I think we are getting nowhere here. This is turning into a mere contest of rhetoric in which nothing of consequence is said or agreed.
I agree with your assessment - and funnily enough, that's what drives me to demand a clear, unambiguous, falsifiable hypothesis statement someone is willing to defend. I had this thread with microbox recently where we dispensed with the strawman "anthropogenic CO2 causes no temperature changes" by stipulating that the simplest AGW hypothesis, that is that human CO2 will have some non-zero and positive effect on global average temperature, was both falsifiable and indeed most likely true.
We were never able to make it to the next step, where someone was willing to try and formulate a falsifiable hypothesis around say, "anthropogenic CO2 will cause X degrees of warming over Y years if released in Z amount", much less a corollary hypothesis stating "X degrees of warming over Y years will cause more harm than good to humanity". Frankly, I'm not sure it's even possible, but I'm willing to entertain the idea.
We've been stuck in the "define the null hypothesis" stage, as I think I've also been stuck with tgibbs. As I understand your position, there are models which a lot of expertise has been put into, and a lot of thought has been put into, and it is offensive to think that the model can be refuted without a better model put forth. My position is that while it is certainly unsatisfying not to have a better model to refute an existing one, we simply cannot assume hard work displaces the null hypothesis (specifically, of no casual relationship between CO2 and global average temperature).
Now, perhaps I haven't done a good job at explaining my position, but it's also possible that you simply cannot agree that the null hypothesis should be that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature - if that's true, then I understand your point of view, you understand mine, and we both understand what *basic* difference causes our different conclusions. As to how, or whether it is even possible to determine which one of us is right on this basic premise, now that's a real brain teaser:)
"The good news, Hoerling says, is that this isn't global warming. "This is not the new normal in terms of drought. Texas knows drought. Texas has been toughened on the anvil of droughts that have come and gone. This is not a climate change drought."
We can determine the sum of the natural forcings without knowing each individual one. If you have 85 cents, you don't need to know how many dimes you have to know if you can buy a candy bar.
You're missing the analogy. In order to find out how many pennies you have (man made forcings) and non-pennies you have (nickels, dimes and quarters) to make up your 85 cents, it doesn't *matter* what a candy bar costs - you need to be able to differentiate between the pennies and non-pennies.
You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings. Now play the science game and specify what observations would falsify your hypothesis.
Your problem is that you're placing your own idea of morals as the benchmark, and measuring the Bible against that.
You call it a problem, I call it critical thinking:) The Bible, or any book for that matter, is not immune to analysis or critique - just ask Bart Ehrman.
If you're not going to accept that God is the head and ruler of the universe to begin with, why even both arguing about the Bible?
Even if I stipulate to God as being the head and ruler of the universe, that doesn't make him immune to moral critique. He, in his great wisdom, gave me the capacity to judge between right and wrong, and to abandon my sense of morality simply because he's more powerful than me seems like a waste of a valuable gift, don't you think?
People forget that if there is a God and he created the universe and us and everything, then surely he can do whatever he damn well wants.
Yup, he can send priests to rape babies, have civilians detained and tortured, and demand that fathers murder their own sons. He can't make me say that those things are moral though.
You either accept that there is a God, or you reject it.
That sounds awfully simplistic, and falsified by even the most casual look at history. There have been many people who have believed in many different Gods, accepting some and denying others. As we sit and speak together, I'm sure you deny the divinity of Zeus, Hera, Zoaraster, Loki, Thor, Cthulu, and thousands of other Gods, at the same time you hew to your own version of God. You might even consider Lutherans and Mormons heretics, though they might insist that they believe in the same God you do. Throughout the tens if not hundreds of thousands of religions that have existed, surely there have been variations on what people have accepted and rejected from their Gods.
Maybe he will do things differently next time, when he sees how much wiser you are than him.
How do you know I'm not actually The Creator, and Your Creator, here to test you with slashdot comments?:)
God created humans, and gave them free will - they could choose to serve and obey God, or disobey - with punishment to follow (death).
I'm not sure if that has any biblical backing. God specifically talks about hardening Pharaoh's heart, and moreover, if God actually can tell the future (omniscience), then there is no such thing as free will. If you want to qualify that by saying God only gave some people free will, and God cannot tell the future, I'll allow it, though.
Can you see that in doing this, God did not go against his principles? His character is intact, he did not contradict anything.
God has no principles by your definition. He can define anything any way he wants, and therefore justify ordering his humble servant to kill his only son on an altar. I'm not trying to say God is contradicting himself by ordering women and children killed, I'm saying that he's not *moral*.
The created does not really have the right to question the creator.
Why is that? Do you never have the right to question your mother or father? If you raised slaves, and bred them as per your design, would they have no right to question you, since you created them?
What you're asserting here is simply that "creators" can be immoral, and nobody can question that.
Fair enough, but you could make the same case for the fall of the Thracians, or the Inca or the Maya or any number of conflicts before the industrial age.
Yes, climate change can cause conflict (and Jared Diamond does a great job showing examples in his book "Collapse"). Yes, we can expect more of it in the future, because just as climate changed 1000 years ago, it will continue to change for the next 1000 years.
Jumping from that to "climate is going to change more/worse because of human activity" is a stretch.
Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land. Global average temperature rise has been driven by higher lows, not lower highs (that is, the difference between the low temperature and high temperature has begun to shrink, with the lows coming up, driving up the overall average). At the most extreme scenario, if the earth became much like the Late Eocene, Antarctica would become a veritable temperate paradise viable for much more biodiversity, and the tropics (with all the plant growth that comes with it) would extend into the upper and lower latitudes.
Fun fact - the referenced article tends to tie periods of strife with global *cooling* periods.
"Results show that cooling from A.D. 1560–1660 caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century"
For about the fifth time, it is not assumed that CO2 drives global average temperature.
You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. GCMs are programmed with the basic assumption that CO2 drives global average temperature, more specifically through assumed feedback effects on water vapor (which is a much stronger greenhouse gas). I welcome you to show me any existing GCM which does not assume this.
Yes, this simply rephrases what I told you: "Null" means "zero" and the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of zero difference between two measurements
You're really stretching yourself thin here. The null hypothesis is the assertion that there is no relationship (causal or otherwise) between to things. It is not the "zero hypothesis".
Pray tell, what would the "zero hypothesis" of "smoking causes lung cancer" be? That there is no difference between the measurement of smoking and the measurement of lung cancer?
Until you can get over your aversion to understanding the null hypothesis here, you're not going to get very far in understanding the science.
In other words, we always have imperfect information, and we are often obliged to act on the best current knowledge. There is no guarantee that it will always yield the best outcome, but that way gives you the best odds.
Why, pray tell, are we obliged to act right now? What damage has say, the 0.32C anthropogenic component of warming over the past 50 years (giving credence to the at least 50% is anthropogenic trope) done? What benefit would we have had if the global average temperature was 0.32C *less* today?
Our information on climate isn't just imperfect, it's fatally flawed by the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis upon which to test our observations. The odds that warmists are right, and that if we don't dramatically increase the price of energy by abandoning cheap natural petroleum, we'll somehow have a disaster in 50 or 100 or even 200 years, is so incredibly small you probably couldn't even get Lloyds of London to insure it.
