Scientific Method in climate science

[NortonH]

22 minutes ago, koti said:

The problem is you trying to play an insincere game of cheap tricks on people much smarter and much more knowledgeable than you. Is that clear enough for you?

I am quite sincere. I have asked some inconvenient questions and received sneers in response. Your own response being the rudest so far. 

What 'tricks' have i played? 

Perhaps you can answer the questions you quoted. 

It seems that the Scientific Method is all but irrelevant on this site. 

[beecee]

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

[Rob McEachern]

I suggest you look at this detailed lesson plan, for applying the scientific method to climate change, from the Fraser Institute:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/understanding-climate-change-lesson-plans-classroom

Edited February 26, 2018 by Rob McEachern
I should point-out that the Fraser Institute is generally regarded as politically conservative and the authors are not exactly unbiased in their opinions.

[NortonH]

45 minutes ago, Rob McEachern said:

I suggest you look at this detailed lesson plan, for applying the scientific method to climate change, from the Fraser Institute:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/understanding-climate-change-lesson-plans-classroom

Thanks but none of those deal with the questions i have raised - Do we need a model? How do we verify it? Is it science if it is not verified?

On top of that an interesting question might be - why are people so uncomfortable with me daring to ask these questions?

[Ken Fabian]

NortonH - Sorry to hear you feel like you are unfairly being piled on.

Whilst an idealised application of scientific methodology could look like this -

Quote

1. Observe world and propose something

2. Show the Null Hypothesis does not stand

3. Propose new hypothesis

4 Produce quantitative model and falsification criteria

5 New theory holds a long as model is never falsified

 - it does not always have to look like that in practice.

Failure to do it like that does not make it invalid. Popper, along Popper's thinking on empirical falsification, which this looks like, did not yet exist when people like John Tyndall explored - measured - the properties of various atmospheric gases and how they passed visible and blocked infrared light, from which Arhennius calculated the significance to global climate of CO2 - and doubling CO2. A lot of good science was and still is done without overt application of that kind of methodology, yet even if not set out in such terms, scientists and their peers were and are serious about seeking ways that they might be wrong and their conclusions can be found to be false. That was and still is basic quality control procedure in science, and whilst there is the embarrassment of retractions as motivation - it will all be documented and disseminated -  most of all, in every way that counts, most scientist know that getting it right is what matters most.

One of the fundamental things about the practical engagement in science is the extent of documentation - the peer reviewed and published papers and the responses and critiques and debates as well. Mistakes do get noticed. Mistakes are corrected or it's a fast descent into archived irrelevance. Or perhaps can live on in the forums and blogs.

 If a teacher is trying to manoeuvre students - your son - into concluding climate science is wrong, because they will struggle to neatly fit it into such a format then that teacher is setting the students up to misunderstand actual climate science and reach a false conclusion.

Raising CO2 levels warms the world is the null hypothesis. Better people than any of us here - people with true skills and expertise - have tried to falsify it's fundamentals. And failed. It gets to be counted as accepted, mainstream science fair and square. It surprises some people that I think the scientists trying hardest and doing their best to find flaws in climate science are it's leading scientists, but it should not be a surprise; that people who excel in their fields have got to where they are by honest striving to get it right - and have done so within a system where everything gets documented and disseminated, dissected and discussed - should be the default assumption.

Not accepting the CO2 and climate connection requires rejection of a rock solid understanding of the basic the properties of atmospheric gases. Science that goes back to the early and mid 1800's and that has been affirmed and reaffirmed since is rejected and ignored. How that fundamental climate connection change plays out year to year, decade to decade, century to century with human CO2 concentrations, within such a complex system, with other phenomena in play, interrelations and feedbacks in play - making projections and predictions out of it as scientists are being asked to do - are active areas of research with plenty to argue about. No-one should be surprised that smart, hardworking people should have made serious inroads at getting it right.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Ken Fabian
improve clarity

