Saturday Morning Mathematical Recreation

By Daniel Foty

Late Thursday evening, in the hour before midnight, I found myself driving home from the airport amidst howling winds, blowing and drifting snow, and rapidly-falling temperatures.

Watching the temperature dropping on the display of my truck's exterior-monitoring thermometer, an interesting and possibly didactic exercise occurred to me:

Ponder the following three factoids:

o The long-term average high temperature for this time of year (at the BTV airport reporting station) is 27F;

o Monday, the temperature reached into the low 50s;

o Friday (yesterday), the temperature struggled to reach into the low single-digits.

Do the math.

And ponder what these things tell you about the nature of the underlying "system"....

Comments

[Vermont Woodchuck]

Elementary, the math shows keeping the truck instead of buying green in the "Cash for Clunkers" caused Vermont children to worry about polar bears floating away, property values to fall while property taxes climb and caused the wholesale collapse in the interstate cribbage board market.

While all the facts are not in, simply squaring the formula shows you are the proximate, precipitate cause of rapidly approaching peak oil by use of that truck.
It is patently obvious you haven't taken, or were unsuccessful in the Progressive differential Calculus.

Please don't meddle in matters mathematical and scientific above your skill level-stick to long division.

Thank you
For the Vermont Legislature:
Fechina Twaddle,
Sec'y of Science Comm.

[Daniel Foty]

Dear Ms. Twaddle,

We have received your communication dated 30 January 2010.

Why don't you get a life, and mind your own business?

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Farquhar-Orff
Executive Assistant to Dr. Foty

[Vermont Woodchuck]

Hmmmph!
And that isn't differential Calculus
it's Progressive deferential Calculus.

[Dan Allen]

Hi Daniel,

I have been following your series on climate science. You are providing a great public service: skeptical, hard-nosed, substantiated criticism of the mob pseudo-science dominating the public perspective on climate change. In a state seeking to lead the world in adaptation to global warming, your contribution is invaluable.

On the other hand, when it comes to the general thrust of your articles, either you are right, or Dr. James Hansen of NASA is right. Dr. Hansen says the measurements to prove global warming is happening are indisputable.

I think we need Dr. Hansen to respond to your articles. Then, with side-by-side comparison of arguments, it might be possible to judge whether you are right, or Dr. Hansen is right.

Dr. Hansen's phone number is 212-678-5500

[Daniel Foty]

Dan,

Thanks for the kinds words (really).

I wish I could "accept" them but in fairness I can't. All I'm trying to do in this "news" forum is provide the readership with some news items to keep them informed about how the whole "stop arguing with settled (sic) science!!!!" meme has collapsed.

If someone can bring Mr. Hansen (or Mr. Gore) to bay for a real debate.... well, it's been tried and good luck with that. Mr. Hansen is pretty much a busted flush, and should have been years ago. Way back in the summer of 1988, when he first went up to kick off the scare campaign with Senate testimony, he arranged (perhaps even with the help of then-Sen. Gore) to have the air conditioning turned down so that the overheated room would make his story sound more scary. Resorting to such vapid showmanship is not the mark of a good scientist.

More recently, after cold events and cold records aplenty in October 2008, Mr. Hansen soon afterward announced that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. It was soon found that he had used the Russian data from *September* rather than October, and this was what caused this "finding." The kindest thing one can say is that this is unacceptably sloppy.

In the past couple of weeks, we've also found out that NASA has inexplicably been (over time) decreasing the number of stations that it uses in its global temperature calculations. No explanation has been provided; however, regardless of the (unknown) intent, the pattern is clearly one of preferentially discarding colder stations - and the effect of doing this is what you would generically expect it to be.

As we found out in the CRU whistleblower leak, the lead author of the 2007 IPCC report, Kevin Trenberth, complained in one of the leaked e-mails that "We cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." That pretty much speaks for itself about the state of things.

What I hope to get across is that what's needed more than anything now is a time out. There have just been too many things done wrong, and there have been far too many "major errors" - making concrete statements has become tricky, particularly for the narrative that has been in vogue for a number of years.

If there's anyone who would be the go-to guy for a debate, it would be Lord Christopher Monckton. He has the best command of the big picture and the story for any sort of actual one-on-one debate.

