I'm not saying he cant be trusted because he isn't a climatologist, I'm saying he is deceptive, politically motivated, isn't a climatologist and has a history if misrepresenting papers.
So would you put Hansen and Mann into that category as well? It's all fun to assume the worst motivations in people you disagree with, but can you see how that sword bites both ways?
Fine, show me that say 80% of the methods we use to measure temperature are invalid and show me that they are all invalid in a way that is consistent and eliminates the known effects of CO2, or show that the warming trend we observe vanish.
Let's take that one at a time. First of all, the proxy dendro reconstructions have been thoroughly invalidated, so if you want to start your hypothesis without that line of evidence, please feel free.
Insofar as "the known effects of CO2", I think you need to be more specific. Yes, in a laboratory, it absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation. Asserting that we know what effect this has in the complex system of our atmosphere is bold and needs specifications of falsification itself.
Lastly, warming doesn't have to vanish in order for it to be caused by natural variation.
Find me an example of a series of temperature increases where the CO2 increase follows *substantial* deglaciation (relevant word highlighted since you seemed to have missed it,
Weasel word. Put a number on it. Obviously we have had CO2 lags across every period of time, including rebounds from ice ages.
It says that the UHI effect exists and measures it. It doesn't say that it is a large contributor to increases in global mean average temperatures.
Moving the goalposts. The proposition is that "UHI is negligible". This is a falsification of that proposition.
Although your reaction seems to strongly suggest your job depends on a carbon heavy industry though.
All industry is carbon heavy:) Human prosperity is directly proportional to the amount of energy used by individuals, and the cheaper we make energy, the more prosperity we see.
If you believe the science is not settled here, at least for any meaningful definition of the word 'settled', then your standard of settled science is so high that it can never, ever, impact policy.
Spoken like a true believer:) Tell me again what observations, past, present or future, would convince you that it is not necessary policy to decarbonize our economy?
You reveal your intentions right off the bat by calling it catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Catastrophic or otherwise is a job for economists, biologists and so forth to decide, not climatologists.
If it is not catastrophic, why should it imply any sort of policy? If it is not catastrophic, why should we be doing anything to mitigate human CO2 emissions?
2. Say it with me now. Watts is not a climatologist and his blog is not peer reviewed.
Forget watts - read his data, and cites. Just because Watts cited something doesn't mean it's automatically dismissible.
So you want to falsify the hypothesis, go find me a series of temperature increases where the CO2 increase follows substantial deglaciation.
We've got those - the ice core record *shows* that. Geez, the paper you *cited* shows that! What they spuriously claim is that this falsification is somehow "in full agreement" with their wackadoo theory that CO2 is somehow a primary climate driver, not a follower.
I noticed how you disingenuously focused on the fewer part of the prediction and missed the more intense part
We haven't had more intense cyclonic activity, nor more frequent cyclonic activity. We've had more *cost* due to cyclonic activity (since, of course, you build more expensive stuff by hurricane rattled coasts and you'll get more damage), but there absolutely is no increase in intensity that has been measured since 1950-present.
If you have something from the peer reviewed literature suggesting that the UHI is a significant contributor to temperature anomalies bring it out, but I already showed in my refutation to ocean heat measurements that Watts is either incompetent or intentionally misleading.
Again, ignore Watts, and read his cite. You keep focusing on the fact that he looked at something, rather than at looking at what he looked at.
Your problem isn't that contemporary climate theory isn't falsifiable
That's right. *Your* problem is that contemporary climate theory isn't falsifiable.:)
So long story short, you don't believe in the word "catastrophic" but apparently "Bad Enough To Force Us To Reduce CO2 Anthropogenic Global Warming" seems to be your mantra. Again, you haven't been specific, but such is life. You also seem to have a brickbat out for Watts, and can't get past his blog name and actually *look* at the data and *look* at the cites within the posts there. Imagine if I simply dismissed all NOAA data and cites you had because Hansen, et. al. are crooks!
I'm citing the peer reviewed literature
And still unable to come up with any sort of clear statement of falsification of "bad enough to decarbonize our economy" AGW. You've got cites that are "in full agreement with" and "consistent with" tinkertoy models, but no indication that *any* data could be inconsistent in part, much less the whole of BETDOE-AGW.
