Either show the global temperature is not rising or find a non-anthropogenic cause.
That's clever, but not convincing - the null hypothesis is that all observed climate changes are natural in origin.
Furthermore, isn't that confounded by the past 15 years of stalled temperatures but continually rising CO2? Oh wait, ad hoc special pleading to attribute the lack of warming to missing heat...or something, right?
The second you can concisely state an observation of CO2 and global average temperature, say, for next year, or even the next 10 years, or even the next 30 years, that would falsify your hypothesis, then we can start talking. Until then, you're relying on a universal explanatory power, which, as Popper points out so eloquently, is a *weakness* of a hypothesis: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Well, with 7 billion people, we certainly have more opportunity for unparalleled genius to solve vexing technological problems - if we only get an Einstein into position one in a billion times (not only birth, but circumstances of education and opportunity), we get to expect 7 of them nowadays!
I guess the question is, do you think that if the globe average temperature (which, BTW, is never experienced directly) is increased, we'll decrease from 7 billion to 5 billion? 1 billion? If there is a falsifiable hypothesis statement you wish to make regarding temperature increases and population declines when human population is over 5 billion, I'm more than happy to entertain it - but if we're going to do science, we can't simply cite single statistics and assume our position is proven.
I'll argue that that from an economic perspective, in every society that ever existed, increases in energy use improved well being. A cold environment requires more energy for bare survival than a hot environment (note population distributions at say, the tropics versus the poles - for both humans *and* animals *and* plants), and having surplus energy because it wasn't being used for heating means improved well being. Falsified by an example of a country which increased its energy use per capita, but did not experience economic growth, or by the discovery of a hidden cache of vibrant ecosystems teeming with life at the north or south pole.
"Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (Ts) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:
Ts = F
where is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and F is the radiative forcing.[5] A typical value of is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2."
Your claim started of with the statement, "The direct impact is this: Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2, And yes, measurements confirm it."
Except that the thing we measure is Ts, and that depends on *and* F, neither of which are measured directly. Lindzen pours cold water on 5.35 - btw, can you actually find a reference to how this was modeled? Curry seems to understand this 5.35 as calculated rather than measured: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/
"The result can be determined by fitting a regression line through the simulation results from radiative transfer models with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature. the use of this expression is mainly as an hueristic in the context of simple back of the envelope arguments."
Oh no. I know better than to try to prove anything to you. It cannot be done.
It certainly can't be done when you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement!:)
For falsifiable, all you have to show is that you can disprove it, which is has already been done.
I don't think you've shown that. You haven't specified any set of observations that would make you change your hypothesis. What you've cited are fairly uncontroversial physical constants, and then made the gigantic leap that their mere existence is sufficient to justify your hypothesis. I would go so far as to say that even if the spectral properties of CO2 were say, off by one nanometer to the right, that wouldn't falsify any rationally constructed AGW hypothesis. Heck, even if the CO2 emissions of humans were an order of magnitude less than they are, one could still make the ad hoc special pleading that these human CO2 molecules are distinctly different in isotope form, and therefore have an amplified effect (as is currently done with CO2 and H2O).
What I would deem sufficient as a starting point is an example of global CO2 observations and global average temperature observations that you would consider a falsification of your hypothesis if they were seen next year. If the hypothesis isn't strong enough to make that kind of claim, I'm happy to see the same statement made for the next five years, or even the next 30. If the hypothesis statement requires caveats about solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic ray activity, cloud activity, plant growth, and other variables, I expect those variables to be specified, and a clear falsifiable statement as to how attribution to those factors would be measured.
For the greater CAGW, I expect observations of the well being of humanity and the biosphere, taking into account both positives from warming and negatives from warming, and a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding what observations of humanity and the biosphere would tip the scale from negative to positive.
What I currently hear as the hypothesis of AGW is driven by computer model predictions, with large error bars, and hard coded results when discrepancies arise. A hypothesis which requires innumerable ad hoc special pleadings to have its explanatory power isn't convincing.
Mod parent up - the difference between the falsifiable hypotheses in question (or more to the point, the complete lack of falsifiability on one side) makes this like comparing Intelligent Design to Quantum Mechanics (and for those paying close attention, AGW has the hallmarks of ID, not QM).
it is a problem we need to solve no matter the cause
You start with the unsupportable assumption that a warmer world is worse for humanity or the biosphere. Historical evidence shows clearly expansions of humanity and ecosystems during warmer periods, even periods *much* warmer than today (for example, the Late Eocene with near tropical temperatures in Antarctica).
How about we do this - let's come up with a falsifiable hypothesis regarding "a warm world is more dangerous for humanity". What observations, either past, present or future, could make you change your mind?
A theory can be falsified by showing a necessary (if insufficient) factor is missing.
But you haven't listed all the necessary factors yet, nor specified what you mean by AGW (by specifying those factors).