For myself, three or four years back, as the panic level seemed to be (rhetorically) rising, I did what a good scientist does - I pondered the problem and possible different (unique) ways of examining the problem using my own skills and experience. In doing so, I found myself in a position which (as I found out later) many others have found themselves - scratching my head and wondering how in the world the IPCC types were generating the results that they were claiming. The gratifying part now is that as the past few months of revelations have shifted the results, they've been moving quite close to my own findings from 3+ years back. It hints that perhaps I actually know what I'm doing.... :-)

[Dan Allen]

Daniel,

Thank you for responding, much appreciated.

I am looking for simple correct answers to basic questions. I understand such answers might not be available. Perhaps you can bring these questions into focus to the extent science allows.

1. Is the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere warming at ground level?

2. Is the arctic ice cap going to melt completely at any point in the next 50-100 years?

3. When is the last time the arctic ice cap melted completely?

4. Is CO2 emitted by human burning of fossil fuels causing the atmosphere to warm at ground level?

5. Is global warming a problem?

6. If humans keep burning fossil fuels at current or increasing rates for the next 75 years, will that raise the temperature of Earth's atmosphere at ground level? If so, by how much?

I see no signs of people cutting back on burning fossil fuel, except inconsequential gestures. I want to know, if it can be known, what effect continued use of fossil fuel will have on climate. It is my perception that substantial warming (more than 10 degrees C) would take place over the next several hundred years, even if all fossil fuel burning stopped after the next 75 years, if there were no slow down between now and then.

Thank you again for your contribution to public understanding of climate science.

Dan

p.s. I am doing all I can to find a scientist to join this discussion to corroborate or challenge your responses. I am in no way qualified to perform that role. It seems that scientists with strong opinions shy from direct communication with one another in public.

[Dan Allen]

Open letter to DemocracyNow!, requesting assistance in arranging debate between Daniel Foty and a credible proponent of global warming. http://trunc.it/58to5

[Bill]

I hope Hansen is right. As I get older, I feel colder. I hope he is right that the world is getting warmer but I believe he is wrong about mankind's activities have anything to do with it. As for Elizabeth Farquhar-Orff, I went to high school with her. She was feisty and a fox. Some things don't change. I was in the same class as her brother, Buck Orff. Or "Buck Off" as they liked to call him.

[Daniel Foty]

(Catching up on "fan mail." Ha ha.)

Dan, I'm flattered that you think so highly of me from the quasi-journalistic ruminations that have appeared in here. If by some quirk you manage to flush Jim Hansen, that would be worthy of a really well-known international heavyweight generalist - I noted Christopher Monckton last evening, and believe me if such a chance arose he'd jump at it. Fred Singer is another possibility. A Monckton-Hansen debate would be most enlightening for an audience.

I'll try to get to your questions later in the week; they require careful, complex answers, and time is a scarce commodity this week (as ever). You more-or-less encapsulated the problem by requesting "simple, correct answers" - the core problem is that when dealing with such a complex and poorly-understood system it's just not possible to generate them. (Ponder a request for a "simple, correct answer" to the question "Is it going to snow two weeks from Friday?" and you can begin to grasp the difficulties of this problem). A major part of the concern is that so many of the "climate scientists" were so freighted with hubris that they actually believed that they could generate such answers. Bad plan.

Bill, I hope you realize that your statement that "As I get older, I feel colder" actually has more scientific content than many of the IPCC's claims. :-) BTW, Liz says hi.

[T. Shea]

Mr. Allen,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

This article suggests that your "credible proponent of global warming" might be difficult to find.

I also question your claim "I am looking for simple correct answers to basic questions." Based on your comments here and elsewhere, you have already reached your conclusions.

[Dan Allen]

T. Shea,

Thanks for your question. Previously, I had believed that global warming is happening as described by Dr. Hansen. I have changed my view to "confessed ignorance."