It is obvious that either quantum mechanics, or general relativity or both have problems, but it is not clear where those problems lie.
*Exactly*. As it stands, there is no theoretical physicist who would *dare* assert "the science is settled", and this is with a field that makes bold statements and predictions, and for the most part, has ranges where things are accurate descriptions.
Finding these things papers took all of five minutes. If you had wanted to know what climatologists actually think you could have done the same.
I've read the papers as well, and they're not at all convincing. I understand what the warmists believe, but because they can't even formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, one simply cannot call their position scientific.
What I can point out is that suggesting that a dispute about small anomalies in the present data somehow invalidates the entirety of climate science is absurd.
Who said the entirety of climate science is absurd? The entirety of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" is absurd, but we knew that already.
Or do you believe "climate science" means "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"?
If you want to come back with objections then I will be all ears
Sure.
1) Your CaillonTermIII.pdf cite simply asserts that "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing." That's weasel talk. The fact of the matter is that not *once* in the paper do they specify any observation that would falsify their hypothesis. They claim that things are "consistent with", rather than making a prediction, and accepting the consequences. If they were doing *science*, they'd say "if you saw, such and such and such int he historical record, obviously our hypothesis would be wrong." Instead, they play astrology.
2) Ocean heat content is not rising as predicted (even though, as with any post mini ice age period, it is on the rebound), plus you're citing a 2008 paper when we have more recent data showing a break in the expected trend of increase:
3) Reductions in cyclone frequency definitely isn't the warmist story - the idea has been pushed time and time again that a warmer world means more extreme weather. Now, if you're saying that a warmer world means less cyclonic activity, and concede that cyclonic activity is a *bad* thing, are you categorically in *favor* of doing everything we can to make the world a warmer place?
4) Claims that the UHI effect are negligible are capable only if one throws away data which refutes that hypothesis. Any rigorous analysis of the UHI effect shows that it is both real, and significant.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to trade cites with you, but honestly, if you want to credibly attack this problem, you need to start off with your falsifiable hypothesis. Thus far, you've avoided taking any concrete position - are you willing to?
It would take a collection of controlled experiments ruling out one possible explanation after another before general relativity was falsified because people would come up with post hoc explanations (unobserved celestial bodies, extra forces, dark matter, negative energy and so on).
Actually, that is a notorious weakness of theoretical physics, isn't it:) Post hoc explanations make for a poor theory, and the *more* post hoc explanations your theory requires, the further off base it probably is. General relativity, as stated, is obviously not consistent with all observations, and the "grand unification" everybody is looking for is still elusive. That being said, at least within certain limits and scopes, general relativity is accurate enough to make useful predictions. "Climate science", dealing with a huge, chaotic system, has nearly no *useful* predictions to make. Looking at global average temperature as a useful metric is like looking at the global average phone number as a useful metric - weather counts, not climate:)
You have made the accusation that challenging observations are simply discarded in climate science. Do you have an example to back up that claim?
Sure, CO2 levels lagging temp changes in the ice core record. Ocean heat content falling when it was expected to be rising. Global average temperature stable when it was supposed to be rising. An inverse relation between global cyclonic activity and global warming. The UHI effect.
How, at this stage, would you falsify the theory of gravity?
Depends on which theory you're talking about (if you want to get into the deep theoretical physics). If you're talking about the falsification of our most basic theories of newtonian gravity, that was falsified by observing mercury (objects not moving in accord with known mass equations), which was then discovered to be a confirmation of general relativity instead.
But at least gravity *has* specific observations that could be considered falsifications - if we saw jupiter moving too fast in comparison to other planets, disobeying the known principles of gravity, our theory of gravity would be falsified.
As it is, the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has *no* specific observations that could be considered falsifications - every single challenging observation is simply discarded with some ad hoc special pleading.
Easy. If CO2 emissions went up next year, the temperature increased by 10C, and 50% of humanity was killed off due to starvation, floods, droughts, volcanoes, and poisonous snakes.
