Wednesday, July 16, 2014

"Null Hypothesis" 101

I'm having a conversation with Krischel at Bart Verheggen's weblog.  It started with a guest post by Hans Custers' considering the question "is climate science falsifiable?" which has turned into an endless discussion pretty much held up by Krischel and his claims that somehow climate science hasn't and doesn't properly use the "Null Hypothesis".  Many have tried arguing with Krischel who defy all.  I admit this stuff gets over my head, but even without having a thorough understanding myself, I can catch evasions and inconsistencies and poor arguments.  There is a difference between a real expert explaining himself and a poser.

Still, I am into this for the dialogue and I've asked K to help me better understand his claims that climate science is somehow invalid for such and such a reason…

I started by expressing my basic understanding and we shall see where it goes from there:

Is Climate Science falsifiable?

 Bart Verheggen's

July 17, 2014 at 07:23 {the following has been slightly edited and added to}
OK krischel help me out, 
I'm trying to study up on this "Null Hypothesis" 101, using:

Basic concepts of hypothesis testing
Handbook of Biological Statistics
~ ~ ~
Null Hypothesis Martyn Shuttleworth
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Sure, pretty basic stuff, but that's were understanding starts, with the basics.

In any event, krischel I'm trying to understanding this Null Hypothesis and how it's supposed to function regarding dynamic geophysical processes, process that can not be measured with absolute precision.

Seems to me Null Hypothesis is a statistical test that scientists use for very specific questions within specific parameters as part of gathering date and producing studies.

Seems to me the "consensus" is the result of thousands of small Null Hypotheses succeeding or failing and each providing another pixel of information.

I believe you try to get people to focus on the pixels in order to ignore the image.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mind you I'm no scholar - I'm coming at this from a more worldly view - you see, I'm an old handyman, these days I'm constantly confronted with old homes and their nightmare situations of all varieties.  In other words, I feel like I live "Null Hypothesis situations" every time I'm on a job - so I think I know something about approaching unknown  situations where how I assess the situation and the choices I make, result in big differences in outcomes.

Then I read your evasions to Hans Custers/Bart Verheggen/Willard/Victor Venema...

In truth when reading your stuff all I hear is philosophizing with no connection to how the real world operates. That's why I keep saying you set impossible standards (so of course your expectations will never be met.)

Still, I'll listening to you if you're into sharing some critiques, comments, suggestions on the following specific questions and why they might or might not meet your expectations?  

How's this for a string of Null Hypotheses:

Our planet, by the good fortune of it's orbital local plus the stability afforded by it's partnership with our moon, evolved into a global heat distribution engine, infinitely complex, yet composed of basic and understandable components {Y?N}

These components follow fundamental understandable rules of behavior. {Y?N}

{Scientists know about the various drivers that influence our climate as the eons of time changes march by, perhaps not with absolute precision, but resolution short coming should not make us blind to trends and where they are taking us.}

GHG levels are but one of our climate's features - 
but GHGs is still a major driver that acts in concert with other "drivers". {Y?N}

Society has introduced geologically massive quantities of these GHGs into our thin atmosphere. {Y?N}
~ ~ ~

Here's a null hypothesis test to run some models on:
Warming a closed system will energize that system. {Y?N}

Energizing our planet's hydrological cycle and adding moisture to it will result in enhanced torrential rain and drought and wind events. {Y?N}

A warming global heat distribution engine will not impact the hydrological cycle of our planet - meaning there will be no change in historical weather patterns.  {Y?N} 

1 comment:

citizenschallenge said...

FYI Krischel, I'm going to be heading out on a job a few days and with a good chance there won't be any wifi where I'm going, so any comments may take a while to go through moderation.

Good providence Willing I'll be back.