Perhaps you're only asserting the weakest form of AGW - that humans (like all other plants, animals, fungi, and anything that can displace a single molecule of atmosphere), have a net positive effect on global average temperature, however small it may be. This weak hypothesis could be falsified by having an increased number of humans (and therefore human impact on the environment), but falling temperatures - trivially observed during any period of cooling during the existence of humanity. Of course, even with such observations, one could make the claim that some other X factor confounded our data.
Perhaps you're asserting a weak CO2 based form of AGW - that human CO2 (like all other animal CO2), has a positive effect on global average temperature, however small it may be. This gets confounded though by other cooling activity that humans and other animals might have, be it aerosols, or the flap of a butterfly's wing's that create a hurricane that converts heat into physical motion. Very difficult to discern whether or not a lack of warming (say, for the last 15 years) is due to the hypothesis about CO2 being wrong, or about confounding variables (hence the perpetual ad hoc special pleadings).
Perhaps you're asserting a strong CO2 based form of AGW - that human CO2 (as opposed to all other animal CO2), has not only a positive effect on global average temperature, but this effect trumps natural variations. This gets refuted by 15 years of no warming, but ever increasing CO2 emissions by humanity, unless, of course, you invoke more ad hoc special pleadings.
I put these straw men forward not because I'm trying to put words in your mouth, but because you've thus far failed to even *try* to state your belief as a falsifiable hypothesis.
Are you/really/ going to argue the AGW is not falsifiable? All you have to do is show that, for example, warming can be explained by solar changes, or that CO2 has too little sensitivity as a forcing factor, or one of a hundred things really.
Yes, I am going to argue AGW is not falsifiable until you put forth a falsifiable hypothesis statement that is *sufficient* to make it so. Asking for warming to be explained by solar changes is redefining the null hypothesis. CO2 sensitivity is modeled in such a way that any data that doesn't match predictions is explained away by some ad hoc special pleading. As for the other hundred things, I'll assert again that you're listing out things that may be *necessary* for some unspecified hypothesis of AGW, but are not *sufficient*.
The trick here, as Popper stated so well, is that an emotionally compelling theory which can explain any observation in terms of its own framework, is filled with confirmations, and distinctly lacking in any potential falsifiability. In a system as complex as climate, I could simply assert a sensitivity for CO2, and anytime I didn't see data that backed that up, I'd come up with an ad hoc special pleading to explain it away. Deviations could be explained by any number of unknown factors, without requiring any particular proof that the attribution of the deviation is true. The model fits because we *make* it fit, not because it made an innovative prediction that had a real risk of failure.
I don't think there is any point discussing anything else unless we can agree on this super, super-simple idea.
I think you're right - until we can construct a sufficiently complete, falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, I'm arguing against straw men, and you're avoiding the defense of anything specific.
btw, can you pick a single thing out of the AR4 that is wrong?
You have this the wrong way around. If you show/any/ of the aforementioned, then AGW evaoporates. Therefore, AGW is falsifiable.
You're mistaken. There are dozens of things, trivially true, that are *necessary* for AGW, but not *sufficient*. For example:
1) the world must exist; 2) humans must exist; 3) CO2 must exist; 4) the sun must exist; 5) thermometers must exist.
But just because we have a world, humans, CO2, the sun, and thermometers *obviously* doesn't prove that AGW is true. You cannot simply list a bunch of incontrovertible facts, then assert that if they are true, then your much less incontrovertible hypothesis must be true.
I do not believe that you have read the IPCC report. It is *huge*. Nobody just reads it.
Well, as an atheist I've made it a point to read the Quran, KJV, NIV, Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon cover to cover - reading IPCC AR4 cover to cover seemed like the appropriate thing to do as well.
By analogy, the theory of evolution would be disproved by finding human fossils that are billions of years old.
Yup, evolution is falsifiable - a rabbit in the cambrian would do just as well as a human fossil billions of years old. AGW, on the other hand, offers no such falsifiability. To convert your assertion of falsifiability from AGW to evolution would be like saying, "prove humans don't have skulls, or a pancreas, and you'll disprove evolution". The link from *fact* to hypothesis must be held to strict scrutiny.
Your time range is too narrow -- there would have to be a *huge* divergence between CO2 and temperature to cast doubt in just 20 years of data
How huge? I'm more than happy to hear of any 30 year range predictions from say, 1980 regarding 2010 - do you have any cite for that? In 1980, were there any possible 2010 observations that would have falsified the hypothesis?
Discover that CO2 doesn't absorb energy. Discover that atmospheric CO2 is natural. Discover alternative mechanism to explain warming.
The first two are necessary for your hypothesis, but not sufficient. The third is asking to prove a negative (essentially trying to redefine the null hypothesis), which is creative, but not convincing.
As for knowing if you are in denial or not -- read something you don't want to (say, the IPCC report), and watch your mind. If you feel negativity, then that is your cognitive systems being screwed with by denial. If you cannot read it, then you are over your head.