We have been over this before, and I believe where we last left off was that the strictly non-zero impact of human CO2 emissions was almost certainly true, and almost certainly positive, but only in the same way that the strictly non-zero impact of butterfly CO2 emissions are almost certainly true and almost certainly positive. Taking this to the next level of being significantly greater than other natural drivers, much less to the level where any such increase in the artificial statistic of global average temperature being *catastrophic* is purely hand waving.
So sure, teach kids about the effect of CO2 in the laboratory. And teach kids that humans (as well as butterflies) emit CO2. But teaching kids that their breathing and living is somehow going to destroy civilization as we know it unless we all drive hybrid cars, use windmills, and recycle, that's just BS.
#1 is an assertion. You don't specify an observation that you would consider falsification.
#2 doesn't follow your hypothesis - H2O absorbs infrared photons and can retain heat. Would this fact make a hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming caused by water emissions true?
#3 doesn't follow your hypothesis either - the earth has gotten warmer in the past before there were humans - why would that observation indicate that human CO2 is the cause *this* time.
As for the precautionary principle, it's *especially* wrong to engage in it when you're talking about a poorly understood chaotic system. The chances of your predictions being correct are infinitesimally small:)
In general, in situations where data are limited, the hypothesis tends to be along the lines of "if we divide the data into two sets and train a model on the first set, it will accurately describe the second". It's a clear statement, it's falsifiable, and it's repeatable - either by repeating on different data, or by dividing the data up differently.
So that given, no GCM has ever accurately described the second. At what point do you stop adding parameters to tweak, and admit that the core trope you've built the model on is incorrect?
In the case of climate change, the current anthropogenic models fit the data better than the non-anthropogenic models.
Name a single anthropogenic model that can hindcast PDO/ENSO.
Sorry, nowhere in there did you mention any observation that will convince you that the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is false.
The null hypothesis for everything is not "No effect".
No, the null hypothesis is "no relation". Of course humans have some non zero effect on climate. The burden warmists bear is to show that there is a direct relation between human CO2 emissions, and the artificial artifact of global average temperature, and further, that such an effect is going to be "catastrophic".
"Preponderance of evidence" may get you somewhere in a civil trial, and perhaps astrology, but it's not science.
Look, the fact that you're complaining about how difficult it is to discern a 0.3% change in a trend, yet apparently subscribe to the belief that a trace gas measured in parts per million in our atmosphere is somehow a primary climate *driver* shows just how closed you are to any sort of ruthless skepticism of your own particular ideas.
You said, "I mean't a lowered human CO2 output would be expected to produce a slower rise in CO2 levels.", implying that a falsification for you, for the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (although nothing in that particular falsification seems to address the calculation of what is and isn't "catastrophic" - perhaps you assumed that such broad terms have specific meanings).
Of course, we've got millennia of data showing zero human CO2 output (pre-humanity), showing all kids of rises (and falls) of CO2 levels.
So what now? Are you satisfied that your hypothesis is falsified? Or would you like to make a further correction to your statements?
Look, if we're going to pick the cherry of the period immediately after the Little Ice Age to show unprecedented global warming, what is wrong about 1998?
The fact of the matter is that the difference in interpretation is simply based on which cherry you pick. The *reason* for this is that weather is a cyclical function for the most part (ADO, PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, milankovich cycles), and on a cyclical function, *any* two points you choose are going to be cherries that give you an arbitrary linear trend.
Show me a specific model that can correctly hindcast the cyclical variations we already know about, and then we can talk about what trends we'll observe in the future. Until then, it's simply a naive belief in unnamed authorities.
A lowered anthropogenic CO2 output with a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 over a large enough period would do it, I thought that would be obvious to any reasonable person.
How long of a period? Be specific.
And are your claiming that we've never had a continued rise in CO2 in the past, before humanity existed?
No,we've checked all those and they don't appear to be the cause, so the theory hasn't been falsified, (and could have been).
So you have a specific magnitude of impact on global average temperature for atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation and solar variability along all types of solar radiation? Care to cite specifics, or are you just hand waving?
Very well, "catastrophic" is not a scientific category, I accept your assertion there, and we are left with this:
AGW.
