No, the hypothesis is that CO2 will cause temperature to increase. It is a validated hypothesis.
If all you're talking about is a non-zero effect, that's trivial and insipid - who cares if CO2 causes a.0008C warming/century, when natural variation is to the tune of up to 2C/century?
Establishing a hypothesis that demands that we avoid the temperature increase requires quantification.
Nor do you need ANY regional predictions in order to come to the one and only overarching policy choice.
Sure you do - you have no basis for assuming that any additional warming due to additional CO2 is harmful, nor that any mitigation efforts would be beneficial on the whole. You've gone straight from the "wild speculation" phase to the "so let's do this now" phase.
, the CO2 level of the atmosphere MUST BE STABILIZED, PERIOD, END OF REPORT.
But that's an assertion, not proven. CO2 levels in the atmosphere vary all the time, and always have, and there is no evidence at all that we can either control the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, nor that any attempt to control it would be beneficial.
You could take the same tack with H2O - it will obviously cause temperature to increase. It is a validated hypothesis. Are we now willing to jump to "the H2O level of the atmosphere MUST BE STABLIZED, PERIOD, END OF REPORT"?
You've got a clever argument, but it simply doesn't hold water.
I'm still not getting what you're considering "useful". There isn't a single GCM that shows any skill at predicting regional outcomes, and even if global averages are within their error bars, *none* of the global averages give anyone any actionable intelligence. Put simply, knowing in 1900 that the global average temperature in 2000 would be 0.8C higher would not have been cause for *any* action - it wouldn't tell you if you should build more levees, or spend more money in drip irrigation, or move croplands to a certain area, or to evacuate certain coastlines, or *any* other form of actual *useful* information. At best, you could say "watch out, climate is going to change", but that's no different than any other period in earth's history.
Either way the answer is the same, less CO2.
And there's the rub, isn't it? Asserting that no matter what the observations we could possibly make, the only answer is less CO2, is the textbook example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
You think astrology is scientific, if it follows the scientific method in all ways except for requiring falsifiability?
So you assert (without proof).
So falsifiability is optional, and astrology is actually science? Really?
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
You're confusing the idea of the null hypothesis of natural climate change to a competing model. Your battle isn't with me, it's with reality:)
But then, you aren't prepared to show your modelling to anyone, which kinda means that your model has all the believability of a fairy story.
Exactly what part of the null hypothesis aren't you understanding?
Astrologists assert that one's personality is determined by the positions of the constellations at birth. They cannot simply say, "well, you show me *your* model of how personality is determined by this magical 'nature' you speak of, otherwise, my model, with its multitude of complex variables is obviously true!"
I understand that it's hard to see your own flaws, but please, at least *try*:)
What useful results did the model from over a century ago give? I mean, when we have a hurricane watch, and a short term storm track prediction, that's useful because people can prepare or get the hell out of the way. What possible utility could any human have gotten out of a correct prediction in 1900 that global average temperature in 2000 would be about 0.8C higher?
Results that are within the error bars aren't automatically "useful".
Okay, here, I'll quote his copy paste, and see if he yet again copy pastes it:
"This entire exchange is a classic example of a Gish Gallop in which one fallacy after another is presented so rapidly it isn't possible for someone to address all of them at once. hsthompson69 will reply to this response with yet more fallacies in the hope of getting the last word. Unless a denialist like hsthompson provides you with an analysis of the full temperature record with a clear null hypothesis and the actual statistics necessary to back up their point I strongly advise extreme caution. If as here they make repeated conceptual mistakes in the maths then you know you are dealing with someone motivated to ignore the facts. He isn't looking for the science. He is looking to trip you up by making you fact check so many points at once the odds are good you will get one explanation wrong simply by a slip of the keyboard."
Forget exact, just get regional even *partly* right - I don't mind error bars, but these models can't even do that. It's like having a map of the city that averages all the streets together, and averages all the avenues together, so there's only one cross street in the entire place:)
I might not care that there is a cat sitting on top of a garbage can that has been rolled out of someone's driveway onto the sidewalk when I'm looking at a map. But you simply can't use a giant map of the globe to navigate to your friend's house - you need a regional thomas guide for that.
