My problem with the whole CAGW "science" is that it fails to start off with your basic falsifiable hypothesis, without which, playing the science game is pretty much impossible.
Please don't go too deep into a discussion on falsifiable hypothesis with HSThompson. As an example he claimed that apples are a climate forcing, and that this would be falsified if the number of apples increased when temperatures decreased: "Science game" indeed. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2410694&cid=37404294
Good on the scientists for noticing the error of the Atlas company and working to publicly correct it. That is certainly above and beyond the call of duty. I'm not sure how that makes them 'grant whores' though. They are not responsible for the misstatement. They are only responsible for publicly correcting it.
Sigh. Okay, I'll bite, tell me what units a "forcing-o-mometer" reads in. Explain
Measure spectral radiance emitted to space (for the spectrum that you are interested in). Subtract that from the black body radiance. Spectral radiance is measured in Wm^-2. This was in the very first post. Thanks for paying attention.
"I have a falsifiable hypothesis, so now we can play the science game instead of religion".
Except that apples are not a forcing you idiot. Regardless of how they may affect the concentration of things that actually are a forcing. Please look up the meaning of the word forcing for the love of God.
So, your turn, where's your falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW?:)
It's in the very first post. Thanks for paying attention. I'm going to add "Apples cause climate change" to my list of stupid things that HSThompson believes. Bye.
the model has been modified over the years, and has given *different* theoretical results
Guess which model the measurements agree with?
I made a falsifiable hypothesis statement as to whether or not volcanoes were forcings or feedbacks. You made the hand waving claim that my falsifiable hypothesis statement was improper,
Not improper. Wrong. You can't falsify the hypothesis that volcanoes are a forcing by showing that they are a feedback. Let's see how this would work on apples:
1) Hypotheses: Apples are a forcing.
2) This would be falsified if temperature drops are followed by increased numbers of apples
Do you still stand by your statement or do you agree that your logic is fatally flawed? If the latter, then please revise and correct your statement or please admit that you are incapable of knowing anything about the climate.
Yeah, except that we can also measure it thanks to the magic of modern satellites. Remember the very first post? And guess what? The measurements confirm the expected results.
If Lindzen is correct that sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling of CO2, the corresponding change in forcing should be
You are confusing sensitivity, forcing, and temperature. Changing the sensitivity will not affect the forcing. That is a constant. For a hint, we can look at a quote provided (but apparently not read) by HSThompson in the very last post: "The result (of F) can be determined... with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature."
Also, you state in your formula that 1.2 delta T = 1.2 ln(2). Really Delta T = Ln(2)? This makes absolutely no sense. perhaps we should steer clear of the maths.
You're asking me to prove *your* point for you? Now what kind of science game is that!?
Hey, I'm not the one that said that volcanoes impact the climate. You did. You also said you could prove it easily and then failed to do so. So go ahead. Prove it... Or is nothing knowable to HSThompson?
where lambda is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and F is the radiative forcing.
Wow. I stated that sensitivity and forcing are not the same thing. In order to prove me wrong you provided a quote that shows the difference between sensitivity and forcing. Weird. By the way, we can measure the spectral radiance both at the top of the atmosphere and down here on Earth. The measurements confirm F. We don't need to measure (or even consider) T for this.
It certainly can't be done when you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement!:)
And you clearly don't. So therefore you cannot prove that volcanoes have an impact on the climate? Is this how your "science game" (as you put it earlier) works? I see you can dismiss whatever you want with this game.
Frankly I've had enough of your games. Put up or shut up. Can you provide proof that would satisfy the bottomless pit of incredulity that is HSThompson?
If Lindzen is correct that sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling of CO2, the corresponding change in forcing should be
They are reporting (incorrectly as it turns out!) the sensitivity. This is not the same as the radiative forcing. Not at all. By the way, Lindzen does not doubt that Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2
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.