Trivially nonzero (as with even the effect of a single CO2 spewing ant), we can accept this as true, and possibly even interesting. But it certainly does not imply, or even begin to imply, that AGW is harmful, greater than non-AGW variation, and demanding of immediate and dramatic reduction of petroleum based energy.
So, given that the models for CO2 concentration vs. average global temperature have been well out of bounds of predictions, the hypothesis has been falsified?
The concept of falsifiability is oversold. Science is about finding the best model(s) that match observations of the real world. The "best" model is the one that best fits observations.
A null Hyphothesis would be the Hyphothesis that the factors related to human civilization are unrelated to a change of climate.
If you're only trying to defend the trivial hypothesis that "human civilization has a non-zero impact on climate", I'll give you that in an instant. The moment you try to make the claim that "human civilization has *harmful and catastrophic* non-zero impacts on climate", the bar is raised higher. In that case, the null hypothesis is clearly:
"factors related to human civilization are unrelated to catastrophic changes of climate"
Thus far, this null hypothesis is clearly true. The burden lies on the affirmative to show that this isn't true, and we start that by forming a falsifiable hypothesis statement for the alternative presented.
If you misunderstand this to be equivalent to "a big wave will come and wash the civization away" then i can't help you. No serious scientist would claim that.
I agree that no serious scientist would claim that, but unfortunately, that is what warmist scientists are claiming. The rationale for CO2 rationing, cap and trade, and expensive energy like solar and wind is that without it, we will have a big wave that will inundate all of Florida, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and wash the civilization away.
You can't say that no one is allowed to form an opinion based on a synthesis of original research, and that they have to have done all the original research themselves. That's not how science works either.
Far from it - I'm not asking anyone to actually recreate the data sets, or run the models, or develop the adjustment methodologies, I'm simply asking, ahead of time, for those observations that would contradict the hypothesis. Research is not scientific unless it proposes a falsifiable hypothesis with a clear statement of what observations would contradict that hypothesis - research without that is simply data collection and idle navel gazing.
What I'm seriously suggesting is that *any* climate scientist which wishes to make the claim that "human CO2 emissions are causing increases in global average temperature that will have catastrophic consequences in X years" *must* clearly state what observations would contradict that hypothesis.
Now, for lesser hypotheses, we really don't have an argument -> "human CO2 emissions have a non-zero impact on global average temperature" is trivially true, but hardly enough for someone to demand immediate and catastrophic changes to our energy economy to reduce CO2 emissions. Even "human activity has a non-zero impact on global and regional climate" is trivially true.
But for any hypothesis that would insist that human impacts are not only harmful, but catastrophic, requiring immediate intervention, there is a higher bar.
You'd think before saying something like 'So neither the IPCC, nor NOAA, nor the Royal Meteorological society have made any clearly falsifiable hypothesis statement about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.' you would actually fucking go to their websites and actually look at them.
I did look at them. Cite the page which clearly states what observations of global average temperature and CO2 (and whatever other variables you'd like to consider), or STFU.
You're making assertions, not offering a falsifiable hypothesis.
Take for example:
2. The rise is due to burining of fossil fuels.
What *observation* would contradict that assertion? Say, a lowered output of petroleum in a given year, but CO2 levels *still* rising? If you observed that (let's say, during some sort of recession where energy use dropped), would you give up your hypothesis?
5. No other mechanism has been found for the temperature rise.
Argument from ignorance -> just because we haven't specified what unknown drivers push temperature (say, atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation, solar variability), doesn't mean that the default is "it must be human CO2".
Slashdot Mirror
So would you put Hansen and Mann into that category as well? It's all fun to assume the worst motivations in people you disagree with, but can you see how that sword bites both ways?
Let's take that one at a time. First of all, the proxy dendro reconstructions have been thoroughly invalidated, so if you want to start your hypothesis without that line of evidence, please feel free.
Insofar as "the known effects of CO2", I think you need to be more specific. Yes, in a laboratory, it absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation. Asserting that we know what effect this has in the complex system of our atmosphere is bold and needs specifications of falsification itself.
Lastly, warming doesn't have to vanish in order for it to be caused by natural variation.
