Yet you have the hubris to assume that scientists are missing something big enough to cause the current change we are seeing without distorting the observational data enough make it obvious they are missing something that big.
I love how Feynman put it, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts":)
In your link you conveniently choose the RSS temperature record cherry picking the one among several that most closely fits your narrative.
Play around with the link and choose any other temperature set. Make sure to click the radio button "trend plus significance". Look at all the greyed out areas past the 13 year diagonal. Unfortunately the link doesn't seem to include parameters chosen and just goes to the default...
How do you account for the variability in the CO2 sinking ability of the oceans? Why did it increase the rate of sink as our emissions went up?
What moderates the set-point in question? What is the controlling factor that determines the response of ocean sinking, that has made it increase in response to other CO2 source increases?
Would it increase the rate of sink in response to other emissions from non-anthropogenic sources? If not, how does it tell the difference between CO2 from automobiles and CO2 from non-anthropogenic sources?
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
Some observations that would be excluded by the AGW hypothesis? - Decrease in global average temperature - Decrease in weather event intensity and frequency - Cooling of the world's oceans - Decrease in the amount of CO2 in ppm observed in the atmosphere
All good, necessary factors - however, you've got two that are arguably already observed:
1) decrease in weather event intensity and frequency
This has actually been observed, although one could make the argument that reduction in the gradient between the poles and the tropics, caused by asymmetric global warming, would generate this result.
2) Decrease in global average temperature
More specifically, it's not just a *decrease* that should be excluded, but the *lack of statistically significant increase*.
You'll note that on every global dataset there, during periods of ever increasing CO2, we've had statistically insignificant warming for upwards of 16-21 years.
You don't need any such 'logical argument' to accept a hypothesis as an evidence-backed theory. Such a requirement would have stopped physics cold at the observation of the duality of light.
No it wouldn't have - the duality of light hypothesis has quite *specific* exclusions and a quite *specific* argument why the lack of those exclusions means that light must behave as both a particle and a wave.
While abductive reasoning is certainly a good place to *start* speculation in science, once you've chosen your horse, the requirements of falsifiability are non negotiable. You require:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis; 2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
So far, you've started on #1 (arguably refuting yourself by noting falsification criteria we've already observed), but you're nowhere near meeting your affirmative burden against the null hypothesis.
Yes the climate has always changed, no we don't have any record of it changing as fast as it is without there being some clear and apparent factor (such as a massive volcanic eruption).
Even with the inherent limitations of proxy data, we've got plenty of records of climate changing as fast as it has during the modern observational period.
Your premise is mistaken, leading you to a mistaken conclusion.
By claiming that human caused CO2 emissions are most definitely not the overriding factor in causing climate change you must be definition know what it is, because if you don't, then you cannot possibly rule out human made CO2 emissions.
I'm more careful than that - the claim is that AGW has no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and therefore is not science. You're trying to make an argument from ignorance, insisting that AGW must be true if we don't know definitively that it's false.
For playing the science game, you require:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis; 2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
Until you can get that far, you're simply hand waving.
You fail to understand the argument - the fact that the CO2 sinks are behaving in a manner that seems reactive to our actions means that there is an interdependency - it's not like a tub drain that can only remove 1L/hour, it's an ever changing drain that shows changes in size.
Now, the question is this - what are the drivers of those changes in size? You seem to think that there is a magical relationship of "the drain will open half as fast as any additional forcing" - but then why didn't the drain react that way to the gigatons of CO2 emitted from natural sources? How does it discern between CO2 emitted from a butterfly and CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine?:)
More likely is this - the global average CO2 level is in fact a moderated value, moderated by some set of parameters, that will react much like a buffer solution to move towards a set pH. That is to say, if you were to *reduce* CO2 emissions, the uptake of these additional sinks would *also* reduce by some amount to get back to the set point. As it so happens, it looks like the set point is moving along in a certain direction - so there may very well be an underlying secular trend unrelated to individual sources of CO2.
Basically I'm saying that the observations we've seen with CO2 uptake are contrary to the flat, independent source expectations of the cult of AGW.
Evolution certainly has met the requirement of falsifiability: find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
Young Earth Creationism isn't falsifiable because any evidence that the earth is over 6,000 years old is written off as an act of God, just like any deviation from broken climate models is simply written off with an ad hoc special pleading.
The falsifiability criterion of science is simply non negotiable - you can't do science without falsifiability, period. Popper was right.
Observational studies can give us correlations - science is about finding causality.
The bottom line is this, you've failed to quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement on AGW - just like an astrologer, you're making observations, but your central conceit is immune to attack because you've *designed* it as unfalsifiable. Here's what you need:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis; 2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
As for observations, chew on this - look at the long periods of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues to increase:
You say "*some* natural factors" but you offer nothing about what those other things we're not factoring in are
Of course not - I don't have the hubris to assume I know every single natural factor or how they interact with each other.