Do you feel negativity when you read Spencer, or McIntyre, or wattsupwiththat.com?:)
FWIW, I've read the IPCC report, and didn't feel any negativity, only a creeping suspicion that the very careful caveats made by the scientists were regularly ignored by those pushing the policy sections - much like the complaint on Spencer's latest is that it was oversold by press releases:)
There is a game you can play -- pick a single point in the AGW argument that you think is weak (or an event in the AGW story).
Sure, the single point which is weakest is the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis. Every event can be explained with an ad hoc special pleading, no matter how far it deviates from any model.
"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.""
Put another way, pretend we went back in time to 1990. What observation of CO2 levels and global average temperature in the year 2010 would have falsified the hypothesis of AGW? If you need more factors besides CO2 levels and global average temperature, let's be specific about that those other factors would be.
If we can't come up with any observations of real world CO2, global average temperature, and whatever other variables you wish to specify, that would cause you to reconsider your beliefs, you're not really playing the game of science.
It has nothing to do with the fact that we can measure the direct impact of carbon in the atmosphere.
You can measure the theoretical impact of various levels of CO2, but I highly doubt you can directly measure its impact given all of the other confounding variables. You claim more knowledge that is possible.
Which is why you (and by that I mean you) can never know anything, and will never be able to prove what (if any) impact volcanoes have on the climate (even though the answer is obvious to the rest of us)
I asserted a falsifiable hypothesis regarding volcanoes being a forcing or a feedback. Although you objected to my statement, you've offered no alternative falsifiable hypothesis. Why not? Are you simply intuiting the "obvious" answer? Taking it on faith?
yet he continues to publish rubbish which any first year meteorology student or first year mathematics student can demoloish.
Care to be more specific? Can you (assuming you're more than a first year meteorology or mathematics student), demonstrate a single error in Spencer's work?
Yes I know that Watts made fundamental errors and misrepresented with malice of forethought Dessler's comments in the poste you quote.
Care to be more specific? Exactly what fundamental errors are you talking about?
Yes I Know that Watts faked photos on his surface stations web site.
Simply have a list of falsifiable hypotheses that can be logically strung together does not mean you have a falsifiable hypothesis of AGW - each link in the chain must be falsifiable as well. There are many basic and easily stated falsifiable hypotheses that *must* be true for AGW to be true (such as the existence of the earth, the existence of man, and the existence of a gas called CO2), but there is no clear superset of falsifiable hypotheses that would be *sufficient* for AGW to be true.
BTW, C in CAGW = Catastrophic.
The real question is: can be afford to be wrong?
That sword cuts both ways. Can we afford to engage in a massive decarbonization of our society, if such a path will cause more death, doom, destruction and despair for humanity and the planet? The precautionary principle is particularly dangerous when we blindly assume that our prescription for the problem has no drawbacks.
Case in point - low fat diets. Ancel Keys (may he rot in hell) managed to convince the western world that fat intake caused heart disease, and pushed for the reduction of fat in the diet beginning in 1978 with McGovern's nutrition commission. The consequence? Increased carbohydrate intake, which raises blood sugar, causes chronically elevated insulin levels, and has created epidemics of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases. Ancel Keys was so worried about saving the world from the evil he saw in fat, he completely ignored the possibility that his admonition to change our diets could harm us.
It's intelligent designers vs. people who understand logic, reason and science, many of whom are religious.
The problem is that the AGW and CAGW folk have more in common with "intelligent designers" than even the most devout Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or any other religious scientists.
Neither AGW/CAGW, nor ID have clear falsifiable hypothesis statements.
Then can't the same be said about "deniers" of AGW? None of them actually deny that humans cannot have any effect on climate, they simply believe that any effect is much smaller than natural causes.
It would if all a CAGW believer did was jump to emotionally convenient conclusions.
But really, that's what happens. I would be willing to be that an overwhelming majority of CAGW believers come to their position because they are comforted by the emotional impacts of the policy implications of their beliefs. It is emotionally convenient to believe in CAGW if you think the world is moving in the wrong direction, and needs to be controlled by strong collective action by government. It is emotionally convenient to believe in CAGW if you see the idea of capitalism and free markets as destructive forces that need to be reined in. It is emotionally convenient to believe in CAGW if you cannot stand the idea of facing a world that humanity cannot control.
Given your academic background on the psychological mechanisms of denial, how would you know if you weren't the one in denial?:) If the person doing it is *you*, and you cannot really tell, and your unconscious mechanisms are erasing your memory of anything inconsistent with your own intellectual supremacy, well things get awfully interesting, don't they:)
I'd argue that the way to get around denial is to rigidly adhere to the scientific method, and start off with a clear statement of a falsifiable hypothesis:)
Roy Spencer's arguments are taken seriously because he's doing serious science on climate. The problem is that his position isn't the politically correct one, and so his ideological opponents never really/listen/ to him.