Modern climate science accounts for past warming episodes in terms of causes (and as you've been told repeatedly, but still apparently fail to comprehend, there are multiple potential causes of warming considered by climate theory), but none of those causes are applicable to the current warming.
So, what was the cause of the Holocene Optimum and Medieval Warm Period? Be specific, since apparently if you can't specifically identify the cause, no cause must have existed, right?:)
More than that, show me a single GCM that can be run backward and reproduce the Holocene Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period.
If it's natural, it must have a cause--so what is it? What is your model? What testable predictions does it make?
Again, you're not fighting with a competing model here, you're competing with the null hypothesis that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature. Trying to put your model above strict scrutiny is clever, but not convincing.
have subjected their hypothesis to the discipline of creating a mathematical model that makes testable predictions, and have shown it to be consistent with past temperatures, and to satisfy multiple observational tests.
You lie like a dog. Throughout this entire conversation, you have completely been unable to make any specific statement of what observation of CO2 and global average temperature, on any time scale, would falsify your hypothesis. Having a mathematical model that cannot hind cast such events as the MWP, or LIA, or Holocene optimum, much less forecast within any sort of error range, is no great feat.
Either specify what observations of CO2 and global average temperature would falsify your hypothesis, or admit that you're not doi
We've already demolished your "theory" that temperatures have been falling.
The expected warming trend for the past 15 years hasn't been there, period. You were open to the idea of a lower trend than predicted, for two solar cycles, would falsify your hypothesis. Let's wait another 9 years, and then talk.
The medieval warm period isn't even worth mentioning because it was a regional effect, not a global one,
As soon as you demonstrate what benefit we could have had if it had gone up.64C in the past 50 years.
Argument by "you first?" Really? If you can't quantify any damage that has occurred over the past 50 years due to.32C temperature rise, why should I believe that there's going to be damage in the next 50 years if we have.32C temperature rise?
I'm more than happy to admit both benefit and harm are pure speculation - are you?
The natural forcings have been decreasing at about -0.05C/decade in that time.
Speculation. There are myriad natural forcings we don't have any reasonable quantification for (which is really part of the problem).
Hurricane activity is a regional effect that is not directly linked to global temperature. They also are not modeled in global climate models.
Okay, so we'll admit that "catastrophe" as measured by world wide cyclonic activity increase isn't going to happen because of increased average global temperature...I was trying to help you with some possible quantitative harms you could measure, but so far, I don't see any.
Note that real scientists admit there are both positive and negative consequences
Really? Skeptical science? And a bunch of papers on regional effects rather than global ones? Really?
Look, until you're able to *quantify* on a global scale what you mean as harm, you've got nothing but hand waving there. Modeled catastrophes, particularly on a regional level, do not reflect reality on a global level.
"In an article entitled, “The impact of global warming on health and mortality,” published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note:
“Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
“From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves, according to Indur Goklany of the U.S. Department of the Interior,” Singer and Avery write. “Cold spells, in other words, are twice as dangerous to our health as hot weather.”"
In other words if CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures drop for an extended period of time, that would falsify anthropogenic global warming. Two solar cycles without warming, or with cooling would kill it.
Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?
The second doesn't really need to be falsified until someone provides a reason (theory or model) that indicates there is a possibility that rapid climate change over much of the earth would be a good thing.
Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.
Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about.13C per decade...so a little over.5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?
Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up.32C in the past 50 years.
"This increased from 372.9 ppmv in 2002 to 390 ppmv in 2011.
According to IPCC the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity = 3.2C and the CO2/Temperature relationship is logarithmic
From 2002 to 2010, CO2 increased from 372.9 to 390 ppmv 372.9 / 390 = 1.0459 ln(1.0459) = 0.04484 ln(2) = 0.69315 dT(2xCO2) = 3.2C dT(2002-2011 theo) = 3.2 * 0.04484 / 0.69315 = 0.2C
So we should have seen 0.2C warming, if the IPCC assumptions on CO2 climate sensitivity are correct..
But saw none"
If there is no effect, then CO2 acts with full force in the atmosphere just as it does experimentally, including our own contribution of CO2. In other words, AGW is real and happening.
Again, you're trying to be clever by dodging the null hypothesis. Asserting that CO2 acts with full laboratory force in the complex system of the world unless some other unicorn effect is identified in exactly the same magnitude, but opposite sign, is a trick, not a proof.
Think of the example of heat traveling through a solid, and how the complex system of the human body does not simply transfer heat from a left hand in hot water, to a right hand sitting in the air.
Did I say that? Because if you can't find a reference to me saying that, then you are lighting up a strawman.
I'm simply extending your rationale to its final implication. You have asked about what the models fail to account for, implying that they account for everything. But let me give you a chance - what do *you* think the models fail to account for?
If you give me more than an empty suit to fill with straw, I'll argue against what you're willing to defend:)
So are you saying that you know every single variable, and that anything you haven't thought of must not exist?:)
Based on what, gut feel?:)
Then what factor is limiting the effect of anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases [Tindall].
That's not the question - you cannot simply take a tinkertoy lab experiment, assume it applies to a complex system, and then demand specific explanations of the entire system in order to falsify the tinkertoy.
For example, we know, from basic physics, that if you place one end of a solid object into hot water, the heat will travel from one end to the other at a certain rate, depending on the material. Basic physics, completely incontrovertible, and replicated in the lab.
Now, place your left hand in a bucket of hot water, and tell me how soon your right hand will demonstrate the effects of that heat traveling across your body.
You can of course come up with all kinds of reasonable and rational explanations for this deviation from basic physics, but is it incumbent upon someone to identify the exact biological processes which counteract the transfer of heat?
Tyndall proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is novel is suggesting what you have suggested: that even though we expect warming from the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere [Tyndall], it doesn't happen because of reasons we can't explain, and never will explain. Instead, precisely the same amount of warming as projected by AGW models occurs because of natural causes. We can't explain why, and never will, due to factors unknown. Have I captured you accurately?
No, you're still not quite understanding my point of view. I can stipulate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I can stipulate that CO2, from any source, will cause more warming if all other things are held constant. What you cannot assume is that a) you know exactly the magnitude of impact human CO2 has on atmospheric temperature, or b) that human CO2 is responsible for a particular magnitude of observed warming. The burden of proof is in the affirmative, and that is *your* side.
"For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect."
Can you admit your error in your understanding of the Null Hypothesis, or do you insist that null hypotheses only mean "no change" or "zero difference"?
Thus, any statement with the word "cause" in it cannot be a null hypothesis.
That's an awfully arbitrary limit to put on science:)
The conclusion that increasing CO2 would result in an increase in temperature was a prediction of these models, not a starting assumption
Which specific GCM do you believe that is true for? The conclusion that CO2 would result in an increase in temperature (and the magnitude of climate sensitivity to CO2) is a *basic assumption* of how these GCMs model the effect of CO2.
At this point, scientists have had to step away from the models and look at the real world to see what is actually changing: the earth's orbit hasn't changed; other greenhouse gasses have not increased enough to account for the warming; the sun's output hasn't changed;
You could measure a hundred other factors, and still not have ruled out the thousands of others that are important. Considering the default to be "CO2 drives global average temperature" simply because you cannot determine the magnitudes of other factors is a tautology - you could pick *any* other factor, say, clouds, and assert that CO2 is one of those things that cannot explain things - it all depends on your basic assumptions.