We can assume these things exist because a) we know climate changed before humanity, and b) the advent of humanity cannot logically have eliminated those non-anthropogenic drivers.
It's called the null hypothesis:)
if we were missing something as big as what would be required to be a natural cause of the current change it would be observed in data that doesn't match what our current theory predicts.
You can note the "pause" in statistically significant warming during a period of ever increasing CO2 here:
That's an assertion, not a testable hypothesis. It's like saying "The mean temperature of the Earth has been rising for three centuries due to self esteem."
Further, significant CO2 emissions didn't really kick up until 1950...do you blame humans for the 200+ years prior when emissions were insignificant, but temperatures still rose at a similar rate to the modern era?:)
Here's your requirement:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis; 2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
It's almost like the planet actually dynamically adapts to changes:)
6) The Amount of CO2 in the air is rising due to human output.Falsifiable and tested.
Given the apparently dynamic nature of CO2 sinks, which have been responding to increased CO2 sources much like a chemical buffer neutralizes acids and bases, can you agree that it's possible that CO2 levels are in fact, driven by other factors, and that they adapt to perturbations such as human CO2 emissions?
So, now that you've had your falsification criteria observed, are you now willing to give up your central conceit?:)
You sir, have cleverly argued yourself into a failed hypothesis:)
When you get right down to it there is no "Theory of Global Warming".
Agreed. There is the specious hypothesis that humans control the global climate through the emissions of CO2, but it's hardly worth calling a "theory":)
I suppose your null hypothesis is that the change is caused by natural factors.
Agreed. Obviously before humanity, all climate drivers were non-anthropogenic. The addition of humanity obviously does not make those drivers disappear, so the null hypothesis is that modern climate variation is driven by the same non-anthropogenic drivers as previously caused climate variation.
But even when natural variation occurs there is a physical mechanism behind those changes. It's not just magic. We've studied those natural factors (the Sun, volcanoes, orbital cycles, etc.) and alone or in combination they aren't enough to account for the increase in temperatures that's occurred over the past century.
Slight correction - we've studied *some* natural factors, and the fact that alone or in combination they don't account for observed temperature increases does *not* mean we can appeal to ignorance and insist that there are no other natural factors or interactions occurring, and that we must now believe humans are to blame.
So for you to be right there must be some natural factor that we're totally clueless about.
If anyone is telling you they fully understand all the natural factors of climate variation and how they interact, they're lying to you.
None of those presentations includes a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:)
Our problem is that if we don't teach people how important falsifiability is (say, by giving a pass to the cult of global warming), they get snookered by the intelligent designers who dress up in lab coats, talk about "consistent with the evidence", and gloss over falsifiability like it's kryptonite:)
I agree it's complex. Feel free to come up with a complex set of excluded observations, and a complex argument linking those exclusions to the disproof of the null hypothesis:)
As for your blog post cite, none of those 10 criteria exclude the null.
To be scientific, one needs a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:
1) a list of observations *excluded* by your hypothesis; 2) the logical argument that the lack of those observations excludes the null hypothesis and leads us only to believe your conclusion.
Thus far, none of the AGW folks here on/. have made a dent in either 1 or 2:)
Yes, you can have dozens of *necessary* falsification criteria. But you need enough to be *sufficient* to exclude the null hypothesis and lead a logical argument to your favored hypothesis as the only explanation.
It's going to take falsifying more than a few of them to discredit AGW.
The fact that you *admit* that your so-called "falsification criteria" can be observed, and *still* not discredit AGW is an implicit admission that AGW is not falsifiable:)
Not for normal people who have no time to go around designing their own experiments or constantly reading about others' findings.
Just because you ask for the scientific method to be followed, doesn't mean you need to design the experiment.
That being said, you should be constantly reading if you want to learn:)
Yes, and when there is scientific consensus, it's a good bet that the scientific method was used.
Prove it. Quote me any peer reviewed paper that states a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. You *bet* that it's true, but I'll bet that you're wrong:)
Um, no. The relentless path of universal entropy doesn't exclude localized reversals of entropy. When you create waste heat while building your lego house, you're creating localized order, but still, entropy is increasing in the universe as a whole.
Science, at its most basic, requires falsifiability.
The "God" question (or the "which God" question), is not subject to falsifiability, and therefore, clearly doesn't belong in a science class. If that question should come up, it should be clearly answered with "gods are not falsifiable, so they don't belong in science class - ask a theologian or philosopher".
Now if by denying a 7 day creation period for the planet in science class, we're implicitly denying the existence of God, and your kids pick up on that, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Science may not speak to whether or not God exists, but it has no responsibility to avoid contradicting any particular mythology with the scientific method.