Wow. That's...well, now that you've copied and pasted, what, six times, it's all so clear.
Obviously the entire universe only gets *one* random chance to pick out the refutation NOAA listed for their GCMs in 2008. Amazing, I'm finally convinced!:)
Now, my bet is that furry here doesn't even *read* this comment, and posts his copy paste again even though I've finally agreed with him:)
And yet *another* cut and paste! Your argument gets stronger each time, doesn't it?:)
Hey, if I had made such a silly mistake, and asserted that the only way to find an explicitly stated refutation of a model was to *randomly* choose it, I'd resort to repeatedly rocking back and forth crying "mommy" as well:)
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme.
Astrologists do that all the time. They take factual information about the positions of constellations, and people's birthdays, and present the empirical evidence of people whose horoscopes come true.
The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables
And you think this is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
If you are tempted to post alarmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.:)
Agreed. The spurious adjustments making past years colder and recent years warmer, all in the name of preserving the "omg, it was a record hot year" trope is embarrassing.
Global average temperature does not predict sea level along any coast at any time.
Global average temperature does not predict storm frequency, intensity, or location.
Now, when you've got a GCM that *can* do these things we can start talking. Thus far, the stochastic system that is regional climate variation has withstood all attempts of prediction.
NOAA came up with their falsification criteria in 2008. They didn't say "15 years of no statistically significant warming, except if we have an especially hot year", they said *any* 15 years of no statistically significant warming.
Asserting after a falsification has been observed that "oh, wait, we really didn't mean that" doesn't really seem like science, does it?
Here's the rub - there's no reason to reduce our CO2 emissions of there is no catastrophic effect. Only a sufficiently catastrophic consequence would justify the economic hardship one must impose upon the world's poorest through the mitigation of CO2 emissions.
But screams of "omg, the sea rise is accelerating and Florida will drown!" simply seem like hand waving, not science.
Now, if you don't believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause significant harm, great, we're probably on the same page...but I don't think you've thought your defense through very thoroughly.
Wow. Amazing. You couldn't have made a better argument if you had copy and pasted it three more times:)
Recap: professionalfurryele believes that refutations of a model only count if they're randomly discovered. His defense is a massive gish gallop rant:)
So, now you're Gish Galloping away with argumentum ad cut and paste?:)
I understand it's embarrassing to make such a brutal mistake in public, and I'm sure you're ashamed of your complete lack of comprehension regarding the initial point being made, but you're really not helping yourself anymore:)
The null hypothesis of natural climate change doesn't require an analysis of any temperature record - proof lives in the affirmative:)
Overall climate is meaningless - nobody experiences global average temperature. What matters is *regional* climate.
Put another way, it's not global average temperature that counts, it's the specific distribution of that temperature. There can be a cold world with areas of extreme drought, areas of extreme flooding, areas of extreme hot, and areas of extreme cold. There can be a warm world with mild weather everywhere. The global average tells you *nothing* about the distribution.
When we get GCMs that can accurately model and project and hindcast regional climate, I'll start paying more attention.
Oh, but you forget, we have this magical thing called "averaging" we can do to these hundreds of different climate models, and voila!, we get to the perfect model that is super accurate! And of course all the assumptions built into the models we averaged (even if they contradicted each other), must be true, true, true!:)
It's like having three dozen models of earth's gravity, which when averaged, come out to 9.8m/s^2, even though none of them hit it on the head - obviously they're *all* perfectly correct:)
...by the time we get to IPCC 2020, it'll either be a projection of roses and paradise, or maybe they'll move into catastrophic global cooling:)
Seriously, all you highly intelligent motivated reasoning alarmists out there, the biggest damage that was ever done to your position was the wild exaggeration and apocalyptic doom mongering. Yes, it has been fairly pointed out that there is a contingent of skeptics who scare monger about the "New World Order", and the UN controlling everyone, but that trope hasn't benefitted the CAGW crowd nearly as much as they've been harmed by their own end of the world rhetoric.