[Silvestru]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Failure to do it like that does not make it invalid. Popper, along Popper's thinking on empirical falsification, which this looks like, did not yet exist when people like John Tyndall explored - measured - the properties of various atmospheric gases and how they passed visible and blocked infrared light, from which Arhennius calculated the significance to global climate of CO2 - and doubling CO2. A lot of good science was and still is done without overt application of that kind of methodology, yet even if not set out in such terms, scientists and their peers were and are serious about seeking ways that they might be wrong and their conclusions can be found to be false. That was and still is basic quality control procedure in science, and whilst there is the embarrassment of retractions as motivation - it will all be documented and disseminated -  most of all, in every way that counts, most scientist know that getting it right is what matters most.

Nice post Ken. Faith in human patience restored  +1

[Strange]

11 hours ago, NortonH said:

I have do disagree about weather models.

That may deserve a separate thread. But in summary: you are wrong. 

11 hours ago, NortonH said:

Can you tell me of any models I can look at?

What are you going to do with millions of lines of Fortran source code?

11 hours ago, NortonH said:

Do you have any links?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920701630053X

https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

And a couple of million results here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=testing+climate+models

I can see why you found it soooo hard to find information on how climate models are tested. /sarcasm

11 hours ago, NortonH said:

I have not seen a model, let alone seen one tested so am I wrong to say this?

Have you seen the models used to test the aerodynamics and safety of airplanes? Have you seen those models tested? Are you doubtful that planes can fly?

Have you seen the models used to design and test microprocessors? Have you seen these models tested? Do you doubt the your computer works?

Maybe you are happy to trust experts in some fields, but not those where it disagrees with your politics?

11 hours ago, NortonH said:

The point of this exercise is to apply the SM to climate change.

So go to university, study climate science, do a PhD on the testing of climate models. Apply the scientific method, if that is what you want to do. 

Or read the scientific papers published on the subject (where scientist publish what their models do, how they are tested, etc. then other scientists critique their work, etc.). 

10 hours ago, NortonH said:

I get the impression that I have rubbed some people up the wrong way for asking what I consider to be legitimate questions.

We do get a bit sick of people using these sort of faux-naive questions to pretend that others aren't applying the scientific method. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to those professionals working in the field (and science in general).

Edited February 26, 2018 by Strange

[NortonH]

Thankyou for your response, ken.
I think that the SM I have outlined DOES have to adhere to those points so I am surprised to hear otherwise.

I know about Tyndall and CO2 but the point is that CO2 is one minor component and the IR absorption laws are NOT a model for an entire climate.
So no matter how solid the GHG theory is it does not cover things like clouds or convection etc.

No matter how dedicated scientists are surely they still have to abide by the SM. No?
Documentation and discussion - I totally agree. But they are for applying the rules of the SM.

The teacher is asking students to apply the SM to climate science. He is not manoeuvring anything. Why do you have a sinister intepretation of what is standard science?
If climate science cannot fit within the SM then that is a problem is it not?

If the science is solid then surely it will stand up to sceptical scrutiny, will it not? That is the SM as I understand it.

CO2 absorbs IR and warms up. That science is not in dispute.
What happens after that is the complicated bit which requires a solid model before any predictions can be made. No?

The climate is indeed a complex and complicated system - why are we so sure we can model it?
I have seen a list of some of the parameters that go into the system and i do not believe it can be modeled to any useful level of precision. It is non-linear and chaotic as well as being huge. 
The onus is on the modelers is it not?

 

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, NortonH said:

The climate is indeed a complex and complicated system - why are we so sure we can model it?
I have seen a list of some of the parameters that go into the system and i do not believe it can be modeled to any useful level of precision. It is non-linear and chaotic as well as being huge. 

It is complicated (although it is simpler than weather forecasting, in some ways). 

Which is why vast amounts of work go into testing and validating the models. 

