|
|
Why the Lewandowsky, Cook, Marriott paper would fail if submitted as a blog post
8.6 out of 10 based on 11 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
First comment! but no article to comment on, sorry.
60
The headline is actually counter intuitive (a bit like the models that predict antarctic sea ice melt remember).
On first glance you would think this makes sense, blog posts bear/bare (which one i forget) no relevance to science ergo the LCM paper bears? no relevance to science either (intuitive).
On the other hand i have seen many blog posts both here and abroad that are far more scientific in nature than the LCM paper and others of their ilk (counter).
70
Perfect opportunity for a message to myself.
Past Yonnie don’t make that appointment for a prostate examination with Dr Lecter, regards future Yonnie.
30
I assume that, in the spirit of balanced reporting, Jo is providing a rebuttal with exactly the same quantity of meaningful content, as the original Lewandowsky, Cook, and Marriot paper did.
50
Hi Jo. Is this a way of highlighting that the LCM paper is content-free?
110
Kevin,
Sorry, I replied to Yonniestone before I read your comment. š
20
Very funny Jo
I laughed and laughed
40
Ahem, A draft headline that got loose accidentally. So I’ve moved this off into the “future” – which means it won’t be visible to blog viewers, but those with this window open will see my reply.
Sorry. Soon… š
70
Perhaps contrary to the earlier posts, I regard this as a quite innovative approach
Put up your own reasons in response to the headine !
One way to discourage trolls !!
Unfortunately, Steve Mc from CA did this paper over quite a while ago š
30
Hey Jo, in case you missed it. . . its snowing in Cairo and Syria.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/why-the-lewandowsky-cook-marriott-paper-would-fail-if-submitted-as-a-blog-post/
20
Yes warcroft , nature delivers a snowy Christmas card to the Holy Land. Who’d have thunk ?
Never mind, I’ve seen snow in Bacchus Marsh at Christmas, back in the Eighties.
40
Jo,
The headline is still there …
I do not think that there are comments here that need saving if you want to delete the whole post.
30
Every comment is quality!
20
If you delete the comments, my boss might wonder what I’ve been doing with my time.
10
You’ve stumbled onto the great secret of the MSM:
Write the headline, then make up the story.
š
110
But will true believers see it?
20
Brilliant. The use of the white space invites the reader to participate in creating the narrative, to construct the conversation in concert with the artist and thus challenging the dominant paradigm that uses such outdated notions of “evidence” and “proof”, which can only lead us to a higher plane of a more generalised accord.
The application is approved. Grant funds to be transferred immediately.
20
Yeah, suck it, John Cage!
I could explain why, but that would be far too reductionist.
I wanted to upvote you, but that would be too mainstream.
20
LOL. Well played. Better be careful, though. The estate of John Cage sued (and it was settled in their favour) for someone copying The Silence.
http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-lawsuit-ever-infringing-on-cages-433/
10
Hi, Jo. Has that draft headline broken out again?
20
“the rejection of science is the dismissal of well established scientific results for reasons that are not scientifically grounded” Lewandowsky 2012.
What then is the acceptance of science for reasons that are not scientifically grounded?
“scepticism is not only at the core of scientific reasoning but has been shown to improve peoples discrimination between true and false information” Lewandowsky et al 2005, 2009.
What changed his mind?
“rejection of science must be distinguished from true scepticism” Lewendowsky 2012
This is ” Lewendowskys Paradox” To perform science you must be sceptical and test “established scientific results” but in doing so you are “rejecting” that same science.
50
Reminds me of that Penguin book “The Wit of Malcolm Fraser” which was nothing but blank pages. At a cost of $4.95 or thereabouts I was too stingy to buy it.
50
.
Malcolm Who?
Cindy Cashman’s “Everything Men Know About Women” was much better value.
Far more blank pages at about the same price.
.
Wittier too.
81
It was a misprint and should have read Twit. The empty pages listed the decisions made by the trouser-less man whilst PM. [Something to do with politicians called Malcolm? – Ed.]
20
Here in Dubai it’s not snowing but it’s definitely been colder this Autumn than last also our extreme weather has doubled in ferocity…………..it rained once last year and twice this year.
90
Jo, your headline said it all
20
Lewandowsky, Cook et alia are renowned for the ability to distort figures, facts and interpretations.
So, for those who have never seen how the official temperature statistics have been manipulated over time, this is a shocking example of how bad things have now become. Once you have seen these, will you ever believe an ‘updated’ or ‘homogenised’ temperature data set ever again, especially those of GISS and NCDC?