So far there is a strong preponderance of evidence that they cannot, and that human-created emissions can.
A strong preponderance of evidence is not science. Astrology has a large body of confirming evidence, with many people fitting neatly into the horoscope personality types.
I have no faith in somebody's intellectual capability if they are willing to throw reason out the window because it challenges their beliefs. Particularly if that person is a scientist.
This is exactly what drives me batty about AGW and CAGW scientists who cannot even begin the scientific process by clearly stating a falsifiable hypothesis. If you can clearly specify what observations would cause a change in your beliefs, you're doing science. If you can't even imagine any observations that would cause a change in your beliefs, you're not doing science.
Warmer? AGW. Colder? AGW. More floods? AGW. More drought? AGW. Even observations that on their face would be a flat out contradiction (like CO2 changes lagging temperature changes in ice cores, or CO2 rising for 15 years while temperatures didn't), are instantly explained with ad hoc special pleadings.
The irony here is that those people that favor creationism are actually acting as stalwart defenders of the scientific method when it comes to the whole AGW/CAGW topic.
Yup. You made two contradictory statements in adjacent posts.
That's exactly the misunderstanding you had I was trying to help you with - looks like I haven't done a very good job of communicating your error to you clearly.
Nothing can be known because there is always a chance that some unknown is the only correct explanation.
Almost, but not quite - nothing can be deterministically known about non-deterministic systems. Simply asserting an explanation that always works (i.e., CO2 did it, or God did it) and that can never be falsified is pseudo-science at best.
No, they needed to address the existing evidence which contradicted their work.
Sounds like a double standard - there's lots of existing evidence against the hockey stick, or various multi-meter sea level rise predictions, but nobody has expected people writing papers with the warmist point of view to fully address existing critiques to their work.
If there is strong support for a hypothesis "A" and you write a paper saying "not-A", it needs to contain some explanation for why all those previous papers were wrong and you're right
Wasn't that the entire *point* of Spencer's paper? He was challenging hypothesis "A" *with* his paper.
How would you falsify the hypothesis that adaptation is cheaper than mitigation?
Well, at the simplest level, I'd look for comparative societies in the past - but the problem in regards to CO2 is that we have no confidence, whatsoever, that mitigation is even possible. So the *first* thing I'd have to come up with is a falsifiable hypothesis that mitigation is *possible*.
How would you falsify the hypothesis that mitigation is even possible?
If you were living in the projected path of a hurricane, would you demand a lab experiment to show that it was going to hit before agreeing to evacuate?
Of course not. But if I was living in an area that experienced hurricanes, and someone demanded that I plan to evacuate ten years from now in July for two weeks, I'd demand a falsifiable hypothesis showing this kind of long term planning is necessary or accurate, or, I'd just wait for an actual storm with an actual predicted track was being observed by our satellites.
"It is likely that the relatively poor Southern Ocean simulation will influence the transient climate response to increasing greenhouse gases by affecting the oceanic heat uptake. When forced by increases in radiative forcing, models with too little Southern Ocean mixing will probably underestimate the ocean heat uptake; models with too much mixing will likely exaggerate it. These errors in oceanic heat uptake will also have a large impact on the reliability of the sea level rise projections. See Chapter 10 for more discussion of this subject."
Sounds like they have very little idea as to where sea level is going to be in 200 years, at any point in the globe.
Yes, we both agree that climate's not weather and that long-term regional/global climate models don't make accurate local weather predictions. Neither do local weather models make long-term global climate predictions.
What I think we disagree on, and please correct me if I've misunderstood you, is that *weather* matters to humans, *climate* does not. A human never experiences the average global temperature, or even "climate" - they experience *weather*. In the same way, phone numbers are used by humans, but average phone numbers, either for geographic areas, or averaged for a family over time, are *not* usable (or even useful).
so while (say) a 1m sea-level rise might not seem like much, it's going to vastly increase the frequency of catastrophic events -- for instance, your hundred-year floods may now be ten-year floods.
That's an assertion, not a fact. What kind of falsifiable hypothesis would you put forward regarding frequency of catastrophic events?
I'm not sure how to reconcile your statements that
1) Carbon must be either a forcing or a feedback and
2) That some carbon is released by us and other carbon is released as a feedback.
Excellent question, I can see where you're getting tripped up. You're assuming that since we emit CO2, it *must* always be a forcing, or at the very least, any CO2 we emit *must* be a forcing (and a positive forcing).
The problem you run into, then is that you've got other CO2 "forcings" (and feedbacks) to deal with, and not all of them are positive. Other animals emit CO2, so I figure you'd count that CO2 as a "forcing". The ocean emits CO2, but my bet is that you'd judge that to be a feedback. Plants absorb CO2, so I figure you'll count that as a negative forcing.