Yes, it is both technically and feasibly possible for humans to do stupid things to the environment and effect local climates. Urban Heat Island effect is an obvious one. But screaming, "if you don't listen to me about your SUV the oceans are going to rise 6 meters next week!", well, that just undermines your credibility. Not all warmists do this, but instead of being marginalized, these activists are lionized, and that is actually hurting any possible case to be made about further climate research and the pursuit of falsifiable science.
Technically true, since everything can be measured that way.
Fair point, well made. Consider this as a clarification: "measured in less than 500 parts per million". Not everything gets measured in quantities that small:)
So instead of answering my question (are you holding onto the last 5% the NOAA cited in 2008), you're now Gish Galloping to some older thread?
Really?:)
Look, you made a ridiculous, unsupportable assertion that the only way to exclude the NOAA models cited in 2008 by the NOAA would be to *randomly* find a 15 year+ period of no statistically significant warming. You weren't just wrong, you were spectacularly wrong. And you've doubled and tripled down instead of admitting your clear error.
Now, if you want to argue the semantics of "95% confidence level", and assert that what you really meant was, "well, there's still a 5% chance that the model is right", fine - at least that's based somewhat in reality. But continuing to claim that somehow a 16 year period of no statistically significant warming does has on effect on the confidence we should put into the GCMs is simply untenable.
But hey, if using the words "Gish Gallop" is what you're left with, feel free to use them again:)
A falsifiable hypothesis is easy - it's verifying it now rather than in a couple decades that's the challenge.
I would hope that a falsifiable hypothesis would not only assert what we should observe in the future, but what we should have observed in the past. Certainly, proxy records aren't perfect, but the idea that *any* possible climate history is possible and compatible with the conceit that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is certainly a glaring weakness if asserted.
Oh, i don't need a model of the entire planet - I need a falsifiable hypothesis statement. The argument that "oh, our models are good enough because we cover *all* natural climate drivers" is just plain silly because it's obviously not true.
The problem is that the rationale for having faith in the central conceit of the GCMs is that "we can't think of anything else but CO2 that would explain any possible gaps in our knowledge of natural climate drivers".
Slashdot Mirror
If all you're talking about is a non-zero effect, that's trivial and insipid - who cares if CO2 causes a .0008C warming/century, when natural variation is to the tune of up to 2C/century?
Establishing a hypothesis that demands that we avoid the temperature increase requires quantification.
Sure you do - you have no basis for assuming that any additional warming due to additional CO2 is harmful, nor that any mitigation efforts would be beneficial on the whole. You've gone straight from the "wild speculation" phase to the "so let's do this now" phase.
But that's an assertion, not proven. CO2 levels in the atmosphere vary all the time, and always have, and there is no evidence at all that we can either control the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, nor that any attempt to control it would be beneficial.
You could take the same tack with H2O - it will obviously cause temperature to increase. It is a validated hypothesis. Are we now willing to jump to "the H2O level of the atmosphere MUST BE STABLIZED, PERIOD, END OF REPORT"?
You've got a clever argument, but it simply doesn't hold water.
I'm still not getting what you're considering "useful". There isn't a single GCM that shows any skill at predicting regional outcomes, and even if global averages are within their error bars, *none* of the global averages give anyone any actionable intelligence. Put simply, knowing in 1900 that the global average temperature in 2000 would be 0.8C higher would not have been cause for *any* action - it wouldn't tell you if you should build more levees, or spend more money in drip irrigation, or move croplands to a certain area, or to evacuate certain coastlines, or *any* other form of actual *useful* information. At best, you could say "watch out, climate is going to change", but that's no different than any other period in earth's history.
And there's the rub, isn't it? Asserting that no matter what the observations we could possibly make, the only answer is less CO2, is the textbook example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
You think astrology is scientific, if it follows the scientific method in all ways except for requiring falsifiability?
So falsifiability is optional, and astrology is actually science? Really?
You're confusing the idea of the null hypothesis of natural climate change to a competing model. Your battle isn't with me, it's with reality :)
Exactly what part of the null hypothesis aren't you understanding?