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISS%20MaturityDiagram
50
Will further exam questions follow?
20
Dedicated CAGW followers should be able to get time off work to attend silly conferences if this judgement is anything to go by.
Woman wins nearly 3 years wages worth in compensation for bring sacked following taking time off work to attend a witching ceremony.
20
I beg to differ Lewandowsky, Cook, Marriott paper would be a great post if submitted as to a blog.
The š and š would be all over the comments, they would find that no one with any amount of education, and rational thought, would believe that they were serious. It would be such fun for us as they tried and failed to defend the indefensible.
Also we need the likes of Lewandowsky, Cook, and Marriott to show how our education standards and system are at such a very low ebb.
30
If my surname was Marriot, I would consider changing it before my associations became too widely known.
20
Headline writing is something of an art. Both major newspapers and supermarket tabloids depend heavily on
those few people who have the unique ability to do it. It requires a very special type of talent. Matt Drudge
(of the Drudge Report)was recently praised as the greatest headline writer in the world toady. But you — you
have taken this art form to its ultimate limit — creating the perfect headline — a headline so complete
within itself that it needs no following story. The headline says it all.
Your headline is worth a Nobel Prize in literature.
Eugene WR Gallun
40
Jo, leave the post as is. I haven’t had such a good laugh in weeks!
30
Isn’t it perhaps the wrong way round though, to be left on its own.
Isn’t saying ‘Why xyz…’ and then saying nothing else, isn’t that more like saying why not ?
In this way of presenting wouldn’t just ‘Why the Lewandowski, Cook & Marriott paper…’, be quite enough ?
10
off-topic…
China Space Agency has landed their space probe Chang’e-3 on the Moon, but the rover is still attached to the lander. They call the rover the “Jade Rabbit”, heheh.
Crouching Changi, Hidden Rabbit?
China doesn’t see it as being 37 years late to the party, they see it as beating the Japanese to a soft-landing on the moon. Completely automated landing sequence too. Good on `em for that.
10
They’re searching for the missing heat; just in case it turns out not to be at the bottom of the ocean.
Then they will bring it back and sell it to Egypt.
Or possibly, they will provide certificates for X amount of warming….hang on, it’s been done.
20
On second thoughts; what precautions have they taken? We don’t want a plague of rabbits on the moon.
It’s not good enough to have a loose tether..you know what rabbits are like. Worse than wire coat hangers.
20
Is that why they had the temerity to obstruct a US Warship on the High Seas the other day.
Chinese vessel tries to stop US Warship.
20
The Irish would have made a soft landing on the moon as well, had the parachute deployed as modelled. š
20
It’s only because the Irish are so good natured that you can get away with that .
20
Most of them seem to be good sports and can see that it’s simply meant to be funny, not offensive.
They can tell the difference between that and the jokes intended to offend.
10
It’s only because The Irish are so Lucky that they can get away with that..
20
Why not morph this into the “weekend unthreaded” it’s already off to a good start.
30
Well Mark D. are you going to register the Patent for that idea š
30
CHINESE LOCATE MISSING HEAT ON MOON!
Trenberth deep ocean theory disproved
Eugene WR GAllun
30
Jo,
I just thought you were representing their data.
An excellent post by you.
But if you were actually going to write an article I think you should chose another heading and leave this in testimony to their arguments… LOL
30
I will take this as an opportunity for an unthreaded comment.
From an earlier post by Jo, titled New to This Site 2011
I have conducted a good number of experiments now, looking for empirical,evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All have returned negative results;
Styrofoam boxes covered at the top with glass, Perspex or plastic film and exposed to the Sun, do not get warmer when filled with high concentrations of CO2 (compared with air),
Plastic bottles filled with CO2 and exposed to light bulbs, heat lamps etc do not get warmer than equivalent bottles filled with air (the so called Greenhouse in a bottle experiment, by Dr Maggie Aderin Pocock),
Finally reflecting the heat radiated by a hot metal object back to itself does not make it warmer, even when the object is heated by the sun, light bulb or heat lamp.
Consequently I conclude that CO2 does not warm the air and neither can it warm the ground.
30
Peter C,
You may be interested in these excellent resources that use established physics to confirm your findings …
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/erath-total-system.pdf
10
Hi Peter,
There are several of us here that do not agree with the CO2 greenhouse mantra.
(but we generally avoid comment with due respect to the site host, hi Jo š ).