Also, models do not produce a single result. They produce a range of results. They are run multiple times with slightly different conditions to see both the range of results produced and also as another way of checking them.

5 minutes ago, NortonH said:

The teacher is asking students to apply the SM to climate science. He is not manoeuvring anything.

And yet you said...

On 24/02/2018 at 11:23 PM, NortonH said:

I suppose the basic problem I have is that it is impossible to find a model for the climate so there is nothing to falsify. If I suggest this then the teacher (who seems to be a denier) will claim that it is not scientific. No Model means No Science.

According to you, teacher is asking the impossible (for the students to create or find something like a few millions lines of Fortran code, and then run and test the results) and then using the fact that the students can't do this to claim that climate science is a fraud.

You / the teacher seem quite happy to ignore the fact that the models do exist, and are tested and reviewed. By professional scientists.

[NortonH]

Strange
Thankyou for your response.
If i am wrong about weather predictions then are you saying that are always right even after a week?

If you are saying that the only models exist as millions of lines of Fortran code then my question to you is - what convinced you that they were correct?

Your links to models appear to be links to discussion about the models. I want to see the model so that I can test it.
I have seen this sort of goose chase before.
Have YOU ever seen a model? If not then what supports your belief in the predictions?

My questions are perfectly legitimate. It is clear that you are unhappy and defensve about me asking them and yet the fact remains that they have not been answered.
If you want a model of relativity I can give you one line equation of Einsteins tensor equation which has never been falsified.
When I ask the same for Climate Science you tell me basically that it cannot be produced other than as a million lines of fortran. Do you see the problem?

Please explain how asking legitimate scientific questions is 'offensive'.
 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

You / the teacher seem quite happy to ignore the fact that the models do exist, and are tested and reviewed. By professional scientists.

The climate is simpler than weather forcasting? Really? How do you know that? I am very sceptical of that claim.

I am sure a vast amount of work does go into models - but does that mean that they are now exempt from scrutiny??

OK the teacher is attempting to manoeuvre people into applying the SM and not be caught out by fallacies. 
OK?

According to you, teacher is asking the impossible (for the students to create or find something like a few millions lines of Fortran code, and then run and test the results) and then using the fact that the students can't do this to claim that climate science is a fraud.

I never used the word 'fraud'. 
But I want to be clear about what you are saying here. Are you saying that since the models only exist as millions of lines of code it is not possible for us to test the models?

You / the teacher seem quite happy to ignore the fact that the models do exist, and are tested and reviewed. By professional scientists.

Nobody is ignoring anything, I just point out that I have not seen the models and so I cannot assess them. Have you? Or are you just taking the word of others? Are you not curious to see them and test them?
 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If i am wrong about weather predictions then are you saying that are always right even after a week?

And what a surprise: a dishonest straw man argument (I have already said that forecasts become increasingly inaccurate and have limited value after 7 to 10 days).

I really wasn't expecting that.

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have seen this sort of goose chase before.

Yep. So have we. Are you going to be starting a thread on how evolution is wrong as well?

Quote

If you want a model of relativity I can give you one line equation of Einsteins tensor equation which has never been falsified.

So if I gave you a scenario, you could use the Einstein Field Equations to come up with a solution?

I suspect not. So you have not personally checked that the EFE are not falsified; you haven't done the math, run the models to check it. You trust the scientists who have done this work (which often includes very complex models) to say that the model works and hasn't been falsified.

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

When I ask the same for Climate Science you tell me basically that it cannot be produced other than as a million lines of fortran. Do you see the problem?

As someone who has spent most of my working life creating, using and testing complex models ... No.

Why are you willing to trust the experts in other fields of science and technology who rely on models, but not in this field? That is a little .... odd.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

Don't feed the trolls.

[NortonH]

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why are you willing to trust the experts in other fields of science and technology who rely on models, but not in this field?

This is my original mention of weather:

I have do disagree about weather models. I have compared forecasts with results a week later and the accuracy is not good. 