If the base assumptions are incorrect, you're barking up the wrong tree.
But if all of the evidence shows that you are heading for a cliff, it would be very unwise to keep going in the hope that gravity will stop working before you get to the edge.
Precautionary principle fallacy. You have no idea whether or not your prescribed mitigations are going to cause more harm than good, and it's arguable that we already know they will cause more harm than good. As a case example, see the adoption of low-fat diets from 1978, done as a precautionary measure against heart disease, and responsible for nearly 40 years of diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity.
When you write "no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect," it sounds like you think that "natural warming" is magical, an effect without a cause. What is the mechanism of this supposed natural warming?
Natural warming isn't magical, it's *natural*. Put another way, do you deny that natural warming happened in the past, without the benefit of humanity's existence and without a specified mechanism? Or can you explain every single climate change that ever happened in the past down to a specific mechanism?
But think about it: The fossil fuel industry stands to face substantial costs due to efforts to control CO2.
If you want to follow the money, the warmist industry stands to face substantial costs if the CO2 to global average temperature link is either not accur
What is the variable that the models fail to account for? What is the result if this variable is included?
As Rumsfeld once said, unknown unknowns:)
What then, is the true fraction of natural warming (or cooling) as a percentage of the sum of the observed warming?
The default assumption is that 100% of the observed warming is natural. Predictions to the contrary are novel, must be specific, and must be falsifiable.
As noted, these results have been well publicised. Google it yourself, I'm not here to do your homework.
I'll take that as "I Googled for it, couldn't find it, so I'll send you on the goose chase now":) Cites or it didn't happen.
Which in the case of CO2 and it's radiative properties, means that the default hypothesis is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore increasing quantities in an atmospheric mixture will cause that mixture to warm in the presence of infra-red radiation.
Even that default hypothesis doesn't serve your needs, though - simply asserting that a warming will happen, of some positive quantity no matter how small, doesn't get you very much. What worries would we have if increasing quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere caused +0.00001C warming?
But even besides that, you've completely assumed that CO2 is completely inert - no accounting at all for plants (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/plants-gobbling-up-co2-45-more-than-thought/), or any sort of other ways CO2 or the atmosphere can change. You've gone from the test tube, and insisted that you can now predict *the entire globe*:)
But hey, let me give you the benefit of the doubt here, and let you correct yourself if you meant something else - is the limit of your assertion, in terms of AGW, that human CO2 emissions must cause a positive global average temperature effect, no matter how small? If you're completely unwilling to put a magnitude on that effect, I'm more than happy to agree with you as to its falsifiability, and even truth. If you're insisting on a specific magnitude, please, be specific.
Oh, and btw, skepticalscience tropes that rely on a magical difference between the world seen in ice cores and the world now aren't convincing. If you can't find any period in the past where in a 400 year time scale, temperature lagged CO2, just admit it:)
If you want to convince us as to the veracity of your hypothesis, provide proof that can be scientifically verified.
The way that we scientifically verify something is to start off with a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then to ruthlessly try to falsify our hypothesis. We *look* for evidence that we're wrong.
If you want to convince us of the veracity of the AGW or CAGW hypothesis, start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement that you're willing to defend. Else, we've got no option than to fill the empty shirt with straw to argue against.
If you wish to falsify the hypothesis, simply repeat the experiment done by Tyndall and publish the result
Tyndall's hypothesis is simple and testable - gases have different absorption spectrums. Asserting that on faith, from this finding alone, you can extrapolate to "humans releasing CO2 will cause measurable and catastrophic global warming" is ludicrous.
If, on the other hand, you wish to falsify the models , then explain in detail what the problem with the model(s) is: what forcing do the models fail to account for?
The problem with the models is that they make basic assumptions that are unfalsifiable, such as "CO2 drives global average temperature". If the models are scientific, they should have falsifiable hypotheses for *every* one of their assumptions...care to share that particular list with me for any GCM of your choice?
Then you agree that there is no such effect?
And therefore you agree that this current warming phase is caused by anthropogenic emissions?
What, so if you agree that there are no unicorns, then you agree that this current warming phase is caused by anthropogenic emissions? The two have no relation to each other!
While cleverly trying to place AGW as the null hypothesis (by assuming it is true, and then asserting that it can only be falsified if a hypothetical mystery force is found to exactly counteract it), you're simply moving the pea under the thimble. Try again!
Why not? What climate effect do the models fail to account for? Please be precise.
"In spite of this undeniable progress, the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain, and this uncertainty was cited as one of the key factors explaining the spread in model simulations of future climate for a given emission scenario. This cannot be regarded as a surprise: that the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to changing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must depend strongly on cloud feedbacks can be illustrated on the simplest theoretical grounds, using data that have been available for a long time."
How about the climate effect of butterflies? How about the climate effect of phytoplankton blooms? How about the climate effect of any number of invasive species?
I mean, really, you think the GCMs actually contain simulations of every last thing that can effect climate? Really?
But testing of scientific models does not require that a model be able to predict everything, merely that it makes testable predictions.
So, if your climate model predicts that one and one equals two, which is a testable prediction, we're supposed to then assume that the untestable prediction that at a specific CO2 level we will get a specific amount of warming over a specific time period that will cause catastrophe for mankind it the planet is true?
If your scientific model predicts something specific regarding increased human CO2 emissions, and the resultant average atmospheric temperature over a specific period of time, and gives us some error bars, what are you going to say when reality diverges from your predictions? Will you abandon your model entirely, or insist on a never ending stream of ad hoc special pleadings?
My point is this, and I'm not sure if you've quite understood it - GCM models which start with the assumption that CO2 drives global average temperature have no observations which could falsify their assumption that CO2 drives global average temperature. Sure, there are observations that could falsify their assumptions of say, cloud albedo, or radiative transfer properties of certain gases, but the big elephant in the room you're ignoring is that no matter how many minor falsifications are possible within a GCM, the big grand daddy of "CO2 drives temperature" is held sacrosanct, and all other features of the model are considered tweakable.
Prove me wrong by succinctly stating what observations of CO2 and global average temperature, over any time period you'd like to specify, would overturn the assumption that CO2 drive global average temperature.
The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no change--and nobody seems to be crazy enough to claim that climate is unchanging.
You're completely misunderstanding the null hypothesis - it is not the "no change" hypothesis. Let's say you have a hypothesis "smoking causes lung cancer". The null hypothesis is not "there is no change in smoking" or "there is no change in lung cancer". The null hypothesis is "there is no causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer".
It's almost like you're saying it's *impossible* to have a null hypothesis for a changing climate - that it is *impossible* for climate science to actual be *science*.
The null hypothesis is that CO2 (or any other climate factor) does not have a causal relationship to global average temperature. It is not that "climate doesn't change" (heck, that doesn't even mention CO2, or any other factor at all!).
Let's go over your cite:
1) That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much. - no mention of error bars, or which models failed to meet their error bars, nor any admission that warming could happen anyway
2) That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool. - no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
3) That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures. - no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
4) That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures. - no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
5) Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles). - no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
6) That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. - no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
No, obviously not, because there might be some other mechanism whereby CO2 could be released by natural sources--some sort of extraordinary period of intense volcanism, perhaps.