Oh no. I know better than to try to prove anything to you. It cannot be done. No amount of evidence is sufficient. Go ahead and prove me wrong (but please do at least put forward an argument that adheres to the basic principals of logic).
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.
The direct impact is this: Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2, And yes, measurements confirm it.
I asserted a falsifiable hypothesis regarding volcanoes being a forcing or a feedback.
Your statement was wrong. So go ahead and try again. Prove that volcanoes impact the climate. You cannot do it in a way that would satisfy your level of 'skepticism' (which basically consists of plugging your ears and saying 'Na na na! Could be something else that we don't even know about!).
Nope. That supports the second but contradicts the first... and frankly this whole diversion is lacking a point. It has nothing to do with the fact that we can measure the direct impact of carbon in the atmosphere.
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.
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'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.
It seems like you may have looked up the meanings of feedback and forcing between the two statements. (In fact 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. You seemed to think that this was an inherent property of carbon)
Go head, present your falsifiable hypothesis on volcanic eruptions being a feedback, rather than a forcing. Show me how it's done:)
Or are you going to throw up your hands and assert there is no scientific way to tell the difference between volcanoes being a forcing of climate, versus a feedback?
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. Of course science can get to the bottom of this. Would you accept the answer? Probably that would depend on the policy implications.
I asked you for a falsifiable hypothesis regarding how to determine whether or not a given factor in climate was a feedback or a forcing. And instead, you dodged slightly to the left and started talking about sources of CO2. Clever, but unpersuasive:)
It is hard to follow you. Either you don't really understand what feedback and forcing means, or you are trying to imply that we are not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. The latter seems implausible even from someone who believes that seasons are caused by ocean currents, but then again you have never failed to surprise.
So which is it?
"Volcano eruptions cause global temperature drops. This is a forcing. This would be falsified if temperature drops are followed by increased numbers of volcanic eruptions."
Time for a primer in logic. A implies B is not falsified by its converse. Ruh Roh Shaggy! It looks like you may have set up a false dichotomy here. Time to look up what feedback and forcing really mean!
However, you're unable (either for clouds or carbon), to make a clear statement of a falsifiable hypothesis that would distinguish between whether or not either clouds or carbon are feedbacks, or forcings
No one (not even Spencer) is confused as to the source of the carbon. Are you?
Spencer's paper had nothing to do with carbon, it dealt with clouds.
Exactly. So why do you keep asking me to differentiate between feedbacks and forcings as if that has some bearing on the hypothesis that the rate of increase of GHG is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century?
Statements like:
You made the statement that the specific range of wavelengths that will interact with greenhouse gases is sufficient observation to say Tyndall gases are always forcings, never feedbacks
If you keep an open mind, people will try to put garbage in it - Albert Einstein
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.- Carl Sagan
Read the thread again. Start from the beginning. Remember what the hypothesis was. Review the results. You may need to look up feedback and forcing since your understanding here seems a little muddled.
You made the statement that the specific range of wavelengths that will interact with greenhouse gases is sufficient observation to say Tyndall gases are always forcings, never feedbacks. As I stated, this may be *necessary* for your hypothesis to be true, but it is not *sufficient*.
Nope. You're still not getting it. Try reading it again in context. Then again, if you can't be convinced that seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis then I'm certain you are not going to be convinced of anything that challenges your preconceptions.
Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?
Because it makes absolutely no sense. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about (and neither do you). HSThompson has stated in previous posts that seasons are caused by ocean currents rather than the fact that the Earth is tilted wrt its orbit (The side closest to the sun experiencing summer). I will concede that arguing with him is pointless. Suffice it to say that even the most skeptical scientists do not doubt that CO2 is a forcing and that adding CO2 will warm the planet. For instance, here is Roy Spencer pointing out that you can buy a $50 sensor and measure the back radiation caused by greenhouse gasses. He starts: "let’s take a break and return to the real world, and the experiments you can do yourself to see evidence of the 'greenhouse effect'."
If the very specific range of wavelengths was say, off to the right by +1 nm, suddenly Tyndall gases wouldn't be a forcing by your hypothesis?