YOUR RESPONSE:
That may deserve a separate thread. But in summary: you are wrong. 

MY REPLY:
If i am wrong about weather predictions then are you saying that are always right even after a week?

YOUR RESPONSE:
And what a surprise: a dishonest straw man argument 

So how is that a straw man argument?

Can you please tell me why and how climate is easier than weather to model and what measure you use.

"So if I gave you a scenario, you could use the Einstein Field Equations to come up with a solution?"
If the scenario is tractable then yes but if the scenario is complex then it might be hard to apply the equations. But the fact remains that the equation has been tested and NEVER falsified.
Is that a surprise?

So you have not personally checked that the EFE are not falsified; you haven't done the math, run the models to check it.

How do you know? You do not know who I am or what I have done. Why can you not argue in a scientific way? 
I have seen the maths, compared the model predictions with the measured results. I note that nobody has ever falsified the model despite thousands of attempts. Am I wrong?

Why are you willing to trust the experts in other fields of science and technology who rely on models, but not in this field?

When did I ever say that I take expert opinion as scientific evidence? I do not. Most stuff I do not have to make a decision one way or another. 
When I am specifically asked or decide to assess the scientific merits of something I do so using the SM.

 

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Don't feed the trolls.

He's not a troll. He is at least making an attempt to discuss the matter, even if he gets a bit tetchy.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, NortonH said:

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Don't feed the trolls.

He's not a troll. He is at least making an attempt to discuss the matter, even if he gets a bit tetchy.

 

         

[Strange]

Just now, NortonH said:

"So if I gave you a scenario, you could use the Einstein Field Equations to come up with a solution?"
If the scenario is tractable then yes but if the scenario is complex then it might be hard to apply the equations.

Ok. Please use the Einstein Field Equations to calculate the height of a geostationary satellite. Show you working.

Quote

But the fact remains that the equation has been tested and NEVER falsified.

So they say. I'm not sure I believe them. They are being funded by Big Gravity to say this.

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Can you please tell me why and how climate is easier than weather to model and what measure you use.

Because weather forecasting relies on taking the current conditions and working out how it will change over a period of time. This means that the atmosphere is divided up into small cells. Then the temperature, water content, air speed, energy in and out (from other cells, the Sun, the Earth, etc), for each cell is calculated. The changes in each cell are evaluated and then this is repeated. To be accurate, the cells and the time steps need to be quite small (TBH, I don't know how small). So it takes hours of supercomputer power to predict a few days ahead. The errors in the modelling of interaction of cells accumulate over time so the forecast diverges.

On the other hand, climate models take a set of conditions (energy input, content of the atmosphere, temperature of the atmosphere, ground and oceans, solubility of CO2 and other gases, and all sorts of other things) and work out what the resulting temperature is likely to be. Large scale movements of energy (absorption and release by the oceans, prevailing winds, etc) will be taken into account, but it is not a second-by-second model of constantly changing conditions.

I am rather surprised that someone who is so sure that models don't exist, if they do exist aren't tested, and if they are tested are still wrong, doesn't actually know anything about how these models work.

When you did all that "research" to find out about climate models, what did you actually do? Ask you pastor? Read some blogs by Republican investors in the oil industry?

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have seen the maths, compared the model predictions with the measured results.

Sorry. I am sceptical (as I should be on a science site, don't you agree?) Without evidence, I think this very unlikely. But feel free to prove me wrong by working through an example. (If you copy it from the web, it will be obvious.)

 

[NortonH]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sorry. I am sceptical (as I should be on a science site, don't you agree?) Without evidence, I think this very unlikely. But feel free to prove me wrong by working through an example. (If you copy it from the web, it will be obvious.)

Are you saying that the equations cannot be used to calculate the height of a geostationary satellite or just that NortonH cannot use them to do that?
If you mean me then please be content to wait a week.