As for the 33C “make up” heat that the AGW boffins like to say we need in the S-B calculations.
(Calculated but the AGW boffins using average TSI on a non-rotating Earth. :lol)
I bet if we somehow averaged the atmospheric temperature (up to the tropopause), it would be pretty darn close to -18C.
So no need to add 33C.
It is the atmospheric pressure gradient that allows the Earth’s surface to retain heat, up to a certain level.
(Same as on Venus)
But that atmospheric pressure also acts as a regulator for the system.
As soon as any part of the atmosphere contains more heat than it should in the temp pressure gradient, that heat is convected upward (or pushed sideways by wind etc) in a cooling process. That is how the atmosphere functions.
CO2, even in much larger atmospheric concentrations, CANNOT stop or effect this cooling process in any way.
00
Thanks Truthseeker and AndyG55 and the person who gave me a thumbs up.
I am aware that Jo gets a bit tired of the debates about the Greenhouse Gas Effect and likely has a spam filter set to a certain word starting with B. So I won’t use it.
I agree that endless debate is tiresome and useless. However the Greenhouse Gas Effect is important and underpins all the rest of the Climate Change debate. If the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory (GHGET) is wrong, then all the rest of the Climate Change Alarmism is wrong.
Tony from Oz has explained to us time and again just how much the green policies to reduce and mitigate CO2 emissions cost us in terms of economic prosperity, jobs and quality of life. Therefore we need to know if the GHGET is right or if it is wrong and act accordingly. If the theory is right, then there still might not be much to worry about but if it is wrong then reducing CO2 emissions can have no effect on climate.
As Joseph Postma noted on this blog 2 years ago the Greenhouse Gas Effect is treated as if it is scientific fact. It is not even called a theory, when in fact it is barely a hypothesis. Joseph Postma said that in his opinion the GHGET was unphysical and he attempted to justify that with an appeal to the second law of thermodynamics. Our Jo set Joseph straight on the second law and wrote a whole post to explain it. I agree with Jo, that the GHGET, as explained need not violate the second law, and at the time I agreed with the GHGET. It just seemed so plausible. Now I am not sure about it at all.
In fact I set out to devise an experiment, which I thought would demonstrate the principle of the GHGET. The essence of the experiment was a black tin, insulated in a plastic shell, which was exposed to the sun. The tin got hot and a reflector placed around the tin returned some if its infrared radiant heat (careful about the B word). I was somewhat surprised when it did not work as I expected!
Anthony Watts had a go at the light bulb experiment, which was proposed more as a thought experiment by Alan Siddons at principia Scientific International. Alan said that 2 equal light bulbs placed close together would not warm each other, and neither would the reflection of one globe cause it to warm. Anthony Watts thinks that his experiment showed that it does, but he has made a mistake in his experimental design. My new light bulb experiment, which is slightly different in design, did not show any warming.
Why do lukewarm skeptics and scientists ignore experimental evidence that cooler objects do not insulate or warm hotter objects? They probably think that all the experimental work has already been done. CO2 has been shown to absorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation (but does it get hotter?) Black body radiation has been studied and explained theoretically (but what about black body absorbtion?) Aspects of Quantum theory are still in dispute.
I am not saying my experimental results disprove the GHGET, but they certainly do not support it. If physicists had performed these experiments, there would not be so much argument. If they have done them then I am happy to hear about it.
11
Strangely my first comment went straight though but the next is in moderation. I must have tripped the spam filter after all, possibly by mentioning greenhouse.
00
Peter C the BIG discussion on slaying dragons is on the right links in Most Commented (sorry if you already know this) and it’s a long one, back then after reading through the full gamut of debate, argument and emotion I decided to remain neutral in what side I believed and try to educate myself further on this subject.
I have mentioned the laws of thermodynamics here in comments but most times they went without debate probably because I misused the examples in argument or people know I’m not a scientist or both, and that’s fair enough too.
However I do agree with your skeptical right to question no matter who you are or what you do so you get a pat on the back from me.
10
Hi Peter C,
The reason your comment went to auto moderation was because you mentioned the Voldemort Law (1 + 1 = ?), which is on the auto filtering spam policeman’s list, thanks to a certain persistent troll.