I suppose the pertinent question is, "can we discern the forcing effect of X tons of CO2 (regardless of source)". If you've got a tiny forcing effect of CO2, it becomes noise in the background.
I remember a rather comical point you were trying to make some time back where you expressed incredulity that carbon could some how (magically - as you put it) change from one to the other.
It is comical to think that CO2 is only a feedback pre-1850, and magically becomes only a forcing post-1850. You can possibly make the case for a change in forcing/feedback behavior of CO2 when you talk about the saturation of wavelengths, but again, that doesn't prejudge its activity based on its source, simply on its concentration. The CO2/temperature lag in ice cores show that CO2 *follows* temperature. Understanding the millions of years where this relationship holds gives us a great insight as to what the cause and what the effect is. Magically saying that simply because humans got involved, CO2 started behaving differently, is an unfalsifiable assertion.
I will only say that there is no way to prove this in a manner that would satisfy you if you did not like the answer.
So determining whether or not volcanic activity is a climate forcing or a climate feedback is scientifically unknowable. Got it:)
So if even a laboratory is insufficient because of a loss of control over a bunch of variables, how can you *possibly* entertain the idea that the even *more* chaotic real world environment is going to be more predictable?:)
Slashdot Mirror
That's clever, but not convincing - the null hypothesis is that all observed climate changes are natural in origin.
Furthermore, isn't that confounded by the past 15 years of stalled temperatures but continually rising CO2? Oh wait, ad hoc special pleading to attribute the lack of warming to missing heat...or something, right?
The second you can concisely state an observation of CO2 and global average temperature, say, for next year, or even the next 10 years, or even the next 30 years, that would falsify your hypothesis, then we can start talking. Until then, you're relying on a universal explanatory power, which, as Popper points out so eloquently, is a *weakness* of a hypothesis: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Well, with 7 billion people, we certainly have more opportunity for unparalleled genius to solve vexing technological problems - if we only get an Einstein into position one in a billion times (not only birth, but circumstances of education and opportunity), we get to expect 7 of them nowadays!
I guess the question is, do you think that if the globe average temperature (which, BTW, is never experienced directly) is increased, we'll decrease from 7 billion to 5 billion? 1 billion? If there is a falsifiable hypothesis statement you wish to make regarding temperature increases and population declines when human population is over 5 billion, I'm more than happy to entertain it - but if we're going to do science, we can't simply cite single statistics and assume our position is proven.
I'll argue that that from an economic perspective, in every society that ever existed, increases in energy use improved well being. A cold environment requires more energy for bare survival than a hot environment (note population distributions at say, the tropics versus the poles - for both humans *and* animals *and* plants), and having surplus energy because it wasn't being used for heating means improved well being. Falsified by an example of a country which increased its energy use per capita, but did not experience economic growth, or by the discovery of a hidden cache of vibrant ecosystems teeming with life at the north or south pole.
Sigh. Back to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
"Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (Ts) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:
Ts = F
where is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and F is the radiative forcing.[5] A typical value of is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2."
Your claim started of with the statement, "The direct impact is this: Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2, And yes, measurements confirm it."
Except that the thing we measure is Ts, and that depends on *and* F, neither of which are measured directly. Lindzen pours cold water on 5.35 - btw, can you actually find a reference to how this was modeled? Curry seems to understand this 5.35 as calculated rather than measured: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/
"The result can be determined by fitting a regression line through the simulation results from radiative transfer models with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature. the use of this expression is mainly as an hueristic in the context of simple back of the envelope arguments."
It certainly can't be done when you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement! :)
I don't think you've shown that. You haven't specified any set of observations that would make you change your hypothesis. What you've cited are fairly uncontroversial physical constants, and then made the gigantic leap that their mere existence is sufficient to justify your hypothesis. I would go so far as to say that even if the spectral properties of CO2 were say, off by one nanometer to the right, that wouldn't falsify any rationally constructed AGW hypothesis. Heck, even if the CO2 emissions of humans were an order of magnitude less than they are, one could still make the ad hoc special pleading that these human CO2 molecules are distinctly different in isotope form, and therefore have an amplified effect (as is currently done with CO2 and H2O).
I refer again to Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
What I would deem sufficient as a starting point is an example of global CO2 observations and global average temperature observations that you would consider a falsification of your hypothesis if they were seen next year. If the hypothesis isn't strong enough to make that kind of claim, I'm happy to see the same statement made for the next five years, or even the next 30. If the hypothesis statement requires caveats about solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic ray activity, cloud activity, plant growth, and other variables, I expect those variables to be specified, and a clear falsifiable statement as to how attribution to those factors would be measured.
For the greater CAGW, I expect observations of the well being of humanity and the biosphere, taking into account both positives from warming and negatives from warming, and a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement regarding what observations of humanity and the biosphere would tip the scale from negative to positive.
What I currently hear as the hypothesis of AGW is driven by computer model predictions, with large error bars, and hard coded results when discrepancies arise. A hypothesis which requires innumerable ad hoc special pleadings to have its explanatory power isn't convincing.