Of course. If there was no reduction in the amount of radiation that was escaping into space at the wavelengths that interacts with GHG then GHG would not be a forcing. As it happens, "Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.
Based on these scientific predictions that have come true, even the most skeptical scientifically-literate individual ought to be able to conclude that the balance of evidence favors the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So why do many people not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, and what further evidence or correct predictions would convince them?"
what spectral radiance emitted to space would be consistent with Tyndall gas *not* being a forcing
Good question. Basically there is a very specific range of wavelengths that will interact with Carbon and other greenhouse gasses. So basically anything other than exactly what we are seeing would be consistent with Tyndall gas not being a forcing.
You didn't answer the question: "What further evidence or correct predictions would convince you?"
As for the hypothesis of "rate of increase of Tyndall gases is sufficient to cause a temperature increase of several increase of several degrees by 2050", there are a few problems there - 1) you assume that gas concentrations are a *cause* rather than an *effect* - you need to have a falsifiable hypothesis that can distinguish between the two.
No such assumption is made: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.
Perhaps you could answer John's question: What further evidence or correct predictions would convince you?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't causing a drought in Texas. There were droughts in Texas at least this bad, long before the argument started.
Not so. The following graph clearly shows that this year is an extreme outlier: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/texas-drought-spot-the-outlier/
My problem with the whole CAGW "science" is that it fails to start off with your basic falsifiable hypothesis, without which, playing the science game is pretty much impossible.
Please don't go too deep into a discussion on falsifiable hypothesis with HSThompson. As an example he claimed that apples are a climate forcing, and that this would be falsified if the number of apples increased when temperatures decreased: "Science game" indeed. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2410694&cid=37404294
Good on the scientists for noticing the error of the Atlas company and working to publicly correct it. That is certainly above and beyond the call of duty. I'm not sure how that makes them 'grant whores' though. They are not responsible for the misstatement. They are only responsible for publicly correcting it.
Sigh. Okay, I'll bite, tell me what units a "forcing-o-mometer" reads in. Explain
Measure spectral radiance emitted to space (for the spectrum that you are interested in). Subtract that from the black body radiance. Spectral radiance is measured in Wm^-2. This was in the very first post. Thanks for paying attention.
"I have a falsifiable hypothesis, so now we can play the science game instead of religion".
Except that apples are not a forcing you idiot. Regardless of how they may affect the concentration of things that actually are a forcing. Please look up the meaning of the word forcing for the love of God.
So, your turn, where's your falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW? :)
It's in the very first post. Thanks for paying attention. I'm going to add "Apples cause climate change" to my list of stupid things that HSThompson believes. Bye.
The measurements didn't *agree* with anything
It's like talking to a brick wall. There are two different things. The theoretical forcing, and what we can actually measure.
Sounds like a reasonable falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Gotcha. So Carbon doesn't cause global warming but apples do. Yup. You've got a pretty good grasp on things. I think we're done here.
the model has been modified over the years, and has given *different* theoretical results
Guess which model the measurements agree with?
I made a falsifiable hypothesis statement as to whether or not volcanoes were forcings or feedbacks. You made the hand waving claim that my falsifiable hypothesis statement was improper,
Not improper. Wrong. You can't falsify the hypothesis that volcanoes are a forcing by showing that they are a feedback. Let's see how this would work on apples:
1) Hypotheses: Apples are a forcing.
2) This would be falsified if temperature drops are followed by increased numbers of apples
Do you still stand by your statement or do you agree that your logic is fatally flawed? If the latter, then please revise and correct your statement or please admit that you are incapable of knowing anything about the climate.
F is the result of a *model*, not a measurement.
Yeah, except that we can also measure it thanks to the magic of modern satellites. Remember the very first post? And guess what? The measurements confirm the expected results.