From your next remark are you conceding that Einsteins equations have never been falsified or are you saying that you think that maybe they have?
I contend that they have NOT.

Your description of weather modelling is pretty much as I understand it. You neglected to stress that errors built up in a non-linear fashion and so after a week the models are junk and if we have 1,000,000 times the computer power that only buys another 36 hours.

Your description of climate modelling is rather weak. You seem to miss the fact that they are also iterative models and suffer the same problems as weather models on longer scales.

I am rather surprised that someone who is so sure that models don't exist, if they do exist aren't tested, and if they are tested are still wrong, doesn't actually know anything about how these models work.

Well if they do not exist how can I be expected to know how they work?
You just fell into your own logic trap there.
In reality I know that some things exist that are claimed to be models and my point is that they are not offerred for scrutiny because, in the words of the great Phil Jones "Why should we show then to you when all you are going to do is try to find something wrong with them?"
The onus is on the scientists to produce their models for examination and testing, not to hide them away.

When you did all that "research" to find out about climate models, what did you actually do? Ask you pastor? Read some blogs by Republican investors in the oil industry?

So now you try to drag in religion, politics and industry. Why? What place have any of those got in a scientific debate? None. So why the comment?

Sorry. I am sceptical (as I should be on a science site, don't you agree?) Without evidence, I think this very unlikely. But feel free to prove me wrong by working through an example. (If you copy it from the web, it will be obvious.)

Yes. You are right to be sceptical. But since this is not a point we need to determine one way or the other it does not matter. I do not care whether you believe me and neither do you care whether what I am saying is true or not.
It is irrelevant to the matter in question. It would speed things up if all personal sneers were abstained from and from now on I will ignore anything which is not relevant to the topic.

So, just to clarify, am I right in assuming that you have never seen or tested a model but are happy to just take other people word for it when they say that they are fine?

 

 

...and do I get an answer to the question about the 'dishonest strawman'? How?

 

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Well if they do not exist how can I be expected to know how they work?

Except, of course, they do.

Quote

So now you try to drag in religion, politics and industry. Why? What place have any of those got in a scientific debate? None. So why the comment?

Oh come on. You're not fooling anyone.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Don't feed the trolls.

!

Moderator Note

This is uncalled for, as is the tone in several of the posts here. If you think someone is trolling, you have the option to not participate. But any discussion of trolling adds nothing to the conversation, nor does the assumption that the questions being asked are not sincere. Confronting perceived motive just gets in the way of discussing science.  

 

[Essay]

On 2/23/2018 at 11:51 PM, NortonH said:

I was rather hoping that someone could provide some info about what model I am supposed to use. 

There are many models you could look at.  Search "radiative conductive models" for some of the simplest planetary heat balance equations, or check out these examples of climate models (with code provided) that you can manipulate like a tax calculator, such as: http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Layers/

But I suspect these are not the sort of models you need (as others first tried to point out).  Wikipedia may be leading you astray, with its focus on a model, it seems to me.

Perhaps at this school level, the "model" is just the hypothesis itself.  Essentially you need to find something that you can measure, which is affected by something else that you can also measure.  Your model is the proposed relationship.  You're not trying to test any of the "Global Circulation Models," I hope.   But you should search those also, for some perspective.

I think the first suggestion, about changes in growing seasons or movement of growing/climate zones, would be the best bet.  Or how about change in the Arctic, since it is more dramatic pronounced (as was predicted over 30 years ago)*.

Hint: one of the most significant consequences from this era of "climate change" is the unprecedented rate of change, relative to tens, or even hundreds of millions of years, of "normal" climate change.  Compare the extreme "PETM Event" with this past century's rate of change.  The null hypothesis would be about how the current rate of change is not unusual, I suppose.

~

Edit: Search the topic of "Phenology" for many project ideas related to global warming.

* citations available if you're interested.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Essay

[Roamer]

On 23-2-2018 at 12:22 AM, NortonH said:

I am helping my son with a high school project so I want to make sure i get this 10000% right!