Could this mechanism, be say something like the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans due to increasing ocean heat, or is volcanism your only caveat? That is to say, if I found a rapid change in CO2 levels without a change in earth's orbit or solar output (say, 280-380ppm over 100 years) in the historical record, *without* an extraordinary period of volcanism, would that falsify your hypothesis? Or are leaving open the possibility that no matter what you observe, you can maintain your hypothesis by asserting that any deviation is due to some other natural source?
Ocean currents move heat around, so it is possible to get warming in one area at the expense of another.
It's quite more than that, actually - it's not just moving heat around, it can have a direct effect on how much heat is retained by the earth, and how much is released and how much is reflected. Now, that being said you could make the argument that the Late Eocene and present day had the same amount of heat within the bounds of the atmosphere down to the core of the earth, but today we have warmer waters and cooler atmosphere (i.e., the heat moved out of the atmosphere and into the oceans)...but then the same argument could be made for the total energy of the earth today as well - observed atmospheric warming could simply be an artifact of heat moving out of the oceans, as we see during periods of the ENSO/PDO cycles.
Energy can take many forms, but from basic thermodynamics, we know that it all ultimately must end up as heat.
That's not true at all. Heat is a very specific form of energy - energy can also end up as physical momentum (i.e., what temperature is a block of ice moving at 90mph, and what is its energy?). Things like hurricanes actually convert quite a bit of heat into kinetic energy, reducing temperatures dramatically.
So, obviously, observing short term fluctuations such as El Nino, which are in fact seen in global climate models, is not a challenge to the theory.
Sure it's a challenge - you have empirical evidence that cyclical ocean heat patterns drive atmospheric conditions. The theory of AGW depends on atmospheric conditions driving the ocean instead.
There is a widespread consensus that substantial long-term sea level rise will continue for centuries to come.
Consensus is not science:)
And the vast majority of scientists are saying the current climate change is caused by us.
Appeal to unnamed authorities. It only takes *one* scientist to show that something is wrong. The vast majority of doctors say that the obesity epidemic is caused by high-fat diets, when in fact it's caused by high carbohydrate ones.
Being in the majority is no particular honor in science:)
Obviously, there are some people who already live very close to the water line, for whom any increase in ocean level whatsoever will be a problem,
That's just not true. Tides come in and out every day, and tidal levels at various points next to the water line are incredibly different - the assertion that a.01mm rise in *average* global sea level will have anything to do with the experience of a natural harbor in North Carolina is ludicrous.
No, as a scientist, I do not base my judgements on faith, but on how well a hypothesis is able to make testable predictions and how well those predictions are borne out.
Put another way, if *any* of those list of say, 17 predictions had been incorrect, would you then admit that the whole basis for the AGW/CAGW hypothesis has been falsified? Be honest with yourself.
And I am even less by those who try to excuse their failing by the statistically illiterate insistence that their ideas are a "null hypothesis" and therefore exempt from the type of scrutiny to which real scientists subject their scientific hypotheses.
Both you and KeensMustard seem to have this projection problem - the argument you're making is *exactly* the critique being leveled at you. Why do you consider AGW/CAGW the null hypothesis? Why do you want to exempt that hypothesis from strict scrutiny? Why won't you make a falsifiable hypothesis statement you're willing to defend?
If you think I'm doing a bad job at doing so for the ideas you believe I'm trying to advocate, show me how you do it as a good example. "If I see and over the next years, my AGW theory is wrong" - expand as you wish.
If I had a casino, I'd love to have you for a customer.
And you as well:) You've walked into the casino and insisted that you've got a model that will let you beat the system. Things apparently are "unprecedented", and so you're able to make incredibly precise predictions about what the roulette wheel roll will be after 100 rolls from now:)
the projected increase in average temperature next year is much smaller than the variance of annual average temperature.
I'l take that one further - the project increase in average temperature over the next 50 - 100 years is much smaller than the natural variance of annual average temperature:)
No. It looks like the huge, rapid introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere without any change in the earth's orbit or solar output is without precedent, at least over the period of time for which we have good evidence.
Fair enough. So if I found a rapid change in CO2 levels without a change in the earth's orbit or solar output (say, 280ppm - 380ppm over 1000 years) in the historical record, you'd admit your hypothesis is falsified? Not saying I have that at my fingertips, but at least now you're talking about something that we can predict and test.
Like what? Ultimately, thermodynamics tells us that the earth's temperature must be determined by the rate at which the earth absorbs energy from the sun and the rate at which it radiates energy to space. Nobody has found any changes in factors that could affect these, aside from atmospheric CO2.
Well, I'll through out the Late Eocene for you - without a great difference in solar output or orbital variation, ocean currents (which carry orders of magnitude more heat content than our atmosphere) made a veritable temperate paradise out of Antarctica. Changes in ocean currents have led to the seasonality we currently experience at various latitudes.
We already have fairly good science on El Nino and La Nina dramatically affecting global average temperature, but that's driven by ocean heat, not atmospheric heat. Believing that on one hand the oceans determine our global average temperature over these various cycles, and on the other hand that it's the atmosphere that drives the ocean is odd, don't you think? It's like saying that my hand flushes the toilet, but sometimes, the toilet makes my hand work the flush lever:)
You've repeatedly been given an opportunity to explain precisely what you think is inaccurate, to provide an experimental proof of the fundamental flaw that you postulate. The only proof, apparently, is to ask me to engage in a thought experiment.
I think you're not quite understanding where your failure lies. The point of the thought experiment isn't for you to search your feelings, it's for you to realize that you've created what Popper refers to as "thousandfold experience", and that your reaction to scenario one thousand and one is a non-scientific one.
The *precise* thing that is wrong with your position is that you cannot state any observations of CO2 and temperature over any future (or past) time scale that would falsify your hypothesis.
Nobody is interested in playing a semantic game with you.
I'm not sure if you understand the semantics of the game you're playing:)
So again: what effect do you hypothesise changes the absorption properties in a molecule of CO2 and prevents if from absorbing radiation in the atmosphere in the same way that it does in, say, an experimental sample of the atmosphere?
I'm not asserting any hypothetical effects - I'm instructing you about the definition, meaning and utility of the null hypothesis (that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and average global temperature), and asking you to clearly state the falsifiable hypothesis you wish to defend. Now perhaps, you just don't have one to defend, and if you can admit that, great!
And to be clear, by way of proof, thought experiments, rhetoric, semantic gymnastics, references to midichlorians, the age of Aquarius, quotes from the Buddha DO NOT COUNT AS EMPIRICAL PROOF.
Neither do GCMs:) Now go do your work and come up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement and we can start talking about playing the science game:)
An implicit admission, on your part, that the modelling does account for natural climate cycles, as anybody with any knowledge of the IPCC papers would full well know.
The problem is that modeling asserts a level of knowledge over natural climate cycles that isn't justified...that is to say, there is no logical way that they've excluded natural climate cycles from their observations.
And you (and others) assert, without proof, that anthropogenic emissions are magically nullified by an unobserved process, and an identical rate of warming to that predicted is actually explained away as natural warming.
Nobody has asserted they're nullified - you're mistaking the argument "you don't know the truth" with the argument "you don't know the truth and I do." The null hypothesis is that we cannot blithely assert that there is a causal relationship between human CO2 and observed temperature changes. Any proposition that says there *is* a causal relationship must be held up to strict scrutiny, and we start that with a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement.
