It won't be long before someone does say Doughnuts cause Global Warming. Or, Global Warming causes doughnuts. Does it really matter?
Indeed - that alternate theory has the same strength of evidence as other denialist theories as to why the earth is warming - it's the sun, it's water vapor, it's volcanoes, etc.
and I would agree with you, but even though you don't seem to understand my flippant sarcasm,
Let us then review your "sarcasm":
what viable solutions will enable us to survive on this increasingly crowded pale blue dot?
you -> Get off this rock.
Viable is the term you missed. Which, in case you lack comprehension, means that transport off the planet is not a viable solution
Sorry, I mistyped Thermo Nuclear War.
Any sensible person would interpret this remark as replacing the phrase "get off this rock" with "Thermo Nuclear War".
Come to think of it, the argument that space travel might somehow be a viable option in the face of a major disaster is not just wrong, but quite psychotic. Interesting.
So you are proposing mass genocide as a solution to the population problem?
Many people would consider that monstrous, but then, so is flying away and leaving billions to die. In either case, the choice as to who lives and who dies is arbitrarily taken.
Come to think of it, the argument that space travel might somehow be a viable option in the face of a major disaster is not just wrong, but quite psychotic. Interesting.
Yes indeed. Firstly, good for him giving it a go and following his passion. Secondly, that footage is spectacular - I have that same camera, or at least one very much like it, which I use for trail riding. And here it is, videoing the black of space, with the curvature of the earth below. It never hurts to be reminded that space is very big, and the earth very small.
Indeed. If we treat the earth as a simple black body for radiative purposes, and ignore sinks, differential absorption rates in the atmosphere and other variables, we have a simple model that predicts warming due to anthropogenic emissions. Tyndall and others used a simple model such as this - but this model was quickly falsified when they realised that the climate was not changing at the rate expected. Hence more sophisticated models were built, and so on, until raw computing power enabled the models we have today. Plus, we have a period of accurate, planet wide temperature records which we can use to test the models - this methodology is described below.
I would not expect anybody with any knowledge of the matter to engage in the manner you are expecting. That is because predictive modelling is a matter of probabilities, so no climate scientist would say "anthropogenic CO2 will cause X degrees of warming over Y years if released in Z amount", they would predict a result either as a figure with an error range, or as a set of decreasing probabilities, e.g. 95% likely that the temperature will increase in the range 0.2 - 0.3 C over the next decade. Secondly, you question implies that the model is itself the hypothesis, and and the prediction and observed result are the test to see if the model is correct. But if we need to wait for the result of the prediction, what would be the point? By then it is too late. So models are not falsified by this method, as a matter of necessity. Instead, models are run against temperature data from the past, in which the beginning and the end delta are known. The difference between the model result and the observed temperature from the end point is used to calculate the error range. The wider the error range, obviously the less useful the model is. It is really only in the last, say 40 years that models have become sophisticated enough to produce a useful result - and that is why the issue was not widely publicised by scientists when Tyndall made his discovery 150 years ago.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - you've got a probability model here that may for short periods of time match observations fairly well, but doesn't address the root issues that are assumed. Even the most dramatic deviation from prediction could be asserted to be "consistent with" the model, simply improbably so.
So I've faithfully copied back in the section you are addressing, just to highlight the fact that you have (perhaps inadvertently) used a rhetorical construction as a basis for your argument, by skipping the section regarding the testing of the models, and then formulating an argument on the basis that no such testing occurs. In short, if there were a fundamental error in the models (an unknown variable which is skewing the result) then this would be obvious by the comparative trend line versus the real trend line when testing using the previously observed temperature data. Now - every model will deviate somewhat from the observed trend line - but that deviation can be used as a measure for the error, which is always included when the model is used for prediction. So if there is a large unknown the error range is also large.
Astrology is like this - the personality traits of the various signs can be said to have some sort of probability associated with them, and one might find even in large population segments, some degree of confidence that the personality traits actually match. But would you call Astrology scientific in its approach?
I would call a false analogy a false analogy.
If AGW (or CAGW) is going to be taken seriously, it has to be more than just a probability model that can always be excused for missing the mark. The basic assumptions of say, how CO2 effects are amplified by H2O, have to be subject to strict scrutiny with clearly falsifiable hypothesis statements.
Sending a vehicle into orbit has been done before too, but as soon as SpaceX did it, it was huge news.
Was it? I had to google it to recall when that was (it was 10 months ago)
It was hardly groundbreaking since there is footage of NASA doing it FIFTY YEARS AGO.