In 2007, I tried examining the science and IPCC reports coming out. Here is link to a letter I wrote to the Times Argus articulating my doubts in the IPCC consensus.
http://timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070610/OPINION02/706100310/1022/OPINION02

I kept an online journal of my efforts to understand global warming, at this link.
http://danallen.com/blurb.php?dogNow=313

Around that time, I posted this in my blog:

"Global warming, you think you know the story? I thought I did. Then, I found out the "consensus of 2,000 scientists" announced in February 2007 is spin, not substance."
http://danallen.com/blurb.php?dogNow=209

Still wondering if I have doubts?

-------------------

Daniel,

Please do not underestimate your contribution to the discussion. The fact you see yourself as quasi-journalistic adds to the credibility of the many sensible questions and observations you make. If Dr. Hansen and other icons cannot respond to your common sense style of criticism, it puts them in a very poor light. I find your facts timely , compelling, and complete, at least at face value. That is why I want to see a serious proponent take their best shot to shoot it down if they can. If they can't, then I'd say it is hard to avoid the general thrust of your articles. Good science usually is easy to understand and never needs to be taken on faith. Global warming proponents keep telling us to trust them, but then legitimate doubts keep appearing at the core of their theories.

The fact there are as yet no takers for a debate is starting to speak loudly on behalf of what you have been writing.

I make persuasive arguments all the time, only to see them destroyed by people who really know what they are talking about. So far, no sign of anyone destroying your arguments. I would hope we all can be honest enough to respect fact-based debate and correction of our beliefs. So far, I have seen no credible dispute of your perspective. At this point, your statements are substantiated, and the other side disagrees without providing evidence that can be reviewed. The other side says they have the data, but all their best "data" has been discredited or is buried in mountains of extraneous information where they say they can see even if the rest of us cannot.

Regarding snow a week from Friday, I understand your point. You are saying that uncertainty prevails in the domain of long term global warming science. You have good company: the head of climate science at MIT told me the probability of the Earth being warmer 100 years from now equals the probability of it being colder, given what we know now. He never bought into the IPCC consensus, yet it has been reported that no credible scientist disagreed. So, either he is not a credible scientist or the consensus did not exist as reported.

I am going to keep looking for someone to explain how a quasi-journalist in Vermont has it all wrong. You would think you would be an easy target if the Al Gore global warming story held water.

[Daniel Foty]

Dan,

First, I really do intend to answer that list of questions that you posed last week. But right now my scheduling and workload is in complete insanity due to (get this) Chinese New Year. Welcome to globalization. I realize that "overworked Vermonter" is a rarity :-O but a few of us do exist.

Plus, as per the interrogatory between an attorney and a witness in a courtroom setting, the target audience is wider than the two parties; in the example it's the jury, while in this case it's the readership.

In any case, to **try** (ha) to be brief....

If you're having some second thoughts about this, that's good. What we're seeing now is a split between those who are wondering if somehow they were had, and those who seem to have become even more vehement and insulting.

On the latter, you've already seen some of the invective that one is subjected to.... for merely posing the contention that maybe there are so many problems that the "narrative" is holed below the waterline. The behavior of some of the "enthusiasts" should be disturbing - and we'll get back to that at the end.

On the former, a good piece from someone who is reconsidering under the possibility that he's been "had" can be found here:

http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/February-2010/May-Cooler-Heads-Prevail/

Regarding the desire to be able to forecast with absolute certainty if it's going to snow (or not) TWO weeks from Friday (something of that sort would be invaluable to me in planning my frequent business travel, to avoid crippling weather) - this is about more than just weather or climate. It's very difficult to make forecasts or predictions about very complex, highly non-linear systems. It's easy to *think* that you can, but that is nearly always long on hubris and short on success.

I believe that the gent at MIT that you have in mind is Prof. Richard Lindzen. A mere century is a very short time in the scope of things like "climate," and so Dr. Lindzen's comment that "the probability of the Earth being warmer 100 years from now equals the probability of it being colder, given what we know now" is the very simplest statement of the "null hypothesis" - that what's going on is primarily driven by natural variations (until proven otherwise). I'll go one step further in interpreting what he said - that the highest probability for 100 years out is no change at all, with the probability for either warming or cooling during that period decreasing for larger possible variations from the "no change at all" center (with "warmer" or "colder" being equally probable).

(BTW, it would be great if we could Dr. Lindzen to come up to Montpelier or Burlington to give a "lunchtime lecture.")