Astrologists assert that one's personality is determined by the positions of the constellations at birth. They cannot simply say, "well, you show me *your* model of how personality is determined by this magical 'nature' you speak of, otherwise, my model, with its multitude of complex variables is obviously true!"
I understand that it's hard to see your own flaws, but please, at least *try* :)
Ah, the professionalfurryele-copy-paste-bot strikes again!
Will it go for a record? Will it continue to deny the basics of statistics and mathematics to save it's pride?
Cue copy/paste in 5...4...3...2...
What useful results did the model from over a century ago give? I mean, when we have a hurricane watch, and a short term storm track prediction, that's useful because people can prepare or get the hell out of the way. What possible utility could any human have gotten out of a correct prediction in 1900 that global average temperature in 2000 would be about 0.8C higher?
Results that are within the error bars aren't automatically "useful".
Buahahahaha! I totally called it! :)
Okay, here, I'll quote his copy paste, and see if he yet again copy pastes it:
"This entire exchange is a classic example of a Gish Gallop in which one fallacy after another is presented so rapidly it isn't possible for someone to address all of them at once. hsthompson69 will reply to this response with yet more fallacies in the hope of getting the last word. Unless a denialist like hsthompson provides you with an analysis of the full temperature record with a clear null hypothesis and the actual statistics necessary to back up their point I strongly advise extreme caution. If as here they make repeated conceptual mistakes in the maths then you know you are dealing with someone motivated to ignore the facts. He isn't looking for the science. He is looking to trip you up by making you fact check so many points at once the odds are good you will get one explanation wrong simply by a slip of the keyboard."
Forget exact, just get regional even *partly* right - I don't mind error bars, but these models can't even do that. It's like having a map of the city that averages all the streets together, and averages all the avenues together, so there's only one cross street in the entire place :)
I might not care that there is a cat sitting on top of a garbage can that has been rolled out of someone's driveway onto the sidewalk when I'm looking at a map. But you simply can't use a giant map of the globe to navigate to your friend's house - you need a regional thomas guide for that.
Wow. That's...well, now that you've copied and pasted, what, six times, it's all so clear.
Obviously the entire universe only gets *one* random chance to pick out the refutation NOAA listed for their GCMs in 2008. Amazing, I'm finally convinced! :)
Now, my bet is that furry here doesn't even *read* this comment, and posts his copy paste again even though I've finally agreed with him :)
Cue copy/paste in 5....4...3...2...
And yet *another* cut and paste! Your argument gets stronger each time, doesn't it? :)
Hey, if I had made such a silly mistake, and asserted that the only way to find an explicitly stated refutation of a model was to *randomly* choose it, I'd resort to repeatedly rocking back and forth crying "mommy" as well :)
Astrologists do that all the time. They take factual information about the positions of constellations, and people's birthdays, and present the empirical evidence of people whose horoscopes come true.
The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
And you think this is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
If you are tempted to post alarmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
Agreed. The spurious adjustments making past years colder and recent years warmer, all in the name of preserving the "omg, it was a record hot year" trope is embarrassing.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history/
Global average temperature does not predict sea level along any coast at any time.
Global average temperature does not predict storm frequency, intensity, or location.
Now, when you've got a GCM that *can* do these things we can start talking. Thus far, the stochastic system that is regional climate variation has withstood all attempts of prediction.
NOAA came up with their falsification criteria in 2008. They didn't say "15 years of no statistically significant warming, except if we have an especially hot year", they said *any* 15 years of no statistically significant warming.
Asserting after a falsification has been observed that "oh, wait, we really didn't mean that" doesn't really seem like science, does it?
Here's the rub - there's no reason to reduce our CO2 emissions of there is no catastrophic effect. Only a sufficiently catastrophic consequence would justify the economic hardship one must impose upon the world's poorest through the mitigation of CO2 emissions.
But screams of "omg, the sea rise is accelerating and Florida will drown!" simply seem like hand waving, not science.
Now, if you don't believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause significant harm, great, we're probably on the same page...but I don't think you've thought your defense through very thoroughly.
