cite.
“It is argued in (Walton, 1998, pp. 21–27), that this historical development
from Aristotle to Locke and Whately has led to a widely entrenched
ambiguity about the meaning of the ad hominem. ”
Assuming that the definition was somehow fixed up until 30 years ago, is an interesting assertion. Unsupported of course, and beside the point.
#################################################
(I am very familiar with philosophy and logic. I am appalled at what has been done to the field, mostly due to global warming advocates needing new definitions of fallicies to make their claims “valid”.)
1. Asserting that you are familiar doesn’t constitistute a demonstration of mastery.
2. You failed to address the issue I raised about the flaw in your logic.
you can appeal to your own authority and knowledge of logic, but it is rather self defeating in a discussion about logic and fallacies.
3. I cited Walton. His work , the work of Locke, and others, pre dates global warming advocacy .I am not convinced you have demonstrated that their discussions of rhetoric have anything to do with global warming advocacy.
4. Even IF global warming advocacy had play a role in redefining fallacies, it would be a fallacy to reject the definitions based on the genesis of the definition.
+100 GaryM. Right on the mark in all regards.
Alexander, Now you got. If you go through the conversions between units and propagation error you will see that for the ocean surface temperature range you could have a maximum variation with zero change in energy of about 1.5 C. What is likely is a fraction of that, but definitely greater than 0.02 C degrees. Standard deviation provides more information in that respect.
There isn’t anything wrong with trying to fine tune data sets provided you keep the true goal in mind, which should be the objective with statistics. Now is the objective to create a thermodynamics relevant metric or eliminate an inconvenient slow down?
Statistics can create a lot of Eureka moments
Steven: I see your link and raise you this one: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
To be ad hominem, I must attack the person. Otherwise, there’s no “hominem” in the statement. If I address the argument or the behaviour, I am not attacking the person. I made it very clear I did not dismiss everything someone said based on one incident or behaviour. I did not reject any of their beliefs based on said behaviour. I simply stated the behaviour was infantile. It is not an ad hominem statement.
Yes, it is beside the point, yet you felt obligated to type that into the comment.
“Especially if you have had any exposure to philosophy”–that was what my comment concerning philosophy familiarity was about. It was not a claim to know all about it. Yet you went there, also.
I know enough about philosophy to know for certain no philosophical discussion is ever settled. It is a characteristic of philosophy. If I had more time, I might find this as amusing as I did in college. However, since I don’t have time, I am not going there.
The forward predictions start from 2006. All earlier is hindcast. Modelers were given some choices about the exact timing and sources of the initialization data at that time (e.g. Jan 1 2006, or the average over the previous 3 months.) The archive design was finalized in 2011, based on initial ‘experimental design’ protocols promulgated in 2009. You can access it on line. I do not know when the last ‘experiments’ were actually placed in the archive. Probably by July 2012, which IIRC was the cutoff for literature to be considered by WG1.
Captain Dallas—propagation of error isn’t related to standard deviation v. standard error though, it is how you translate uncertainty through a function of what you’re measuring.
“for the ocean surface temperature range you could have a maximum variation with zero change in energy of about 1.5 C”
It’s not clear what we’re talking about now, since you say “change in energy”. Your 1.5˚C refers to variance, I think I understand that, perhaps of the same measurement that Kennedy et al. include; but “change” makes me think you’re also talking about trends. Do you merely mean the difference between the ship and buoy measurements when you say “change”? If so, I agree: we can have large variances compared to the mean value. But the confidence in the mean is not equal to that variance, you have to take into account sample size, which decreases the uncertainty range.
“What is likely is a fraction of that, but definitely greater than 0.02 C degrees.”
So, what equation should we use? Again, we’re not converting any units, still just talking about temperatures and mean temperatures (and temperature differences), so propagation of error does not come into play here. Do you think the equation I gave, √(var(x) / (n-1)), is incorrect here? I guess it seems that’s what you’re saying, but these other matters don’t play in here; so, why so?
“Now is the objective to create a thermodynamics relevant metric…”
So it seems you object to using either heat content (so, Joules) or temperature (I’m not sure which). Either can be useful, but it depends on what you want to know. For the surface, which is for all intents and purposes supposed to be 2D, I don’t think it’s possible to calculate heat storage because we don’t have an actual mass to use heat capacity calculations on.
We might just ask how much heat the first meter of ocean water is storing, and just assume that the temperature variation at the surface is the same through the first meter, in which case we could do that. However, since the equation is linear to calculate heat capacity change, ∆Q = mc∆T (where m is the mass of the 1-meter layer, c is the specific heat capacity of sea water, ∆T the change in temperature with time, and ∆Q the change in heat stored; and m and c remain constant), then the error propagation will be linear too. So you wouldn’t see it blow up like you might if you were using non-linear (i.e. exponential, higher power polynomial) equations.