Actually, the best we've got is the scientific method, which democratizes knowledge by insisting that instead of simply *asserting* something, authorities must present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Experts may be necessary to construct these hypotheses, or even collect the data necessary to test them, but non-experts would do well to insist on the scientific method rather than a vote of a group of people in lab coats.
Feynman said it best, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Science is the process of approaching the truth through the development and testing of necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses.
There are cases when the scientific consensus is in fact, a religiously influenced doctrine (take AGW for example). The way we discern between science and not-science is by looking for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
No form of "creationism" I've ever been presented with has had a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, but I'm welcome to hear one if you think you have one.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how Feynman put it, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" :)
Play around with the link and choose any other temperature set. Make sure to click the radio button "trend plus significance". Look at all the greyed out areas past the 13 year diagonal. Unfortunately the link doesn't seem to include parameters chosen and just goes to the default...
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
That's quite a bold statement :)
How do you account for the variability in the CO2 sinking ability of the oceans? Why did it increase the rate of sink as our emissions went up?
What moderates the set-point in question? What is the controlling factor that determines the response of ocean sinking, that has made it increase in response to other CO2 source increases?
Would it increase the rate of sink in response to other emissions from non-anthropogenic sources? If not, how does it tell the difference between CO2 from automobiles and CO2 from non-anthropogenic sources?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
All good, necessary factors - however, you've got two that are arguably already observed:
1) decrease in weather event intensity and frequency
This has actually been observed, although one could make the argument that reduction in the gradient between the poles and the tropics, caused by asymmetric global warming, would generate this result.
2) Decrease in global average temperature
More specifically, it's not just a *decrease* that should be excluded, but the *lack of statistically significant increase*.
You can play with the real data here: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
You'll note that on every global dataset there, during periods of ever increasing CO2, we've had statistically insignificant warming for upwards of 16-21 years.
No it wouldn't have - the duality of light hypothesis has quite *specific* exclusions and a quite *specific* argument why the lack of those exclusions means that light must behave as both a particle and a wave.
While abductive reasoning is certainly a good place to *start* speculation in science, once you've chosen your horse, the requirements of falsifiability are non negotiable. You require:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
So far, you've started on #1 (arguably refuting yourself by noting falsification criteria we've already observed), but you're nowhere near meeting your affirmative burden against the null hypothesis.
Even with the inherent limitations of proxy data, we've got plenty of records of climate changing as fast as it has during the modern observational period.
Your premise is mistaken, leading you to a mistaken conclusion.
I'm more careful than that - the claim is that AGW has no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and therefore is not science. You're trying to make an argument from ignorance, insisting that AGW must be true if we don't know definitively that it's false.
For playing the science game, you require:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
Until you can get that far, you're simply hand waving.
You fail to understand the argument - the fact that the CO2 sinks are behaving in a manner that seems reactive to our actions means that there is an interdependency - it's not like a tub drain that can only remove 1L/hour, it's an ever changing drain that shows changes in size.
Now, the question is this - what are the drivers of those changes in size? You seem to think that there is a magical relationship of "the drain will open half as fast as any additional forcing" - but then why didn't the drain react that way to the gigatons of CO2 emitted from natural sources? How does it discern between CO2 emitted from a butterfly and CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine? :)
More likely is this - the global average CO2 level is in fact a moderated value, moderated by some set of parameters, that will react much like a buffer solution to move towards a set pH. That is to say, if you were to *reduce* CO2 emissions, the uptake of these additional sinks would *also* reduce by some amount to get back to the set point. As it so happens, it looks like the set point is moving along in a certain direction - so there may very well be an underlying secular trend unrelated to individual sources of CO2.
Basically I'm saying that the observations we've seen with CO2 uptake are contrary to the flat, independent source expectations of the cult of AGW.
Evolution certainly has met the requirement of falsifiability: find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
Young Earth Creationism isn't falsifiable because any evidence that the earth is over 6,000 years old is written off as an act of God, just like any deviation from broken climate models is simply written off with an ad hoc special pleading.
The falsifiability criterion of science is simply non negotiable - you can't do science without falsifiability, period. Popper was right.
Observational studies can give us correlations - science is about finding causality.
The bottom line is this, you've failed to quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement on AGW - just like an astrologer, you're making observations, but your central conceit is immune to attack because you've *designed* it as unfalsifiable. Here's what you need:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
As for observations, chew on this - look at the long periods of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues to increase:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
If this isn't excluded by your hypothesis, what is?
Of course not - I don't have the hubris to assume I know every single natural factor or how they interact with each other.
We can assume these things exist because a) we know climate changed before humanity, and b) the advent of humanity cannot logically have eliminated those non-anthropogenic drivers.
It's called the null hypothesis :)
You can note the "pause" in statistically significant warming during a period of ever increasing CO2 here:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
The current predictions don't match observations. There must be something we don't understand at work. Q.E.D. :)
That's an assertion, not a testable hypothesis. It's like saying "The mean temperature of the Earth has been rising for three centuries due to self esteem."