If Lindzen is correct that sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling of CO2, the corresponding change in forcing should be
You are confusing sensitivity, forcing, and temperature. Changing the sensitivity will not affect the forcing. That is a constant. For a hint, we can look at a quote provided (but apparently not read) by HSThompson in the very last post: "The result (of F) can be determined ... with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature."
Also, you state in your formula that 1.2 delta T = 1.2 ln(2). Really Delta T = Ln(2)? This makes absolutely no sense. perhaps we should steer clear of the maths.
You're asking me to prove *your* point for you? Now what kind of science game is that!?
Hey, I'm not the one that said that volcanoes impact the climate. You did. You also said you could prove it easily and then failed to do so. So go ahead. Prove it... Or is nothing knowable to HSThompson?
where lambda is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and F is the radiative forcing.
Wow. I stated that sensitivity and forcing are not the same thing. In order to prove me wrong you provided a quote that shows the difference between sensitivity and forcing. Weird. By the way, we can measure the spectral radiance both at the top of the atmosphere and down here on Earth. The measurements confirm F. We don't need to measure (or even consider) T for this.
It certainly can't be done when you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement! :)
And you clearly don't. So therefore you cannot prove that volcanoes have an impact on the climate? Is this how your "science game" (as you put it earlier) works? I see you can dismiss whatever you want with this game.
Frankly I've had enough of your games. Put up or shut up. Can you provide proof that would satisfy the bottomless pit of incredulity that is HSThompson?
If Lindzen is correct that sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling of CO2, the corresponding change in forcing should be
They are reporting (incorrectly as it turns out!) the sensitivity. This is not the same as the radiative forcing. Not at all. By the way, Lindzen does not doubt that Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2
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.
Oh no. I know better than to try to prove anything to you. It cannot be done. No amount of evidence is sufficient. Go ahead and prove me wrong (but please do at least put forward an argument that adheres to the basic principals of logic).
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.
The direct impact is this: Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2, And yes, measurements confirm it.
I asserted a falsifiable hypothesis regarding volcanoes being a forcing or a feedback.
Your statement was wrong. So go ahead and try again. Prove that volcanoes impact the climate. You cannot do it in a way that would satisfy your level of 'skepticism' (which basically consists of plugging your ears and saying 'Na na na! Could be something else that we don't even know about!).
Yup. You made two contradictory statements in adjacent posts.
looks like I haven't done a very good job of communicating.
Perhaps this will help http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-sharply-separate-forcings-and.html
Nope. That supports the second but contradicts the first... and frankly this whole diversion is lacking a point. It has nothing to do with the fact that we can measure the direct impact of carbon in the atmosphere.
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.
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)
Excellent question, I can see where you're getting tripped up.
Yup. You made two contradictory statements in adjacent posts.
Plants absorb CO2, so I figure you'll count that as a negative forcing.
Seriously, What?
So determining whether or not volcanic activity is a climate forcing or a climate feedback is scientifically unknowable. Got it :)
Isn't that your mantra? Nothing can be known because there is always a chance that some unknown is the only correct explanation.
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.
It seems like you may have looked up the meanings of feedback and forcing between the two statements. (In fact 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. You seemed to think that this was an inherent property of carbon)
Go head, present your falsifiable hypothesis on volcanic eruptions being a feedback, rather than a forcing. Show me how it's done :)
Or are you going to throw up your hands and assert there is no scientific way to tell the difference between volcanoes being a forcing of climate, versus a feedback?
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. Of course science can get to the bottom of this. Would you accept the answer? Probably that would depend on the policy implications.
I asked you for a falsifiable hypothesis regarding how to determine whether or not a given factor in climate was a feedback or a forcing. And instead, you dodged slightly to the left and started talking about sources of CO2. Clever, but unpersuasive :)
It is hard to follow you. Either you don't really understand what feedback and forcing means, or you are trying to imply that we are not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. The latter seems implausible even from someone who believes that seasons are caused by ocean currents, but then again you have never failed to surprise.
So which is it?