The reason otherwise sane, rational people – including our host – will not give up their “belief” (for that’s precisely what it is – no science involved) in the GHGET is simple; it is a manifestation of deferring to authority. Most of the skeptical scientific “big hitters” subscribe to the GHGET so the thinking goes – “it must be right”. There is no logic involved. As for the big hitters themselves, well they have lifetime reputations built on what they have preached as gospel for 10, 20 or even 30 years. This, in turn, is simply a manifestation of Arthur C Clarke’s First Law of Prediction.
Postma does himself a disservice by even mentioning Voldemort’s Law and complicating the issue, thereby moving the debate into the realm of the “experts” and the subsequent inevitable deference to authority. His line of reasoning on the miscalculation of energy in /energy out, is of itself sufficient to destroy the GHGET all by itself, without resorting to complex scientific theories that leave most ordinary people’s heads spinning.
I have used a cut-down, “normalised” version of the energy in /energy out argument to convince several otherwise non-committed people to the fallacy of the “greenhouse effect”.
10
Voldemort’s Law =SLOT? I will call it the Voldemort Law from now on.
By the way, how do you form paragraphs? My para breaks all disappear when I post the comment.
00
.
To form a paragraph space
like this, hit the “enter” key twice.
To make a really big space, for instance at a change of subject
.
hit the enter key twice, then a full stop, then enter again.
00
Yes, beware Voldemort’s Law.
A couple of weekends ago now I posted three separate comments in three different threads, and by sheerest coincidence each post quoted Voltemort’s Law, even though they were in no way related in actual content or subject.
All three spent the afternoon in the Sin Bin until Jo rescued them.
00
Thanks MV,
Can you explain your cut down “normalised” version of the energy in/energy out argument
00
.
I thought about that last night after my original post. Trouble is, it would be a bit long-winded to do as a post in a thread. It would have to be laid out as a conversation.
If you are interested I will write it out over the next few days and send it to Jo as an MS WORD document. I’m quite sure she would be prepared to forward it on to you.
00
If you can be bothered writing it out I am interested to read about it.
00
I would also be interested, Thanks.
Jo has my email address.
00
Me too.
As above.
00
What did you measure IR absorption with?
Did you also measure emissions and with what?
What were the interaction effects of the container materials?
Do you know where you can get some mylar?
04
GA,
Unless i am mistaken Peter C is not denying (there i said it) that your omni potent gas of destruction and bringing of all things out if the ordinary does not have the ability to interact with IR but merely that it does not have the ability nor the capacity to “trap heat” therefore your quizzical question re IR is irrelevant.
10
I’m asking for details of his experimental design. The description he put up gives no indication as to whether his lack of measurable change is valid. I am being skeptical.
00
Sorry poor bit of phrasing. He observed a lack of measurable change using his instruments. I am wanting to know whether his experimental design was at fault or if CO2 is really not absorbing energy and re-emitting energy.
10
Thanks for your interest Gee Aye,
Your questions and observations are quite valid. Mostly I am measuring temperature using a digital themometer with a K type thermocouple. The details of my first experiment are here:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/2012-10-31_AnExperimentToDemonstrateThePlausibilityOfTheGreenHouseGasEffect.pdf
The thermometer reads to 0.1C but is not necessarily accurate, particularly since I did not pay a lot for it. Therefore I was looking for an increase in temperature when the foil was placed around the tin, and then a decrease when it was removed.
You will likely say that I need to ensure that infrared radiation actually gets through the plastic. I admit that is a weakness of this particular experiment but it does not necessarily apply to the Greenhouse in a bottle experiments.
I have since purchased an infrared thermometer, partly to check that infrared does pass through the plastic.
I have not written up the light bulb experiment yet and not sure where I can publish it. Galileo Movt might help again.
Have a go at me and I will have a think about how the experiments might be improved.
00
What increase in temperature is expected? Is it less than the measurement error?
00
Note also my mylar question. I asked it for a specific reason. Also my question about expected temperature increase is not just about gases. Your devices even if equilibrated are dynamic systems and will transfer any gain in retained energy in all sorts of directions. So the question is, for a significant and measurable temperature increase (0.5 degrees for argument’s sake given the accuracy of your thermocouple reader) what amount of energy are you expecting the CO2 to absorb? Is this amount within the bounds of published claims for absorption spectra of CO2 at 1atm (etc) using your IR source?
00
Gee, one doesn’t have to expect an increase in temperature. Any measurable difference or lack of a measurable difference between a control and the co2 filled space should suffice.
Peter C. I do believe your experiment is too small in scale and perhaps unnecessarily complex.