And as you are aware, adaptation will cost 5-10x more than mitigation - which is why mitigation is preferred.
Pure speculation. You have no idea what the adaptation costs will be in 50 years.
Put another way, what were the adaptation costs of the last 50 years, and how much would mitigation cost us in say, 1960? Be specific.
But as I, and several others, on several occasions have already pointed out to you, your understanding of the null hypothesis (and indeed, what a null hypothesis is) is incorrect - you cannot simply pick a hypothesis favourable to you, declare it "the null hypothesis" and expect the burden of proof to lie on others
Seriously, are you listening to yourself? You're projecting your failings on me - your understanding of the null hypothesis is mistaken, and your definition of the CO2 causes temperature change as the null hypothesis is a clever attempt to transfer the burden of proof. It sounds like you're arguing against yourself:)
Otherwise, I could declare "the null hypothesis is that everybody in the room owes me $50".
The null hypothesis is that there is no financial relationship between you and anyone else in the room. Any financial relationship, be it credit or debit, must be stated as a falsifiable hypothesis before it could be subject to the scientific method.
Please provide of of your assertion, bearing in mind that you have already admitted that Tyndall is correct - so don't contradict yourself.
Ice core records clearly show a lag of CO2 before temperature, on approximately 400-800 year scale. To falsify my hypothesis, that temperature change drives CO2, rather than the other way around, find any 400 year time scale where that doesn't fit. Speculating that we're at the very beginning of a cycle that will prove your point is simply speculation.
Please reference me saying the climate does not naturally change. Indeed, please reference any reputable scientist who says that the climate does not change naturally.
Well, the IPCC blames 50% or more of the warming of the past 50-100 years on human's - clearly excluding that warming from any natural climate change sources.
The real problem is with those people who assert that we need to "take action now" to prevent global warming in the future - because no matter what we do (heck, even if we're responsible for 50% of temp change over any arbitrary point in time), we're not going to be able to tailor our actions in such a way that prevents *anything* from happening. If the world is going to cool until 2050, nothing we do is going to stop that. If the world is going to warm until 2050, nothing we do is going to stop that.
So you think that the climate change observed over the last century is due to natural phenomena, and that simultaneous to that effect, another phenomena has nullified the expected increase in energy due to the increased concentrations of CO2.
No, I'm not making that claim. I'm asserting that the null hypothesis, i.e., CO2 does not have a causal correlation with global average temperature, is the most likely scenario. Asserting that the null hypothesis is incorrect is a novel assertion, and must be held to strict scrutiny. We start this process by coming up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding what causal effect we may believe CO2 has on global average temperature.
Thus far, you haven't started the process.
Your problem seems to be that you expect others to falsify the results for you.
I'm not asking for a specific *actual* falsification - I'm asking for a *falsifiable* hypothesis statement. I'm perfectly willing to entertain a falsifiable hypothesis statement that has yet to be tested, but if you cannot even conceive of observations that would falsify your hypothesis (as seems thus far), you're not doing science.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your assessment - and funnily enough, that's what drives me to demand a clear, unambiguous, falsifiable hypothesis statement someone is willing to defend. I had this thread with microbox recently where we dispensed with the strawman "anthropogenic CO2 causes no temperature changes" by stipulating that the simplest AGW hypothesis, that is that human CO2 will have some non-zero and positive effect on global average temperature, was both falsifiable and indeed most likely true.
We were never able to make it to the next step, where someone was willing to try and formulate a falsifiable hypothesis around say, "anthropogenic CO2 will cause X degrees of warming over Y years if released in Z amount", much less a corollary hypothesis stating "X degrees of warming over Y years will cause more harm than good to humanity". Frankly, I'm not sure it's even possible, but I'm willing to entertain the idea.
We've been stuck in the "define the null hypothesis" stage, as I think I've also been stuck with tgibbs. As I understand your position, there are models which a lot of expertise has been put into, and a lot of thought has been put into, and it is offensive to think that the model can be refuted without a better model put forth. My position is that while it is certainly unsatisfying not to have a better model to refute an existing one, we simply cannot assume hard work displaces the null hypothesis (specifically, of no casual relationship between CO2 and global average temperature).
Now, perhaps I haven't done a good job at explaining my position, but it's also possible that you simply cannot agree that the null hypothesis should be that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature - if that's true, then I understand your point of view, you understand mine, and we both understand what *basic* difference causes our different conclusions. As to how, or whether it is even possible to determine which one of us is right on this basic premise, now that's a real brain teaser :)
You forgot, we also get increased precipitation from global warming! It'll be warmcool and drywet everywhere! :)
Funny, Texas never had droughts before we started releasing CO2...
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/09/chatting_with_a_noaa_meteorolo.php
"The good news, Hoerling says, is that this isn't global warming. "This is not the new normal in terms of drought. Texas knows drought. Texas has been toughened on the anvil of droughts that have come and gone. This is not a climate change drought."
In regards to warming trend over the past 15 years, and how well models predicted it:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/08/more-evidence-that-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/06/new-paper-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/03/04/climate-model-predictions-and-what-happened/
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
You're missing the analogy. In order to find out how many pennies you have (man made forcings) and non-pennies you have (nickels, dimes and quarters) to make up your 85 cents, it doesn't *matter* what a candy bar costs - you need to be able to differentiate between the pennies and non-pennies.
You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings. Now play the science game and specify what observations would falsify your hypothesis.
You call it a problem, I call it critical thinking :) The Bible, or any book for that matter, is not immune to analysis or critique - just ask Bart Ehrman.
Even if I stipulate to God as being the head and ruler of the universe, that doesn't make him immune to moral critique. He, in his great wisdom, gave me the capacity to judge between right and wrong, and to abandon my sense of morality simply because he's more powerful than me seems like a waste of a valuable gift, don't you think?
Yup, he can send priests to rape babies, have civilians detained and tortured, and demand that fathers murder their own sons. He can't make me say that those things are moral though.
That sounds awfully simplistic, and falsified by even the most casual look at history. There have been many people who have believed in many different Gods, accepting some and denying others. As we sit and speak together, I'm sure you deny the divinity of Zeus, Hera, Zoaraster, Loki, Thor, Cthulu, and thousands of other Gods, at the same time you hew to your own version of God. You might even consider Lutherans and Mormons heretics, though they might insist that they believe in the same God you do. Throughout the tens if not hundreds of thousands of religions that have existed, surely there have been variations on what people have accepted and rejected from their Gods.
How do you know I'm not actually The Creator, and Your Creator, here to test you with slashdot comments? :)
I'm not sure if that has any biblical backing. God specifically talks about hardening Pharaoh's heart, and moreover, if God actually can tell the future (omniscience), then there is no such thing as free will. If you want to qualify that by saying God only gave some people free will, and God cannot tell the future, I'll allow it, though.
God has no principles by your definition. He can define anything any way he wants, and therefore justify ordering his humble servant to kill his only son on an altar. I'm not trying to say God is contradicting himself by ordering women and children killed, I'm saying that he's not *moral*.
Why is that? Do you never have the right to question your mother or father? If you raised slaves, and bred them as per your design, would they have no right to question you, since you created them?
What you're asserting here is simply that "creators" can be immoral, and nobody can question that.
Fair enough, but you could make the same case for the fall of the Thracians, or the Inca or the Maya or any number of conflicts before the industrial age.