FL, if you have not yet, read Eschenbach’s calculation of Argo temperature measurement uncertainty posted recently at WUWT. And some of the comments which furthered the analysis. Based on a little known 2007 paper that compared Argo to a research vessel transect of the Atlantic. One can only conclude that the published small error bars are either a result of monumental statistical incompetence, or deliberate exaggeration of certainty. A truly damning indictment of climate science either way.
To be rigorous about it, the censorship and blocking of opposing views really started in any kind of big way on right-wing sites during the Iraq War. But the “progressives” have definitely caught up.
tomdesabla,
Obviously not. But it would of course be unkind to sew “confusion, incoherence, and criticism” by pointing that out.
Steven: Your statement that I thought philosophy had only changed in the past 30 years is not correct. No where did I say that or imply it. I said I did not like the changes I had seen in the last 30 years. Only that. You added the rest.
To be an ad hominem, I have to say you are wrong because your behaviour is infantile. I can call you an idiot, I can comment on your behaviour. However, it’s not an ad hominem. Technically, the term “denier” is not an ad hominem—it’s just name calling. Claiming Willie Soon’s paper was wrong because the university he worked for got grants from oil is an ad hominem. Claiming anyone is wrong about climate science because they believe in UFO’s is ad hominem.
“The basis of the argument is that the proponent is attacking the credibility of the other respondent, and then using this proposed lowering of credibility to argue that the respondent’s argument should be reduced in plausibility value.” Show me where I said anyone’s argument for or against AGW was invalid because of their infantile behaviour. I never addressed the validity of their beliefs anywhere. Only their behaviour.
jim2,
We are not intended to understand why the author’s used the word “meaningful” so inappropriately.
They are clearly graduates of the Mosher School of Obscurantism. Summa cum laude, no doubt.
I think you are confusing effects of climate change with evidence of climate change.
More snow in an area can be an effect of climate change without being evidence for it.
Looks like he’s going to take another look: “Update, 6-6-15: I’m revising this post based on an issue that Gavin Schmidt of NASA made me aware of on Twitter, involving the averaging of trends. It will change the results I’ve given below. Stay tuned.”
“we are very clear in our report that it is inappropriate to compare a short-term period of observations with model performance” .
This reminds me of healthcare, to a degree. In medicine, there is a tendency for some people to pay far too much attention to electronic monitoring devices. One of the mindsets we attempt to enforce with newer people is that we treat the patient, not the monitor, whether that monitor be a cardiac monitor or oxygen saturation monitor. The bottom line is to always treat the patient. If your cardiac monitor shows your patient’s heart has stopped beating, yet he’s sitting there talking to you in no distress, there’s a high degree of certainty of an error with your device, not the patient. Computer models seem to fall in this category, to a degree. We have models, but if the models, in retrospect, fail to model the observed climate, it’s time to go back to the drawing board and start again. I’m sorry, but if model projections can’t manage short term timescales, how am I supposed to be confident in models of longer time scales. To many people, this would fly in the face of logic and common sense.
Is it the reading comprehension this time, Alex?
“Why don’t you explain why adjusting the buoys was a good idea, rather than adjusting the ships that pass in the night, or adjusting both, or adjusting neither?”
You assert that at there is a bias that has to be corrected. The difference between the pretty good buoy data and the dubious ships has been known for some time and nobody else has felt compelled to adjust the buoys, or the ships. Some might suspect that this has more to do with erasing the pause in time for Paree than it has to do with the science.
An aside, about your secular student alliance:
“Our group has grown considerably since then and is the only group for atheist, agnostic and free thinking students on the University of Michigan campus!”
Only secularists can be free thinkers, Alex?
“While the group is primarily geared toward atheists, agnostics, and non-theists, we welcome any atheist-friendly person or anyone who would like to see Church and State remain separate.”
I don’t know anyone who wants to unite Church and State, other than the beheaders who follow a prophet whose name we won’t mention. Are those the only people you want to keep out? You might want to tighten that up lest a religious person who is not interested in uniting Church and State slips in.
When I was a misguided youth, I helped trash some of those Detroit neighborhoods that your group is cleaning up. Kudos on that. By cleaning up, I assume you mean beautification performed during daylight hours. I could do a real clean up, with one brigade of the 82nd Airborne. The locals would raise statues in my honor. Of course the ivory tower types would be horrified.
“Scenario A, the one that most nearly describes actual CO2 emissions growth.”
Scenario A describes CFC growth that didn’t happen.