He has been asked to apply the formal scientific method analysis to the question of 'climate change'.

This sounds like a 14 year old boy is asked to prove or disprove decades of scientific work.

Does he get  a mark or something for this ? If so, maybe you should upload a copy/picture of the assignment so we don't get off-topic, because right now you 're in a bit over your head.

[beecee]

19 hours ago, NortonH said:

Hi Moderator. What is your point exactly?

I get the impression that I have rubbed some people up the wrong way for asking what I consider to be legitimate questions.

Is there a problem with that? Are my questions not legitimate?

I see your "legitimate" questions answered with legitimate and valid answers. And really, no one is being rubbed up the wrong way. As we all know these science forums are open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, with a possible myriad of agendas, and with no intention of accepting any answer that does not fit their own political persuasions and/or pre-conceived dogma on the subject in question.

Quote

Science is supposed to be scrutinised and tested.

It is, always, including the present climate models.

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

extract:

How Are Models Constructed? The fundamental basis on which climate models are constructed has not changed since the TAR, although there have been many specifi c developments (see Section 8.2). Climate models are derived from fundamental physical laws (such as Newton’s laws of motion), which are then subjected to physical approximations appropriate for the large-scale climate system, and then further approximated through mathematical discretization. Computational constraints restrict the resolution that is possible in the discretized equations, and some representation of the large-scale impacts of unresolved processes is required (the parametrization problem).

 

How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

There is considerable confi dence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confi dence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confi dence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations. A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction – see FAQ 1.2.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

PS: Some of your posts are rather difficult to follow, probably due to your inability or incorrect use of the "quote" function. It would be nice to rectify that.

[NortonH]

Essay,

Thankyou for your response. The ShinyLayers link is now getting a bit closer to what I expect to see. Of course, as you say, these are just basic models for small components of the system.
None of these models is the description of the climate of the planet and so no matter how accurate these individual models are they do not get us to a model of the planet.
(This is what I have to keep reminding people when they tell me for the hundredth time about Arrhenius and IR absorption etc)
This raises the question - is it possible to model the entire system with any degree of confidence over any significant time span?
If it is not possible (and I have seen no evidence that it is possible) then what exactly is being used to make predictions?

This also leads to the question of assessing the accuracy of the models by assessing the veracity of their predictions. It seems that they are usually wrong if i compare what was predicted with what actually happened. eg Dr Viner tells us there will be no more snow in Europe south of England and yet today Rome is under snow. etc

I am happy with your suggestion for the Null Hypothesis being based on the rate of change for an ever changing climate but i have yet to see any evidence that the null hypothesis does not still stand.

Roamer - Applying the Scientific Method does not mean that he has to come to a conclusion. All they have been asked to do is discuss the matter in terms of hypotheses, models, testing predictions etc
The topic is purely extra-curricula and is only for those who want to participate. It gets the kids no extra marks but, in my opinion, is a very good assignment.
I do not feel i am in over my head. I have correctly stated the scientific method and all I am doing at the moment is battling to get people to accept that it applies to climate science. There seems to be a mindset that climate science should be somehow exempt from serious sceptical analysis.

Beecee - I will accept an answer if it appears logical and correct. I do not just accept anything I am told without honest sceptical analysis. I have not mentioned any politics so why do you bring that up? It is irrelevant to science.

The fact that you choose to quote opinion from the IPCC rather than compare the predictions with the results shows that you are happy to accept argument from authority. I am not. I have seen a lot of predictions which have turned out false. These failed predictions immediately invalidate whichever models were used to make them. For some reason the models are kept anonymous after each failed prediction.
One example above was Dr Viners dramatic prediction of no snow. It was obviously wrong but which model do we now trace it back to? We never hear.
Thankyou for your suggestion about the quote function. I will try to master it.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, NortonH said:

  Applying the Scientific Method does not mean that he has to come to a conclusion. All they have been asked to do is discuss the matter in terms of hypotheses, models, testing predictions etc

The topic is purely extra-curricula and is only for those who want to participate. It gets the kids no extra marks but, in my opinion, is a very good assignment.