Weasel word. Put a number on it. Obviously we have had CO2 lags across every period of time, including rebounds from ice ages.
Moving the goalposts. The proposition is that "UHI is negligible". This is a falsification of that proposition.
All industry is carbon heavy :) Human prosperity is directly proportional to the amount of energy used by individuals, and the cheaper we make energy, the more prosperity we see.
Spoken like a true believer :) Tell me again what observations, past, present or future, would convince you that it is not necessary policy to decarbonize our economy?
If it is not catastrophic, why should it imply any sort of policy? If it is not catastrophic, why should we be doing anything to mitigate human CO2 emissions?
Forget watts - read his data, and cites. Just because Watts cited something doesn't mean it's automatically dismissible.
We've got those - the ice core record *shows* that. Geez, the paper you *cited* shows that! What they spuriously claim is that this falsification is somehow "in full agreement" with their wackadoo theory that CO2 is somehow a primary climate driver, not a follower.
We haven't had more intense cyclonic activity, nor more frequent cyclonic activity. We've had more *cost* due to cyclonic activity (since, of course, you build more expensive stuff by hurricane rattled coasts and you'll get more damage), but there absolutely is no increase in intensity that has been measured since 1950-present.
Again, ignore Watts, and read his cite. You keep focusing on the fact that he looked at something, rather than at looking at what he looked at.
That's right. *Your* problem is that contemporary climate theory isn't falsifiable. :)
So long story short, you don't believe in the word "catastrophic" but apparently "Bad Enough To Force Us To Reduce CO2 Anthropogenic Global Warming" seems to be your mantra. Again, you haven't been specific, but such is life. You also seem to have a brickbat out for Watts, and can't get past his blog name and actually *look* at the data and *look* at the cites within the posts there. Imagine if I simply dismissed all NOAA data and cites you had because Hansen, et. al. are crooks!
And still unable to come up with any sort of clear statement of falsification of "bad enough to decarbonize our economy" AGW. You've got cites that are "in full agreement with" and "consistent with" tinkertoy models, but no indication that *any* data could be inconsistent in part, much less the whole of BETDOE-AGW.
*Exactly*. As it stands, there is no theoretical physicist who would *dare* assert "the science is settled", and this is with a field that makes bold statements and predictions, and for the most part, has ranges where things are accurate descriptions.
I've read the papers as well, and they're not at all convincing. I understand what the warmists believe, but because they can't even formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, one simply cannot call their position scientific.
Who said the entirety of climate science is absurd? The entirety of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" is absurd, but we knew that already.
Or do you believe "climate science" means "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"?
Sure.
1) Your CaillonTermIII.pdf cite simply asserts that "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing." That's weasel talk. The fact of the matter is that not *once* in the paper do they specify any observation that would falsify their hypothesis. They claim that things are "consistent with", rather than making a prediction, and accepting the consequences. If they were doing *science*, they'd say "if you saw, such and such and such int he historical record, obviously our hypothesis would be wrong." Instead, they play astrology.
Obligatory popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
2) Ocean heat content is not rising as predicted (even though, as with any post mini ice age period, it is on the rebound), plus you're citing a 2008 paper when we have more recent data showing a break in the expected trend of increase:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/october-to-december-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/
3) Reductions in cyclone frequency definitely isn't the warmist story - the idea has been pushed time and time again that a warmer world means more extreme weather. Now, if you're saying that a warmer world means less cyclonic activity, and concede that cyclonic activity is a *bad* thing, are you categorically in *favor* of doing everything we can to make the world a warmer place?
4) Claims that the UHI effect are negligible are capable only if one throws away data which refutes that hypothesis. Any rigorous analysis of the UHI effect shows that it is both real, and significant.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/new-paper-uhi-alive-and-well-in-china/
Now, I'm perfectly happy to trade cites with you, but honestly, if you want to credibly attack this problem, you need to start off with your falsifiable hypothesis. Thus far, you've avoided taking any concrete position - are you willing to?