Two large ice chests (coolers) lids removed, with a suitable film stretched and taped over the space where the lid would cover, having thermocouples previously installed and suspended inside but shaded from direct light one cooler purged inside with co2 and allowed to stabilize and equalize to the other non-co2 cooler (both in the shade). Both then placed in the sunlight and temperatures logged every few seconds until the reach maximum temperature.
Then without disrupting the setup ventilate the co2 filled cooler by inserting an aquarium air pump through the cooler drain. Then repeat this time with co2 in the other cooler. Repeat the whole series several times.
I haven’t tried this but I’m willing to do so on a wager over the results and the loser pays for the two coolers as well as beer to fill them both after concluding the experiment.
By using well insulated coolers, the effects of unwanted ambient heat sources would be reduced to nil.
00
“What increase in temperature is expected? Is it less than the measurement error?”
You mean like changes in the last 50 or so years the so-called “global average land temperature” ?
There has been so little change, the catastrophists had to totally mash the once-was-data to get even a small positive trend.
00
We have reached the end of the reply thread so I will reply here to all.
Gee, I have a roll of Mylar, 11cm wide. I hesitate to ask you want you want me to do with it! Is that any Use?
You have asked me a lot of questions to which I do not have the answers and will have to take them on notice. I do have a day job and an absorbing hobby so as Captain Oates said; “I may be gone for some time”.
I can tell you how much temperature increase I expected. Green house gases (0.04% CO2 and atmospheric water at about 0-2% and a bit of methane) is supposed cause a net warming of the earth of 33C even though they intercept a very small amount of the EM spectrum. Since my reflector returns most of the radiation from the tin I expected a lot of warming, ie 20-30C. Instead I got Nothing.
Mark D; I used to think that bigger equipment would be better, and collected large Styrofoam boxes, which are a bit of a rubbish nuisance. I no longer think that the size matters. Solar energy comes in amounts per m2, so it should not matter how big the boxes are. I have done those experiments so I think I know the answer, but I will wait and see if there are any takers to your challenge.
I am quite amazed that anyone reads old threads. Clearly this is still a very hot topic. Thanks everyone who has replied. All comments welcome.
My main point is that there seems to be a huge lack of experimental evidence in this debate, and that is unacceptable! Why spend billions on conferences and debates and such when empirical evidence is required? We have lots of University Physics departments and hundreds of physics students doing PHD’s and here is what we need them to do.
I am not smart enough to be a theoretical physicist, but I don’t mind trying to test their ideas and see if they actually work.
00
mark
I was trying to find if this was done. Was it?
00
Andy… someone, maybe Rereke, can tell you what form of fallacy this is. Anyway, how does your comment help with home experimental methods for measuring CO2 excitation/emissions?
00
Peter
the answers you gave prior to publication will suffice.
00
the thread is actually 3 days old. Even if it was 20 years old (some sort of old irc thread maybe), published science is open to scrutiny forever. The age of the claim is irrelevant to whether it should be comment upon.
00
In your case.. it’s pretty obvious its nearly always a “argument from ignorance”
00
seriously?
Can you give me the equation for your expected values based on the volume of gas and the characteristics of your calorimeter?
Did you really think you’d get 30C from tens of cubic centimetres of gas?
Why?
Who vetted your “publication”?
00
Andy, I am not
I am trying to find out the facts rather than applaud someone before having any.
00
Gee, I wasn’t dissing your interest in wanting more information just that what you wanted to know went beyond what the experiment was designed to test. Perhaps you’d like to accept my challenge? I wager the cost of materials and beer to fill the coolers that there will be no measurable difference in the rate of internal warming between the two coolers as described above. Do you think there will be? Take the wager. You can even define what the film should be to cover said test chamber or perhaps we should use several different materials and note the differences.
Peter, the larger size of the test “chamber” would make it less likely to provide data distorted by unintended sources of heat. Note that I’m not suggesting that the test equipment has to be exceptionally large.
00
0+0x0-(0+0)<0+0+0x0= the substance of the Paper and its Authors.Does that make sense? <:o)
00
Well, we had the Jesus paper, might as well have the “conclusions from a zero sample” paper.
00
Gee Aye,
What about the mylar? Are you still interested in that? What did you want it for?
Also:
1.
Because I read it on the IPPC website.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
Also Note that I was not measuring gas, I was measuring the temperature of the surface of the surface of a tin, that had almost all its radiation reflected back to it.
2.
00
Overturning the orthodoxy is a slow process. Consider yourself reviewed. Now sit back and wait for the flood of citations.
10