"Volcano eruptions cause global temperature drops. This is a forcing. This would be falsified if temperature drops are followed by increased numbers of volcanic eruptions."
Time for a primer in logic. A implies B is not falsified by its converse. Ruh Roh Shaggy! It looks like you may have set up a false dichotomy here. Time to look up what feedback and forcing really mean!
However, you're unable (either for clouds or carbon), to make a clear statement of a falsifiable hypothesis that would distinguish between whether or not either clouds or carbon are feedbacks, or forcings
No one (not even Spencer) is confused as to the source of the carbon. Are you?
Spencer's paper had nothing to do with carbon, it dealt with clouds.
Exactly. So why do you keep asking me to differentiate between feedbacks and forcings as if that has some bearing on the hypothesis that the rate of increase of GHG is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century?
Statements like:
You made the statement that the specific range of wavelengths that will interact with greenhouse gases is sufficient observation to say Tyndall gases are always forcings, never feedbacks
make absolutely no sense.
Wasn't that Spencer's point in the first place?
No. No it wasn't. Spencer is not confused regarding the source of the carbon.
If you keep an open mind, people will try to put garbage in it - Albert Einstein
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.- Carl Sagan
Read the thread again. Start from the beginning. Remember what the hypothesis was. Review the results. You may need to look up feedback and forcing since your understanding here seems a little muddled.
You made the statement that the specific range of wavelengths that will interact with greenhouse gases is sufficient observation to say Tyndall gases are always forcings, never feedbacks. As I stated, this may be *necessary* for your hypothesis to be true, but it is not *sufficient*.
Nope. You're still not getting it. Try reading it again in context. Then again, if you can't be convinced that seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis then I'm certain you are not going to be convinced of anything that challenges your preconceptions.
You've made the claim that the value of a certain constant is sufficient to validate your hypothesis.
Bzzzt. Better go back and reread.
Put another way, I could make the bold statement that "Tyndall gases having a very specific range of wavelengths are consistent with them being a following rather than a forcing, and if those ranges were different, I'd be wrong" - why is that hypothesis statement any less reasonable than yours?
Because it makes absolutely no sense. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about (and neither do you). HSThompson has stated in previous posts that seasons are caused by ocean currents rather than the fact that the Earth is tilted wrt its orbit (The side closest to the sun experiencing summer). I will concede that arguing with him is pointless. Suffice it to say that even the most skeptical scientists do not doubt that CO2 is a forcing and that adding CO2 will warm the planet. For instance, here is Roy Spencer pointing out that you can buy a $50 sensor and measure the back radiation caused by greenhouse gasses. He starts: "let’s take a break and return to the real world, and the experiments you can do yourself to see evidence of the 'greenhouse effect'."
I hope you appreciate the irony of citing a Spencer blog post here.
If the very specific range of wavelengths was say, off to the right by +1 nm, suddenly Tyndall gases wouldn't be a forcing by your hypothesis?
Of course. If there was no reduction in the amount of radiation that was escaping into space at the wavelengths that interacts with GHG then GHG would not be a forcing. As it happens, "Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.
Based on these scientific predictions that have come true, even the most skeptical scientifically-literate individual ought to be able to conclude that the balance of evidence favors the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So why do many people not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, and what further evidence or correct predictions would convince them?"
what spectral radiance emitted to space would be consistent with Tyndall gas *not* being a forcing
Good question. Basically there is a very specific range of wavelengths that will interact with Carbon and other greenhouse gasses. So basically anything other than exactly what we are seeing would be consistent with Tyndall gas not being a forcing.
You didn't answer the question: "What further evidence or correct predictions would convince you?"
As for the hypothesis of "rate of increase of Tyndall gases is sufficient to cause a temperature increase of several increase of several degrees by 2050", there are a few problems there - 1) you assume that gas concentrations are a *cause* rather than an *effect* - you need to have a falsifiable hypothesis that can distinguish between the two.
No such assumption is made: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.
Perhaps you could answer John's question: What further evidence or correct predictions would convince you?