Actually, that is a notorious weakness of theoretical physics, isn't it :) Post hoc explanations make for a poor theory, and the *more* post hoc explanations your theory requires, the further off base it probably is. General relativity, as stated, is obviously not consistent with all observations, and the "grand unification" everybody is looking for is still elusive. That being said, at least within certain limits and scopes, general relativity is accurate enough to make useful predictions. "Climate science", dealing with a huge, chaotic system, has nearly no *useful* predictions to make. Looking at global average temperature as a useful metric is like looking at the global average phone number as a useful metric - weather counts, not climate :)
Sure, CO2 levels lagging temp changes in the ice core record. Ocean heat content falling when it was expected to be rising. Global average temperature stable when it was supposed to be rising. An inverse relation between global cyclonic activity and global warming. The UHI effect.
The list is quite long, actually.
Depends on which theory you're talking about (if you want to get into the deep theoretical physics). If you're talking about the falsification of our most basic theories of newtonian gravity, that was falsified by observing mercury (objects not moving in accord with known mass equations), which was then discovered to be a confirmation of general relativity instead.
But at least gravity *has* specific observations that could be considered falsifications - if we saw jupiter moving too fast in comparison to other planets, disobeying the known principles of gravity, our theory of gravity would be falsified.
As it is, the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has *no* specific observations that could be considered falsifications - every single challenging observation is simply discarded with some ad hoc special pleading.
I wonder if there is an objective term that would imply that we should take dramatic economic steps to reduce CO2 emissions :)
If there isn't, we've got no beef :)
Easy. If CO2 emissions went up next year, the temperature increased by 10C, and 50% of humanity was killed off due to starvation, floods, droughts, volcanoes, and poisonous snakes.
Your turn.
Tell me, exactly how have you ruled out all natural factors?
And exactly how did you determine that an increase in average global temperature is going to be catastrophic?
Please, be specific.
We have been over this before, and I believe where we last left off was that the strictly non-zero impact of human CO2 emissions was almost certainly true, and almost certainly positive, but only in the same way that the strictly non-zero impact of butterfly CO2 emissions are almost certainly true and almost certainly positive. Taking this to the next level of being significantly greater than other natural drivers, much less to the level where any such increase in the artificial statistic of global average temperature being *catastrophic* is purely hand waving.
So sure, teach kids about the effect of CO2 in the laboratory. And teach kids that humans (as well as butterflies) emit CO2. But teaching kids that their breathing and living is somehow going to destroy civilization as we know it unless we all drive hybrid cars, use windmills, and recycle, that's just BS.
#1 is an assertion. You don't specify an observation that you would consider falsification.
#2 doesn't follow your hypothesis - H2O absorbs infrared photons and can retain heat. Would this fact make a hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming caused by water emissions true?
#3 doesn't follow your hypothesis either - the earth has gotten warmer in the past before there were humans - why would that observation indicate that human CO2 is the cause *this* time.
As for the precautionary principle, it's *especially* wrong to engage in it when you're talking about a poorly understood chaotic system. The chances of your predictions being correct are infinitesimally small :)
Okay, so we've observed non-increasing average global temperatures for the past say, 15 years, with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
Done :)
So that given, no GCM has ever accurately described the second. At what point do you stop adding parameters to tweak, and admit that the core trope you've built the model on is incorrect?
Name a single anthropogenic model that can hindcast PDO/ENSO.
Sorry, nowhere in there did you mention any observation that will convince you that the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is false.
No, the null hypothesis is "no relation". Of course humans have some non zero effect on climate. The burden warmists bear is to show that there is a direct relation between human CO2 emissions, and the artificial artifact of global average temperature, and further, that such an effect is going to be "catastrophic".
"Preponderance of evidence" may get you somewhere in a civil trial, and perhaps astrology, but it's not science.
Look, the fact that you're complaining about how difficult it is to discern a 0.3% change in a trend, yet apparently subscribe to the belief that a trace gas measured in parts per million in our atmosphere is somehow a primary climate *driver* shows just how closed you are to any sort of ruthless skepticism of your own particular ideas.
You said, "I mean't a lowered human CO2 output would be expected to produce a slower rise in CO2 levels.", implying that a falsification for you, for the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (although nothing in that particular falsification seems to address the calculation of what is and isn't "catastrophic" - perhaps you assumed that such broad terms have specific meanings).