!

Moderator Note

It might be useful if you could clarify if your son is supposed to assess whether the scientific method has been applied to the problem (by others), and summarize those efforts, or if he himself is supposed to be doing the science. Because the former is possible but the latter is not even remotely reasonable.

 

33 minutes ago, NortonH said:

One example above was Dr Viners dramatic prediction of no snow. It was obviously wrong but which model do we now trace it back to? We never hear.

Probably none.  climate ≠ weather

[NortonH]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Probably none.  climate ≠ weather

Please explain what that glib comment is supposed to mean. It tells me nothing. 
My point was that a prediction was made and it was wrong. That means a model failed. Which model?
Was snow a falsification criterion for the model? That is what is implied and yet, as I said, the models and their falsification criteria always seem to be kept secret when they are supposed to be made public.

I will clarify - they have been asked to apply the scientific method in the sense that they have to address the points I first listed. ie describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, model, falsification criteria etc.
They are not expected to test models etc, just discuss what should be happening.
For high school that is enough.

It has however gotten me interested and i am trying to apply the SM as far as i can and it has made me realise that a case I had assumed was closed is not closed.
I have not seen a credible model and I have seen predictions falsified. That is why I am investigating further. I have NOT seen the SM applied rigorously and so I am attempting to do so. 
I believe that what I am doing is correct but if I am doing something wrong or making any false assumptions then I am happy to be corrected. 
I am NOT going to be fobbed off, however, with vague claims that "the models have been proven by experts". That may well be true but until I see the evidence then I have to be sceptical otherwise I am just accepting argument from authority and that is not scientific.

9 hours ago, Strange said:

Except, of course, they do.

Oh come on. You're not fooling anyone.

I ask again - why do you introduce politics and religion into what should be a scientific debate?

You have ignored a couple of my questions now. Are you reluctant to back up your assertions?

[Ken Fabian]

NortonH - If your unwillingness to accept that the mainstream expert advice from climate science is valid is grounds for you supporting opposition and delay of actions based on that advice, then your position becomes a practical and political one. Do you want emissions reductions efforts stopped, limited or delayed while you wait for climate science to provide conclusions that can be accepted by you? I would be very interested to get an answer to this question.

Do you want or expect people in positions of trust, responsibility and power to stop or delay actions based on that same basis? Ordinary citizens can choose as they like but for people in positions of power and influence I don't think that is reasonable; on the contrary I think such people will be negligent in their duties if they fail to apply due diligence and take the consistent expert advice in matters where they have no personal expertise seriously, especially where potential for enduring harms to persons and property is at issue.

After more than 3 decades of intense, modern, scientific inquiry giving essentially the same answers again and again - a convergence of evidence from multiple independent lines of enquiry - I don't think  fence sitting can be a justified any longer as some kind of legitimate holding out for greater certainty ahead of precipitous actions. Action and inaction are inverted in most discussions of this; delaying action to address excess emissions is actually the continuation of strong climate changing actions (unconstrained continuation of emissions) that make delay a serious choice with serious consequences. GHG driven climate change is cumulative and it's impacts are effectively irreversible so that means delaying for more certainty - or entirely different scientific conclusions - is not a reasonable, sensible, risk averse course. It has become a choice that embodies significant known risks - risks that are at levels considered highly likely and are approaching that unreachable certainty that many people seek. Not a mere possibility but a strong likelihood.

Ordinary people can accept the expert advice or not and believe or not believe the consequences are serious as they choose - that is freedom. People holding positions of trust have an obligation to take expert advice of high likelihood of serious, irreversible harms seriously - that is responsibility.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Ken Fabian
improve clarity