That's fairly straightforward stuff - but it illustrates why one can compute the odds.... yet gambling persists in the world. Running gambling is a great business, since you can compute the overall behavior and scale things so that you ("the house") always makes a profit. The punters are playing off the individual events - which each is hoping will break his/her way. The main driver of course is pure luck - and thus when someone talks of a "system" for gambling (or day-trading) it's certain to be based on temporally-local clustering of outcomes that will even out when the sampling becomes large.

BTW, "[g]ood science usually is easy to understand" - indeed it is, which is why all the mathematical complexity that infested "climate modeling" is so disturbing. I've seen this sort of thing happen a few times - it's easy to overrate your ability to understand a "system" and then to try to build up a "mathematical model" for it. This quickly degenerates into piles and piles of mathematical spaghetti (on this count, the code comments that came out of the CRU "leak" are particularly enlightening) that spin out of control. It's also very common for "modeling" to begin with small models for small pieces of a problem - those may behave well, but when you try to toss them all together into a larger-scale model.... the results are usually comical.

On this count, I have a quick post for Geoff to queue when he sees fit that will encourage readers to run a little mathematical kitchen experiment - so simple, yet so eye-opening....

One last thing with regard to James Hansen and the "behavior issues" mentioned above.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but back in June 2008, Dr. Hansen openly called for those who disagree(d) with the narrative to be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity." I won't give you links, since there are many to choose from if you search on (here's the copy-and-paste):

hansen "high crimes against humanity"

This is a pretty shocking idea, and anyone can draw their own conclusion from it.

As the indomitable Lord Christopher Monckton recently put it with regard to Dr. Hansen's view on that,

"Now, crimes against humanity are punishable by death, as Saddam Hussein discovered. So what Hansen is asking for is the judicial murder of those of his fellow-citizens who disagree with him...."

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4624

It's loose talk (does Dr. Hansen really mean what he says with this?) like that from Dr. Hansen (and others) that has led to the thought that the entire climate-change exercise has indeed been taking on disturbing characteristics that resemble the ideas of (literal) fascist movements. It's very, very disturbing to see overheated rhetoric like that; regardless of our viewpoints, that kind of talk just has to stop.

[Dan Allen]

Daniel,

Thank you for the responses you have been making in this column. I am so happy to finally be in a reasonable discussion with someone on this topic at the depth we are starting to reach.

I have not received any response from Dr. Hansen, nor from DemocracyNow, who frequently hosts interviews of Dr. Hansen.

However, I did get a response from the WMO (World Meteorological Organization - Official United Nations' authoritative voice on weather, climate and water, scientific organization.) They got my email at the end of Friday, but responded to say they would provide help this coming week.

For a transcript, you can check this link:
http://montpelierlife.com/?q=node/118

My working hypothesis is that your analysis is on the mark. The so-called consensus of the 2,000 climate scientists was nonsense from the beginning, based on the fact that serious scientists dissented. This could turn out to be the most significant case of groupthink in scientific circles since the days when Earth revolved around the Sun. I can picture people convincing themselves with data that supports a theory, minimizing contrary data. I see people do that all the time.

The burden of proof is on those who say global warming is happening. If they cannot prove it, without relying on the "trust us" theorem, well.... I'd say they have an interesting but unproven hypothesis with a record level of misguided support. If global warming cannot yet be proven, it does not mean it is not happening, it just means we do not know.

The first thing I need explained by WMO is how the following does not put a hole below the waterline of the global warming theory:

"...the lead author of the 2007 IPCC report, Kevin Trenberth, complained in one of the leaked e-mails that 'We cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.'"

I am not convinced we have a reliable way of determining the Earth's temperature. That would be my next area of inquiry.

I am seeing a lot of holes below the waterline, besides these. Rather than relying on my profoundly unprofessional analysis, I hope to see professional scientist who believes the global warming theory is solid do their best explain the holes away. I can find references to statements that the theory still holds water, but I have seen none of the evidence. They say they have the evidence, but they never show it in a manner that skeptical minds can see. The fact that a bunch of people believe something most definitely does not make that belief factually or scientifically correct.

Clearly, the scientific debate is not over.