Mod parent up - the difference between the falsifiable hypotheses in question (or more to the point, the complete lack of falsifiability on one side) makes this like comparing Intelligent Design to Quantum Mechanics (and for those paying close attention, AGW has the hallmarks of ID, not QM).
You start with the unsupportable assumption that a warmer world is worse for humanity or the biosphere. Historical evidence shows clearly expansions of humanity and ecosystems during warmer periods, even periods *much* warmer than today (for example, the Late Eocene with near tropical temperatures in Antarctica).
How about we do this - let's come up with a falsifiable hypothesis regarding "a warm world is more dangerous for humanity". What observations, either past, present or future, could make you change your mind?
Overwhelming verification and agreement are not signs of a successful scientific hypothesis: see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
A successful scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, and there are ruthless, unsuccessful attempts to look for those falsifications.
Evolution can be falsified by finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian. How would you falsify AGW?
No, they don't - it's dubiously calculated from spectral properties that are measured:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/
If Lindzen is correct that sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling of CO2, the corresponding change in forcing should be
delta F = (1.2)(delta T) = .84 W/m2 = 1.2*ln(2)
thus the “IPCC formula” “should be” approx.
delta F = 1.2*ln(C/Co)
A far cry from the current “IPCC formula” of delta F = 5.35*ln(C/Co)
Theory, meet reality :)
You keep saying I'm wrong, and then dodge showing me what you think is *right*. I'll try again after I see you try at least once :)
But you haven't listed all the necessary factors yet, nor specified what you mean by AGW (by specifying those factors).
Perhaps you're only asserting the weakest form of AGW - that humans (like all other plants, animals, fungi, and anything that can displace a single molecule of atmosphere), have a net positive effect on global average temperature, however small it may be. This weak hypothesis could be falsified by having an increased number of humans (and therefore human impact on the environment), but falling temperatures - trivially observed during any period of cooling during the existence of humanity. Of course, even with such observations, one could make the claim that some other X factor confounded our data.
Perhaps you're asserting a weak CO2 based form of AGW - that human CO2 (like all other animal CO2), has a positive effect on global average temperature, however small it may be. This gets confounded though by other cooling activity that humans and other animals might have, be it aerosols, or the flap of a butterfly's wing's that create a hurricane that converts heat into physical motion. Very difficult to discern whether or not a lack of warming (say, for the last 15 years) is due to the hypothesis about CO2 being wrong, or about confounding variables (hence the perpetual ad hoc special pleadings).
Perhaps you're asserting a strong CO2 based form of AGW - that human CO2 (as opposed to all other animal CO2), has not only a positive effect on global average temperature, but this effect trumps natural variations. This gets refuted by 15 years of no warming, but ever increasing CO2 emissions by humanity, unless, of course, you invoke more ad hoc special pleadings.
I put these straw men forward not because I'm trying to put words in your mouth, but because you've thus far failed to even *try* to state your belief as a falsifiable hypothesis.
Yes, I am going to argue AGW is not falsifiable until you put forth a falsifiable hypothesis statement that is *sufficient* to make it so. Asking for warming to be explained by solar changes is redefining the null hypothesis. CO2 sensitivity is modeled in such a way that any data that doesn't match predictions is explained away by some ad hoc special pleading. As for the other hundred things, I'll assert again that you're listing out things that may be *necessary* for some unspecified hypothesis of AGW, but are not *sufficient*.
The trick here, as Popper stated so well, is that an emotionally compelling theory which can explain any observation in terms of its own framework, is filled with confirmations, and distinctly lacking in any potential falsifiability. In a system as complex as climate, I could simply assert a sensitivity for CO2, and anytime I didn't see data that backed that up, I'd come up with an ad hoc special pleading to explain it away. Deviations could be explained by any number of unknown factors, without requiring any particular proof that the attribution of the deviation is true. The model fits because we *make* it fit, not because it made an innovative prediction that had a real risk of failure.
I think you're right - until we can construct a sufficiently complete, falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, I'm arguing against straw men, and you're avoiding the defense of anything specific.
Sure:
You're mistaken. There are dozens of things, trivially true, that are *necessary* for AGW, but not *sufficient*. For example:
1) the world must exist;
2) humans must exist;
3) CO2 must exist;
4) the sun must exist;
5) thermometers must exist.
But just because we have a world, humans, CO2, the sun, and thermometers *obviously* doesn't prove that AGW is true. You cannot simply list a bunch of incontrovertible facts, then assert that if they are true, then your much less incontrovertible hypothesis must be true.
Well, as an atheist I've made it a point to read the Quran, KJV, NIV, Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon cover to cover - reading IPCC AR4 cover to cover seemed like the appropriate thing to do as well.