Yes, climate change can cause conflict (and Jared Diamond does a great job showing examples in his book "Collapse"). Yes, we can expect more of it in the future, because just as climate changed 1000 years ago, it will continue to change for the next 1000 years.
Jumping from that to "climate is going to change more/worse because of human activity" is a stretch.
Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land. Global average temperature rise has been driven by higher lows, not lower highs (that is, the difference between the low temperature and high temperature has begun to shrink, with the lows coming up, driving up the overall average). At the most extreme scenario, if the earth became much like the Late Eocene, Antarctica would become a veritable temperate paradise viable for much more biodiversity, and the tropics (with all the plant growth that comes with it) would extend into the upper and lower latitudes.
Fun fact - the referenced article tends to tie periods of strife with global *cooling* periods.
"Results show that cooling from A.D. 1560–1660 caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century"
You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true. GCMs are programmed with the basic assumption that CO2 drives global average temperature, more specifically through assumed feedback effects on water vapor (which is a much stronger greenhouse gas). I welcome you to show me any existing GCM which does not assume this.
You're really stretching yourself thin here. The null hypothesis is the assertion that there is no relationship (causal or otherwise) between to things. It is not the "zero hypothesis".
Pray tell, what would the "zero hypothesis" of "smoking causes lung cancer" be? That there is no difference between the measurement of smoking and the measurement of lung cancer?
Until you can get over your aversion to understanding the null hypothesis here, you're not going to get very far in understanding the science.
Why, pray tell, are we obliged to act right now? What damage has say, the 0.32C anthropogenic component of warming over the past 50 years (giving credence to the at least 50% is anthropogenic trope) done? What benefit would we have had if the global average temperature was 0.32C *less* today?
Our information on climate isn't just imperfect, it's fatally flawed by the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis upon which to test our observations. The odds that warmists are right, and that if we don't dramatically increase the price of energy by abandoning cheap natural petroleum, we'll somehow have a disaster in 50 or 100 or even 200 years, is so incredibly small you probably couldn't even get Lloyds of London to insure it.
So, what was the cause of the Holocene Optimum and Medieval Warm Period? Be specific, since apparently if you can't specifically identify the cause, no cause must have existed, right? :)
More than that, show me a single GCM that can be run backward and reproduce the Holocene Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period.
Again, you're not fighting with a competing model here, you're competing with the null hypothesis that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature. Trying to put your model above strict scrutiny is clever, but not convincing.
You lie like a dog. Throughout this entire conversation, you have completely been unable to make any specific statement of what observation of CO2 and global average temperature, on any time scale, would falsify your hypothesis. Having a mathematical model that cannot hind cast such events as the MWP, or LIA, or Holocene optimum, much less forecast within any sort of error range, is no great feat.
Either specify what observations of CO2 and global average temperature would falsify your hypothesis, or admit that you're not doi
The expected warming trend for the past 15 years hasn't been there, period. You were open to the idea of a lower trend than predicted, for two solar cycles, would falsify your hypothesis. Let's wait another 9 years, and then talk.
False. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
Argument by "you first?" Really? If you can't quantify any damage that has occurred over the past 50 years due to .32C temperature rise, why should I believe that there's going to be damage in the next 50 years if we have .32C temperature rise?
I'm more than happy to admit both benefit and harm are pure speculation - are you?
Speculation. There are myriad natural forcings we don't have any reasonable quantification for (which is really part of the problem).
Okay, so we'll admit that "catastrophe" as measured by world wide cyclonic activity increase isn't going to happen because of increased average global temperature...I was trying to help you with some possible quantitative harms you could measure, but so far, I don't see any.
Really? Skeptical science? And a bunch of papers on regional effects rather than global ones? Really?
Look, until you're able to *quantify* on a global scale what you mean as harm, you've got nothing but hand waving there. Modeled catastrophes, particularly on a regional level, do not reflect reality on a global level.
Put another way, if you're going to assert that there is a 5.74% increase in heatwave deaths, and then only look at 1989-2000 and only at 50 cities, you're not going to get much credibility. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/19/some-facts-about-deaths-due-to-heat-waves/
"In an article entitled, “The impact of global warming on health and mortality,” published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note:
“Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
“From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves, according to Indur Goklany of the U.S. Department of the Interior,” Singer and Avery write. “Cold spells, in other words, are twice as dangerous to our health as hot weather.”"
Also see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/18/the-deadliest-us-natural-hazard-extreme-cold/
Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?
Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.
Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about .13C per decade...so a little over .5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?
Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up .32C in the past 50 years.
As an example, we could look at crop yields: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n9/feature.htm
Or, we could look at cyclone activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
I'm more than happy to entertain any other metrics you'd choose to use, but we need to be specific here.
So, you don't have a hypothesis of AGW or CAGW that you're trying to defend, and your argument with me is a purely devil's advocate exercise?
Fair enough.
No, I'm asserting you don't have a rational basis for your assumption of forcing from anthropogenic emissions.
From a comment at judithcurry.com http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/03/sceptical-about-scepticism/:
"This increased from 372.9 ppmv in 2002 to 390 ppmv in 2011.
According to IPCC the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity = 3.2C and the CO2/Temperature relationship is logarithmic
From 2002 to 2010, CO2 increased from 372.9 to 390 ppmv
372.9 / 390 = 1.0459
ln(1.0459) = 0.04484
ln(2) = 0.69315
dT(2xCO2) = 3.2C
dT(2002-2011 theo) = 3.2 * 0.04484 / 0.69315 = 0.2C
So we should have seen 0.2C warming, if the IPCC assumptions on CO2 climate sensitivity are correct..
But saw none"
Again, you're trying to be clever by dodging the null hypothesis. Asserting that CO2 acts with full laboratory force in the complex system of the world unless some other unicorn effect is identified in exactly the same magnitude, but opposite sign, is a trick, not a proof.
Think of the example of heat traveling through a solid, and how the complex system of the human body does not simply transfer heat from a left hand in hot water, to a right hand sitting in the air.
I'm simply extending your rationale to its final implication. You have asked about what the models fail to account for, implying that they account for everything. But let me give you a chance - what do *you* think the models fail to account for?
If you give me more than an empty suit to fill with straw, I'll argue against what you're willing to defend :)
So are you saying that you know every single variable, and that anything you haven't thought of must not exist? :)
Based on what, gut feel? :)
That's not the question - you cannot simply take a tinkertoy lab experiment, assume it applies to a complex system, and then demand specific explanations of the entire system in order to falsify the tinkertoy.
For example, we know, from basic physics, that if you place one end of a solid object into hot water, the heat will travel from one end to the other at a certain rate, depending on the material. Basic physics, completely incontrovertible, and replicated in the lab.
Now, place your left hand in a bucket of hot water, and tell me how soon your right hand will demonstrate the effects of that heat traveling across your body.
You can of course come up with all kinds of reasonable and rational explanations for this deviation from basic physics, but is it incumbent upon someone to identify the exact biological processes which counteract the transfer of heat?
No, you're still not quite understanding my point of view. I can stipulate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I can stipulate that CO2, from any source, will cause more warming if all other things are held constant. What you cannot assume is that a) you know exactly the magnitude of impact human CO2 has on atmospheric temperature, or b) that human CO2 is responsible for a particular magnitude of observed warming. The burden of proof is in the affirmative, and that is *your* side.