Wow. Amazing. You couldn't have made a better argument if you had copy and pasted it three more times :)
Recap: professionalfurryele believes that refutations of a model only count if they're randomly discovered. His defense is a massive gish gallop rant :)
Thermocidal mania?
Yeah, you just got a whole bunch of apocalyptic credibility now :)
So, now you're Gish Galloping away with argumentum ad cut and paste? :)
I understand it's embarrassing to make such a brutal mistake in public, and I'm sure you're ashamed of your complete lack of comprehension regarding the initial point being made, but you're really not helping yourself anymore :)
The null hypothesis of natural climate change doesn't require an analysis of any temperature record - proof lives in the affirmative :)
Keep trying! Harder! :)
Overall climate is meaningless - nobody experiences global average temperature. What matters is *regional* climate.
Put another way, it's not global average temperature that counts, it's the specific distribution of that temperature. There can be a cold world with areas of extreme drought, areas of extreme flooding, areas of extreme hot, and areas of extreme cold. There can be a warm world with mild weather everywhere. The global average tells you *nothing* about the distribution.
When we get GCMs that can accurately model and project and hindcast regional climate, I'll start paying more attention.
Oh, but you forget, we have this magical thing called "averaging" we can do to these hundreds of different climate models, and voila!, we get to the perfect model that is super accurate! And of course all the assumptions built into the models we averaged (even if they contradicted each other), must be true, true, true! :)
It's like having three dozen models of earth's gravity, which when averaged, come out to 9.8m/s^2, even though none of them hit it on the head - obviously they're *all* perfectly correct :)
Mod parent up. Science used as a whipping boy for apocalyptic predictions only makes it look like modern day witch-doctoring.
...by the time we get to IPCC 2020, it'll either be a projection of roses and paradise, or maybe they'll move into catastrophic global cooling :)
Seriously, all you highly intelligent motivated reasoning alarmists out there, the biggest damage that was ever done to your position was the wild exaggeration and apocalyptic doom mongering. Yes, it has been fairly pointed out that there is a contingent of skeptics who scare monger about the "New World Order", and the UN controlling everyone, but that trope hasn't benefitted the CAGW crowd nearly as much as they've been harmed by their own end of the world rhetoric.
Yes, it is both technically and feasibly possible for humans to do stupid things to the environment and effect local climates. Urban Heat Island effect is an obvious one. But screaming, "if you don't listen to me about your SUV the oceans are going to rise 6 meters next week!", well, that just undermines your credibility. Not all warmists do this, but instead of being marginalized, these activists are lionized, and that is actually hurting any possible case to be made about further climate research and the pursuit of falsifiable science.
Fair point, well made. Consider this as a clarification: "measured in less than 500 parts per million". Not everything gets measured in quantities that small :)
So instead of answering my question (are you holding onto the last 5% the NOAA cited in 2008), you're now Gish Galloping to some older thread?
Really? :)
Look, you made a ridiculous, unsupportable assertion that the only way to exclude the NOAA models cited in 2008 by the NOAA would be to *randomly* find a 15 year+ period of no statistically significant warming. You weren't just wrong, you were spectacularly wrong. And you've doubled and tripled down instead of admitting your clear error.
Now, if you want to argue the semantics of "95% confidence level", and assert that what you really meant was, "well, there's still a 5% chance that the model is right", fine - at least that's based somewhat in reality. But continuing to claim that somehow a 16 year period of no statistically significant warming does has on effect on the confidence we should put into the GCMs is simply untenable.
But hey, if using the words "Gish Gallop" is what you're left with, feel free to use them again :)
I would hope that a falsifiable hypothesis would not only assert what we should observe in the future, but what we should have observed in the past. Certainly, proxy records aren't perfect, but the idea that *any* possible climate history is possible and compatible with the conceit that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is certainly a glaring weakness if asserted.
Oh, i don't need a model of the entire planet - I need a falsifiable hypothesis statement. The argument that "oh, our models are good enough because we cover *all* natural climate drivers" is just plain silly because it's obviously not true.
The problem is that the rationale for having faith in the central conceit of the GCMs is that "we can't think of anything else but CO2 that would explain any possible gaps in our knowledge of natural climate drivers".