Further, significant CO2 emissions didn't really kick up until 1950...do you blame humans for the 200+ years prior when emissions were insignificant, but temperatures still rose at a similar rate to the modern era? :)
Here's your requirement:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
Good hunting!
Odd...how is it that as time has gone on, the amount of CO2 absorbed *increases*?
http://theresilientearth.com/?...
It's almost like the planet actually dynamically adapts to changes :)
Given the apparently dynamic nature of CO2 sinks, which have been responding to increased CO2 sources much like a chemical buffer neutralizes acids and bases, can you agree that it's possible that CO2 levels are in fact, driven by other factors, and that they adapt to perturbations such as human CO2 emissions?
So, now that you've had your falsification criteria observed, are you now willing to give up your central conceit? :)
You sir, have cleverly argued yourself into a failed hypothesis :)
Agreed. There is the specious hypothesis that humans control the global climate through the emissions of CO2, but it's hardly worth calling a "theory" :)
Agreed. Obviously before humanity, all climate drivers were non-anthropogenic. The addition of humanity obviously does not make those drivers disappear, so the null hypothesis is that modern climate variation is driven by the same non-anthropogenic drivers as previously caused climate variation.
Slight correction - we've studied *some* natural factors, and the fact that alone or in combination they don't account for observed temperature increases does *not* mean we can appeal to ignorance and insist that there are no other natural factors or interactions occurring, and that we must now believe humans are to blame.
If anyone is telling you they fully understand all the natural factors of climate variation and how they interact, they're lying to you.
None of those presentations includes a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Our problem is that if we don't teach people how important falsifiability is (say, by giving a pass to the cult of global warming), they get snookered by the intelligent designers who dress up in lab coats, talk about "consistent with the evidence", and gloss over falsifiability like it's kryptonite :)
I agree it's complex. Feel free to come up with a complex set of excluded observations, and a complex argument linking those exclusions to the disproof of the null hypothesis :)
As for your blog post cite, none of those 10 criteria exclude the null.
Quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from any paper you wish. /crickets :)
The criteria is falsifiability.
To be scientific, one needs a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:
1) a list of observations *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) the logical argument that the lack of those observations excludes the null hypothesis and leads us only to believe your conclusion.
Thus far, none of the AGW folks here on /. have made a dent in either 1 or 2 :)
C'mon riverat, you know the drill :)
Yes, you can have dozens of *necessary* falsification criteria. But you need enough to be *sufficient* to exclude the null hypothesis and lead a logical argument to your favored hypothesis as the only explanation.
The fact that you *admit* that your so-called "falsification criteria" can be observed, and *still* not discredit AGW is an implicit admission that AGW is not falsifiable :)
Just because you ask for the scientific method to be followed, doesn't mean you need to design the experiment.
That being said, you should be constantly reading if you want to learn :)
Prove it. Quote me any peer reviewed paper that states a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. You *bet* that it's true, but I'll bet that you're wrong :)
It's a universal rule. It applies to the universe.
It simply does not insist that entropy be equally distributed - that's not a random or rare exception, that's a *feature*.
You found a modern rabbit fossil in the Precambrian? Pics, or it didn't happen.
Oh, and "the fossil was obviously disturbed and moved to a different strata in the earth" is a *valid* explanation.
Um, no. The relentless path of universal entropy doesn't exclude localized reversals of entropy. When you create waste heat while building your lego house, you're creating localized order, but still, entropy is increasing in the universe as a whole.
Perspective. Get some.
Science, at its most basic, requires falsifiability.
The "God" question (or the "which God" question), is not subject to falsifiability, and therefore, clearly doesn't belong in a science class. If that question should come up, it should be clearly answered with "gods are not falsifiable, so they don't belong in science class - ask a theologian or philosopher".
Now if by denying a 7 day creation period for the planet in science class, we're implicitly denying the existence of God, and your kids pick up on that, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Science may not speak to whether or not God exists, but it has no responsibility to avoid contradicting any particular mythology with the scientific method.
Start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, and you can include it in school.
Oh, wait, you don't have one?
Back of the line with creationism and astrology.
Actually, the best we've got is the scientific method, which democratizes knowledge by insisting that instead of simply *asserting* something, authorities must present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Experts may be necessary to construct these hypotheses, or even collect the data necessary to test them, but non-experts would do well to insist on the scientific method rather than a vote of a group of people in lab coats.
Feynman said it best, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Science is the process of approaching the truth through the development and testing of necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses.
There are cases when the scientific consensus is in fact, a religiously influenced doctrine (take AGW for example). The way we discern between science and not-science is by looking for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
"super-natural" is a buzzword - the real criteria for science is falsifiability.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
No form of "creationism" I've ever been presented with has had a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, but I'm welcome to hear one if you think you have one.