FWIW, here's a falsification of some basic GCM predictions:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
Which essentially is an admission that the underlying, basic assumption, that CO2 drives global average temperature, is not falsifiable in GCMs.
Now, how are you going to construct a falsifiable hypothesis that addresses the CO2 drives global average temperature assumption?
You are completely wrong, please, inform yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
"For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect."
Can you admit your error in your understanding of the Null Hypothesis, or do you insist that null hypotheses only mean "no change" or "zero difference"?
That's an awfully arbitrary limit to put on science :)
Which specific GCM do you believe that is true for? The conclusion that CO2 would result in an increase in temperature (and the magnitude of climate sensitivity to CO2) is a *basic assumption* of how these GCMs model the effect of CO2.
You could measure a hundred other factors, and still not have ruled out the thousands of others that are important. Considering the default to be "CO2 drives global average temperature" simply because you cannot determine the magnitudes of other factors is a tautology - you could pick *any* other factor, say, clouds, and assert that CO2 is one of those things that cannot explain things - it all depends on your basic assumptions.
If the base assumptions are incorrect, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Precautionary principle fallacy. You have no idea whether or not your prescribed mitigations are going to cause more harm than good, and it's arguable that we already know they will cause more harm than good. As a case example, see the adoption of low-fat diets from 1978, done as a precautionary measure against heart disease, and responsible for nearly 40 years of diabetes, heart disease, cancer and obesity.
Natural warming isn't magical, it's *natural*. Put another way, do you deny that natural warming happened in the past, without the benefit of humanity's existence and without a specified mechanism? Or can you explain every single climate change that ever happened in the past down to a specific mechanism?
If you want to follow the money, the warmist industry stands to face substantial costs if the CO2 to global average temperature link is either not accur
As Rumsfeld once said, unknown unknowns :)
The default assumption is that 100% of the observed warming is natural. Predictions to the contrary are novel, must be specific, and must be falsifiable.
I'll take that as "I Googled for it, couldn't find it, so I'll send you on the goose chase now" :) Cites or it didn't happen.
Even that default hypothesis doesn't serve your needs, though - simply asserting that a warming will happen, of some positive quantity no matter how small, doesn't get you very much. What worries would we have if increasing quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere caused +0.00001C warming?
But even besides that, you've completely assumed that CO2 is completely inert - no accounting at all for plants (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/plants-gobbling-up-co2-45-more-than-thought/), or any sort of other ways CO2 or the atmosphere can change. You've gone from the test tube, and insisted that you can now predict *the entire globe* :)
But hey, let me give you the benefit of the doubt here, and let you correct yourself if you meant something else - is the limit of your assertion, in terms of AGW, that human CO2 emissions must cause a positive global average temperature effect, no matter how small? If you're completely unwilling to put a magnitude on that effect, I'm more than happy to agree with you as to its falsifiability, and even truth. If you're insisting on a specific magnitude, please, be specific.
Oh, and btw, skepticalscience tropes that rely on a magical difference between the world seen in ice cores and the world now aren't convincing. If you can't find any period in the past where in a 400 year time scale, temperature lagged CO2, just admit it :)
The way that we scientifically verify something is to start off with a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then to ruthlessly try to falsify our hypothesis. We *look* for evidence that we're wrong.
If you want to convince us of the veracity of the AGW or CAGW hypothesis, start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement that you're willing to defend. Else, we've got no option than to fill the empty shirt with straw to argue against.
Tyndall's hypothesis is simple and testable - gases have different absorption spectrums. Asserting that on faith, from this finding alone, you can extrapolate to "humans releasing CO2 will cause measurable and catastrophic global warming" is ludicrous.
The problem with the models is that they make basic assumptions that are unfalsifiable, such as "CO2 drives global average temperature". If the models are scientific, they should have falsifiable hypotheses for *every* one of their assumptions...care to share that particular list with me for any GCM of your choice?
What, so if you agree that there are no unicorns, then you agree that this current warming phase is caused by anthropogenic emissions? The two have no relation to each other!
While cleverly trying to place AGW as the null hypothesis (by assuming it is true, and then asserting that it can only be falsified if a hypothetical mystery force is found to exactly counteract it), you're simply moving the pea under the thimble. Try again!
Really? How about clouds? From the IPCC:'
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-5-2.html
"In spite of this undeniable progress, the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain, and this uncertainty was cited as one of the key factors explaining the spread in model simulations of future climate for a given emission scenario. This cannot be regarded as a surprise: that the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to changing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must depend strongly on cloud feedbacks can be illustrated on the simplest theoretical grounds, using data that have been available for a long time."
How about the climate effect of butterflies? How about the climate effect of phytoplankton blooms? How about the climate effect of any number of invasive species?
I mean, really, you think the GCMs actually contain simulations of every last thing that can effect climate? Really?
More interesting notes on testability of GCMs:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/02/testing-testing-is-this-model-powered-up/
So, if your climate model predicts that one and one equals two, which is a testable prediction, we're supposed to then assume that the untestable prediction that at a specific CO2 level we will get a specific amount of warming over a specific time period that will cause catastrophe for mankind it the planet is true?
If your scientific model predicts something specific regarding increased human CO2 emissions, and the resultant average atmospheric temperature over a specific period of time, and gives us some error bars, what are you going to say when reality diverges from your predictions? Will you abandon your model entirely, or insist on a never ending stream of ad hoc special pleadings?
My point is this, and I'm not sure if you've quite understood it - GCM models which start with the assumption that CO2 drives global average temperature have no observations which could falsify their assumption that CO2 drives global average temperature. Sure, there are observations that could falsify their assumptions of say, cloud albedo, or radiative transfer properties of certain gases, but the big elephant in the room you're ignoring is that no matter how many minor falsifications are possible within a GCM, the big grand daddy of "CO2 drives temperature" is held sacrosanct, and all other features of the model are considered tweakable.
Prove me wrong by succinctly stating what observations of CO2 and global average temperature, over any time period you'd like to specify, would overturn the assumption that CO2 drive global average temperature.
You're completely misunderstanding the null hypothesis - it is not the "no change" hypothesis. Let's say you have a hypothesis "smoking causes lung cancer". The null hypothesis is not "there is no change in smoking" or "there is no change in lung cancer". The null hypothesis is "there is no causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer".
It's almost like you're saying it's *impossible* to have a null hypothesis for a changing climate - that it is *impossible* for climate science to actual be *science*.
The null hypothesis is that CO2 (or any other climate factor) does not have a causal relationship to global average temperature. It is not that "climate doesn't change" (heck, that doesn't even mention CO2, or any other factor at all!).
Let's go over your cite:
1) That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
- no mention of error bars, or which models failed to meet their error bars, nor any admission that warming could happen anyway
2) That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
- no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
3) That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
- no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
4) That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
- no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
5) Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
- no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
6) That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
- no indication that natural warming would not also have the same effect
7) The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/spencer-on-pinatubo-and-climate-sensitivity/
- only tells us we can be accurate in predicting the effect of a volcano, not that anthropogenic CO
Could this mechanism, be say something like the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans due to increasing ocean heat, or is volcanism your only caveat? That is to say, if I found a rapid change in CO2 levels without a change in earth's orbit or solar output (say, 280-380ppm over 100 years) in the historical record, *without* an extraordinary period of volcanism, would that falsify your hypothesis? Or are leaving open the possibility that no matter what you observe, you can maintain your hypothesis by asserting that any deviation is due to some other natural source?