Yup, evolution is falsifiable - a rabbit in the cambrian would do just as well as a human fossil billions of years old. AGW, on the other hand, offers no such falsifiability. To convert your assertion of falsifiability from AGW to evolution would be like saying, "prove humans don't have skulls, or a pancreas, and you'll disprove evolution". The link from *fact* to hypothesis must be held to strict scrutiny.
How huge? I'm more than happy to hear of any 30 year range predictions from say, 1980 regarding 2010 - do you have any cite for that? In 1980, were there any possible 2010 observations that would have falsified the hypothesis?
The first two are necessary for your hypothesis, but not sufficient. The third is asking to prove a negative (essentially trying to redefine the null hypothesis), which is creative, but not convincing.
Do you feel negativity when you read Spencer, or McIntyre, or wattsupwiththat.com? :)
FWIW, I've read the IPCC report, and didn't feel any negativity, only a creeping suspicion that the very careful caveats made by the scientists were regularly ignored by those pushing the policy sections - much like the complaint on Spencer's latest is that it was oversold by press releases :)
Sure, the single point which is weakest is the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis. Every event can be explained with an ad hoc special pleading, no matter how far it deviates from any model.
Obligatory popper ref: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.""
Put another way, pretend we went back in time to 1990. What observation of CO2 levels and global average temperature in the year 2010 would have falsified the hypothesis of AGW? If you need more factors besides CO2 levels and global average temperature, let's be specific about that those other factors would be.
If we can't come up with any observations of real world CO2, global average temperature, and whatever other variables you wish to specify, that would cause you to reconsider your beliefs, you're not really playing the game of science.
You can measure the theoretical impact of various levels of CO2, but I highly doubt you can directly measure its impact given all of the other confounding variables. You claim more knowledge that is possible.
I asserted a falsifiable hypothesis regarding volcanoes being a forcing or a feedback. Although you objected to my statement, you've offered no alternative falsifiable hypothesis. Why not? Are you simply intuiting the "obvious" answer? Taking it on faith?
Care to be more specific? Can you (assuming you're more than a first year meteorology or mathematics student), demonstrate a single error in Spencer's work?
Care to be more specific? Exactly what fundamental errors are you talking about?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Simply have a list of falsifiable hypotheses that can be logically strung together does not mean you have a falsifiable hypothesis of AGW - each link in the chain must be falsifiable as well. There are many basic and easily stated falsifiable hypotheses that *must* be true for AGW to be true (such as the existence of the earth, the existence of man, and the existence of a gas called CO2), but there is no clear superset of falsifiable hypotheses that would be *sufficient* for AGW to be true.
BTW, C in CAGW = Catastrophic.
That sword cuts both ways. Can we afford to engage in a massive decarbonization of our society, if such a path will cause more death, doom, destruction and despair for humanity and the planet? The precautionary principle is particularly dangerous when we blindly assume that our prescription for the problem has no drawbacks.
Case in point - low fat diets. Ancel Keys (may he rot in hell) managed to convince the western world that fat intake caused heart disease, and pushed for the reduction of fat in the diet beginning in 1978 with McGovern's nutrition commission. The consequence? Increased carbohydrate intake, which raises blood sugar, causes chronically elevated insulin levels, and has created epidemics of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases. Ancel Keys was so worried about saving the world from the evil he saw in fat, he completely ignored the possibility that his admonition to change our diets could harm us.
The problem is that the AGW and CAGW folk have more in common with "intelligent designers" than even the most devout Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or any other religious scientists.
Neither AGW/CAGW, nor ID have clear falsifiable hypothesis statements.
Then can't the same be said about "deniers" of AGW? None of them actually deny that humans cannot have any effect on climate, they simply believe that any effect is much smaller than natural causes.
But really, that's what happens. I would be willing to be that an overwhelming majority of CAGW believers come to their position because they are comforted by the emotional impacts of the policy implications of their beliefs. It is emotionally convenient to believe in CAGW if you think the world is moving in the wrong direction, and needs to be controlled by strong collective action by government. It is emotionally convenient to believe in CAGW if you see the idea of capitalism and free markets as destructive forces that need to be reined in. It is emotionally convenient to believe in CAGW if you cannot stand the idea of facing a world that humanity cannot control.
Given your academic background on the psychological mechanisms of denial, how would you know if you weren't the one in denial? :) If the person doing it is *you*, and you cannot really tell, and your unconscious mechanisms are erasing your memory of anything inconsistent with your own intellectual supremacy, well things get awfully interesting, don't they :)
I'd argue that the way to get around denial is to rigidly adhere to the scientific method, and start off with a clear statement of a falsifiable hypothesis :)
Roy Spencer's arguments are taken seriously because he's doing serious science on climate. The problem is that his position isn't the politically correct one, and so his ideological opponents never really /listen/ to him.
Try reading http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/07/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/ The RealClimate response is so full of holes, it's hard to take seriously :)
A strong preponderance of evidence is not science. Astrology has a large body of confirming evidence, with many people fitting neatly into the horoscope personality types.