Of course, we've got millennia of data showing zero human CO2 output (pre-humanity), showing all kids of rises (and falls) of CO2 levels.
So what now? Are you satisfied that your hypothesis is falsified? Or would you like to make a further correction to your statements?
In the same way that you admit that your particular cherry picks are just as arbitrary :)
Look, if we're going to pick the cherry of the period immediately after the Little Ice Age to show unprecedented global warming, what is wrong about 1998?
The fact of the matter is that the difference in interpretation is simply based on which cherry you pick. The *reason* for this is that weather is a cyclical function for the most part (ADO, PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, milankovich cycles), and on a cyclical function, *any* two points you choose are going to be cherries that give you an arbitrary linear trend.
Show me a specific model that can correctly hindcast the cyclical variations we already know about, and then we can talk about what trends we'll observe in the future. Until then, it's simply a naive belief in unnamed authorities.
But supposedly we're going to spot the impact of a trace gas that is less than .04% of the atmosphere :)
How long of a period? Be specific.
And are your claiming that we've never had a continued rise in CO2 in the past, before humanity existed?
So you have a specific magnitude of impact on global average temperature for atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation and solar variability along all types of solar radiation? Care to cite specifics, or are you just hand waving?
Very well, "catastrophic" is not a scientific category, I accept your assertion there, and we are left with this:
AGW.
Trivially nonzero (as with even the effect of a single CO2 spewing ant), we can accept this as true, and possibly even interesting. But it certainly does not imply, or even begin to imply, that AGW is harmful, greater than non-AGW variation, and demanding of immediate and dramatic reduction of petroleum based energy.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
So, given that the models for CO2 concentration vs. average global temperature have been well out of bounds of predictions, the hypothesis has been falsified?
Sounds like astrology to me.
Obligatory Popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
If you're only trying to defend the trivial hypothesis that "human civilization has a non-zero impact on climate", I'll give you that in an instant. The moment you try to make the claim that "human civilization has *harmful and catastrophic* non-zero impacts on climate", the bar is raised higher. In that case, the null hypothesis is clearly:
"factors related to human civilization are unrelated to catastrophic changes of climate"
Thus far, this null hypothesis is clearly true. The burden lies on the affirmative to show that this isn't true, and we start that by forming a falsifiable hypothesis statement for the alternative presented.
I agree that no serious scientist would claim that, but unfortunately, that is what warmist scientists are claiming. The rationale for CO2 rationing, cap and trade, and expensive energy like solar and wind is that without it, we will have a big wave that will inundate all of Florida, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and wash the civilization away.
Far from it - I'm not asking anyone to actually recreate the data sets, or run the models, or develop the adjustment methodologies, I'm simply asking, ahead of time, for those observations that would contradict the hypothesis. Research is not scientific unless it proposes a falsifiable hypothesis with a clear statement of what observations would contradict that hypothesis - research without that is simply data collection and idle navel gazing.
What I'm seriously suggesting is that *any* climate scientist which wishes to make the claim that "human CO2 emissions are causing increases in global average temperature that will have catastrophic consequences in X years" *must* clearly state what observations would contradict that hypothesis.
Now, for lesser hypotheses, we really don't have an argument -> "human CO2 emissions have a non-zero impact on global average temperature" is trivially true, but hardly enough for someone to demand immediate and catastrophic changes to our energy economy to reduce CO2 emissions. Even "human activity has a non-zero impact on global and regional climate" is trivially true.
But for any hypothesis that would insist that human impacts are not only harmful, but catastrophic, requiring immediate intervention, there is a higher bar.
I did look at them. Cite the page which clearly states what observations of global average temperature and CO2 (and whatever other variables you'd like to consider), or STFU.
You're making assertions, not offering a falsifiable hypothesis.
Take for example:
What *observation* would contradict that assertion? Say, a lowered output of petroleum in a given year, but CO2 levels *still* rising? If you observed that (let's say, during some sort of recession where energy use dropped), would you give up your hypothesis?
Argument from ignorance -> just because we haven't specified what unknown drivers push temperature (say, atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation, solar variability), doesn't mean that the default is "it must be human CO2".