It's quite more than that, actually - it's not just moving heat around, it can have a direct effect on how much heat is retained by the earth, and how much is released and how much is reflected. Now, that being said you could make the argument that the Late Eocene and present day had the same amount of heat within the bounds of the atmosphere down to the core of the earth, but today we have warmer waters and cooler atmosphere (i.e., the heat moved out of the atmosphere and into the oceans)...but then the same argument could be made for the total energy of the earth today as well - observed atmospheric warming could simply be an artifact of heat moving out of the oceans, as we see during periods of the ENSO/PDO cycles.
That's not true at all. Heat is a very specific form of energy - energy can also end up as physical momentum (i.e., what temperature is a block of ice moving at 90mph, and what is its energy?). Things like hurricanes actually convert quite a bit of heat into kinetic energy, reducing temperatures dramatically.
Sure it's a challenge - you have empirical evidence that cyclical ocean heat patterns drive atmospheric conditions. The theory of AGW depends on atmospheric conditions driving the ocean instead.
Consensus is not science :)
Appeal to unnamed authorities. It only takes *one* scientist to show that something is wrong. The vast majority of doctors say that the obesity epidemic is caused by high-fat diets, when in fact it's caused by high carbohydrate ones.
Being in the majority is no particular honor in science :)
That's just not true. Tides come in and out every day, and tidal levels at various points next to the water line are incredibly different - the assertion that a .01mm rise in *average* global sea level will have anything to do with the experience of a natural harbor in North Carolina is ludicrous.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/02/the-tides-they-are-a-changin/
Looking over your list of predictions, I'll note that none of them seem to predict a specific level of CO2 and a specific temperature :) Their most interesting prediction was Pinatubo, but the error bars on that were pretty off FWIW - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/29/prediction-is-hard-especially-of-the-future/
Put another way, if *any* of those list of say, 17 predictions had been incorrect, would you then admit that the whole basis for the AGW/CAGW hypothesis has been falsified? Be honest with yourself.
Both you and KeensMustard seem to have this projection problem - the argument you're making is *exactly* the critique being leveled at you. Why do you consider AGW/CAGW the null hypothesis? Why do you want to exempt that hypothesis from strict scrutiny? Why won't you make a falsifiable hypothesis statement you're willing to defend?
If you think I'm doing a bad job at doing so for the ideas you believe I'm trying to advocate, show me how you do it as a good example. "If I see and over the next years, my AGW theory is wrong" - expand as you wish.
And you as well :) You've walked into the casino and insisted that you've got a model that will let you beat the system. Things apparently are "unprecedented", and so you're able to make incredibly precise predictions about what the roulette wheel roll will be after 100 rolls from now :)
I'l take that one further - the project increase in average temperature over the next 50 - 100 years is much smaller than the natural variance of annual average temperature :)
Fair enough. So if I found a rapid change in CO2 levels without a change in the earth's orbit or solar output (say, 280ppm - 380ppm over 1000 years) in the historical record, you'd admit your hypothesis is falsified? Not saying I have that at my fingertips, but at least now you're talking about something that we can predict and test.
Well, I'll through out the Late Eocene for you - without a great difference in solar output or orbital variation, ocean currents (which carry orders of magnitude more heat content than our atmosphere) made a veritable temperate paradise out of Antarctica. Changes in ocean currents have led to the seasonality we currently experience at various latitudes.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Oceans_played_critical_role_in_ancient_global_cooling_999.html
We already have fairly good science on El Nino and La Nina dramatically affecting global average temperature, but that's driven by ocean heat, not atmospheric heat. Believing that on one hand the oceans determine our global average temperature over these various cycles, and on the other hand that it's the atmosphere that drives the ocean is odd, don't you think? It's like saying that my hand flushes the toilet, but sometimes, the toilet makes my hand work the flush lever :)
I think you're not quite understanding where your failure lies. The point of the thought experiment isn't for you to search your feelings, it's for you to realize that you've created what Popper refers to as "thousandfold experience", and that your reaction to scenario one thousand and one is a non-scientific one.
The *precise* thing that is wrong with your position is that you cannot state any observations of CO2 and temperature over any future (or past) time scale that would falsify your hypothesis.
I'm not sure if you understand the semantics of the game you're playing :)
I'm not asserting any hypothetical effects - I'm instructing you about the definition, meaning and utility of the null hypothesis (that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and average global temperature), and asking you to clearly state the falsifiable hypothesis you wish to defend. Now perhaps, you just don't have one to defend, and if you can admit that, great!
Neither do GCMs :) Now go do your work and come up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement and we can start talking about playing the science game :)
The problem is that modeling asserts a level of knowledge over natural climate cycles that isn't justified...that is to say, there is no logical way that they've excluded natural climate cycles from their observations.
Nobody has asserted they're nullified - you're mistaking the argument "you don't know the truth" with the argument "you don't know the truth and I do." The null hypothesis is that we cannot blithely assert that there is a causal relationship between human CO2 and observed temperature changes. Any proposition that says there *is* a causal relationship must be held up to strict scrutiny, and we start that with a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Pure speculation. You have no idea what the adaptation costs will be in 50 years.
Put another way, what were the adaptation costs of the last 50 years, and how much would mitigation cost us in say, 1960? Be specific.
Seriously, are you listening to yourself? You're projecting your failings on me - your understanding of the null hypothesis is mistaken, and your definition of the CO2 causes temperature change as the null hypothesis is a clever attempt to transfer the burden of proof. It sounds like you're arguing against yourself :)
The null hypothesis is that there is no financial relationship between you and anyone else in the room. Any financial relationship, be it credit or debit, must be stated as a falsifiable hypothesis before it could be subject to the scientific method.
Ice core records clearly show a lag of CO2 before temperature, on approximately 400-800 year scale. To falsify my hypothesis, that temperature change drives CO2, rather than the other way around, find any 400 year time scale where that doesn't fit. Speculating that we're at the very beginning of a cycle that will prove your point is simply speculation.
Well, the IPCC blames 50% or more of the warming of the past 50-100 years on human's - clearly excluding that warming from any natural climate change sources.
The real problem is with those people who assert that we need to "take action now" to prevent global warming in the future - because no matter what we do (heck, even if we're responsible for 50% of temp change over any arbitrary point in time), we're not going to be able to tailor our actions in such a way that prevents *anything* from happening. If the world is going to cool until 2050, nothing we do is going to stop that. If the world is going to warm until 2050, nothing we do is going to stop that.
No, I'm not making that claim. I'm asserting that the null hypothesis, i.e., CO2 does not have a causal correlation with global average temperature, is the most likely scenario. Asserting that the null hypothesis is incorrect is a novel assertion, and must be held to strict scrutiny. We start this process by coming up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding what causal effect we may believe CO2 has on global average temperature.
Thus far, you haven't started the process.
I'm not asking for a specific *actual* falsification - I'm asking for a *falsifiable* hypothesis statement. I'm perfectly willing to entertain a falsifiable hypothesis statement that has yet to be tested, but if you cannot even conceive of observations that would falsify your hypothesis (as seems thus far), you're not doing science.