As Popper pointed out, a hypothesis isn't strengthened because more confirming evidence is shown, it's strengthened when falsification is sought out and not found. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
This is exactly what drives me batty about AGW and CAGW scientists who cannot even begin the scientific process by clearly stating a falsifiable hypothesis. If you can clearly specify what observations would cause a change in your beliefs, you're doing science. If you can't even imagine any observations that would cause a change in your beliefs, you're not doing science.
Warmer? AGW. Colder? AGW. More floods? AGW. More drought? AGW. Even observations that on their face would be a flat out contradiction (like CO2 changes lagging temperature changes in ice cores, or CO2 rising for 15 years while temperatures didn't), are instantly explained with ad hoc special pleadings.
The irony here is that those people that favor creationism are actually acting as stalwart defenders of the scientific method when it comes to the whole AGW/CAGW topic.
That's exactly the misunderstanding you had I was trying to help you with - looks like I haven't done a very good job of communicating your error to you clearly.
Perhaps this will help you: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-sharply-separate-forcings-and.html
Almost, but not quite - nothing can be deterministically known about non-deterministic systems. Simply asserting an explanation that always works (i.e., CO2 did it, or God did it) and that can never be falsified is pseudo-science at best.
Sounds like a double standard - there's lots of existing evidence against the hockey stick, or various multi-meter sea level rise predictions, but nobody has expected people writing papers with the warmist point of view to fully address existing critiques to their work.
Wasn't that the entire *point* of Spencer's paper? He was challenging hypothesis "A" *with* his paper.
Well, at the simplest level, I'd look for comparative societies in the past - but the problem in regards to CO2 is that we have no confidence, whatsoever, that mitigation is even possible. So the *first* thing I'd have to come up with is a falsifiable hypothesis that mitigation is *possible*.
How would you falsify the hypothesis that mitigation is even possible?
Of course not. But if I was living in an area that experienced hurricanes, and someone demanded that I plan to evacuate ten years from now in July for two weeks, I'd demand a falsifiable hypothesis showing this kind of long term planning is necessary or accurate, or, I'd just wait for an actual storm with an actual predicted track was being observed by our satellites.
Like this: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-2-2.html
"It is likely that the relatively poor Southern Ocean simulation will influence the transient climate response to increasing greenhouse gases by affecting the oceanic heat uptake. When forced by increases in radiative forcing, models with too little Southern Ocean mixing will probably underestimate the ocean heat uptake; models with too much mixing will likely exaggerate it. These errors in oceanic heat uptake will also have a large impact on the reliability of the sea level rise projections. See Chapter 10 for more discussion of this subject."
Sounds like they have very little idea as to where sea level is going to be in 200 years, at any point in the globe.
What I think we disagree on, and please correct me if I've misunderstood you, is that *weather* matters to humans, *climate* does not. A human never experiences the average global temperature, or even "climate" - they experience *weather*. In the same way, phone numbers are used by humans, but average phone numbers, either for geographic areas, or averaged for a family over time, are *not* usable (or even useful).
That's an assertion, not a fact. What kind of falsifiable hypothesis would you put forward regarding frequency of catastrophic events?
Some information on Bangladesh: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/bangladesh-the-poster-child/
"Flooding disasters are seasonally the result of excessive run-off, and occasionally due to unfortunate
Excellent question, I can see where you're getting tripped up. You're assuming that since we emit CO2, it *must* always be a forcing, or at the very least, any CO2 we emit *must* be a forcing (and a positive forcing).
The problem you run into, then is that you've got other CO2 "forcings" (and feedbacks) to deal with, and not all of them are positive. Other animals emit CO2, so I figure you'd count that CO2 as a "forcing". The ocean emits CO2, but my bet is that you'd judge that to be a feedback. Plants absorb CO2, so I figure you'll count that as a negative forcing.
I suppose the pertinent question is, "can we discern the forcing effect of X tons of CO2 (regardless of source)". If you've got a tiny forcing effect of CO2, it becomes noise in the background.
It is comical to think that CO2 is only a feedback pre-1850, and magically becomes only a forcing post-1850. You can possibly make the case for a change in forcing/feedback behavior of CO2 when you talk about the saturation of wavelengths, but again, that doesn't prejudge its activity based on its source, simply on its concentration. The CO2/temperature lag in ice cores show that CO2 *follows* temperature. Understanding the millions of years where this relationship holds gives us a great insight as to what the cause and what the effect is. Magically saying that simply because humans got involved, CO2 started behaving differently, is an unfalsifiable assertion.
So determining whether or not volcanic activity is a climate forcing or a climate feedback is scientifically unknowable. Got it :)
So if even a laboratory is insufficient because of a loss of control over a bunch of variables, how can you *possibly* entertain the idea that the even *more* chaotic real world environment is going to be more predictable? :)