And footage of the Soviet Union doing before then. Which emphasises the point - the criteria needed to 'impress' random slashdotter x seems entirely arbitrary and unrelated to any real milestone. Specifically, the criteria that hoisting a human into orbit is a milestone any startup is required to acheive is quite ridiculous in the post human era of space exploration.
Wake me when one of the "private" space outfits finally puts a human being in space.
This seems like a fairly arbitrary success criteria. Why not a lemur? Or one of those big ass tortoises from the Galapagos Is.?
I'm pretty sure I saw footage of humans being launched into space before - it's been done before, so doing it again would hardly be groundbreaking either.
I'm not an American, but I do wonder if in fact, the US space program is really in demise? It seems odd to say that, just days after messenger arrived in orbit around Mercury, and with Cassini in orbit around saturn, sending back reams of information all the time - and the voyager probes at the very edge of the solar system, the JWT in build and larger, more advanced robots for Mars are well under way. At this point in time, by any object measure, the program is at it's most productive ever.
What evidence is there that the program is in actual decline?
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.
Indeed. If we treat the earth as a simple black body for radiative purposes, and ignore sinks, differential absorption rates in the atmosphere and other variables, we have a simple model that predicts warming due to anthropogenic emissions. Tyndall and others used a simple model such as this - but this model was quickly falsified when they realised that the climate was not changing at the rate expected. Hence more sophisticated models were built, and so on, until raw computing power enabled the models we have today. Plus, we have a period of accurate, planet wide temperature records which we can use to test the models - this methodology is described below.
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.
I would not expect anybody with any knowledge of the matter to engage in the manner you are expecting. That is because predictive modelling is a matter of probabilities, so no climate scientist would say "anthropogenic CO2 will cause X degrees of warming over Y years if released in Z amount", they would predict a result either as a figure with an error range, or as a set of decreasing probabilities, e.g. 95% likely that the temperature will increase in the range 0.2 - 0.3 C over the next decade. Secondly, you question implies that the model is itself the hypothesis, and and the prediction and observed result are the test to see if the model is correct. But if we need to wait for the result of the prediction, what would be the point? By then it is too late. So models are not falsified by this method, as a matter of necessity. Instead, models are run against temperature data from the past, in which the beginning and the end delta are known. The difference between the model result and the observed temperature from the end point is used to calculate the error range. The wider the error range, obviously the less useful the model is. It is really only in the last, say 40 years that models have become sophisticated enough to produce a useful result - and that is why the issue was not widely publicised by scientists when Tyndall made his discovery 150 years ago.
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).
That is not my position. My position is that both the basic principles (as found from Tyndalls work and according the established laws of thermodynamics) and the models themselves are falsifiable science, both having been tested and proven (or in the case of earlier models, proven false, in accordance with the test criteria). They are peer reviewed and accepted science based not on correlation, but on observation and testing.
Oh bull poop. Ever looked at a map? Noticed how much land mass is currently useless for growing in Russia, Canada, etc? Warm things up a bit and we will lose some land and gain some.
Maybe you should try looking at a globe rather than a map imaged from a Mercator projection. Then you will see that areas in the high (and low) latitudes are far smaller than you believe.
Secondly you might want to think about how fertile the soil in siberia would be - currently this soil is frozen in permafrost, and covered in pine forest. Neither condition is conducive to soil fertility. If the permafrost melts (releasing it's methane) then Siberia will be an infertile, poisonous swamp.
Anyway, this is the second Warmer story today, this is getting silly. This isn't dkos... or it least it wasn't.
You don't know what the variable is?
Yet you assume it exists?
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?:)
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 propose the following (1) That we close down this thread and continue on the other. I don't want this to turn into an exercise in stamina - who has the most time to continue posting etc. etc. (2) That we address the topic at hand, and that rhetorical questions, replies, use of logical fallacies (strawmen, burden of proof, falsifying the whole etc) and associated gymnastics can simply be called out by the other party.
If you agree to this approach, then let me know, and we can close this thread and concentrate on the other. Otherwise, I will reply to your last.
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:)
You don't know what the variable is?
Yet you assume it exists?
Based on what, gut feel?
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.
Then what factor is limiting the effect of anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases [Tindall]. Oh - I forgot. You don't know that either.
Predictions to the contrary are novel, must be specific, and must be falsifiable.
It's not 1801 anymore. 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?
If you want to convince us of the veracity of the AGW or CAGW hypothesis,
Let me stop you there. I'm no trying to convince you of anything. To suggest that it is anybodies job to convince you personally, of well established scientific theories that you have not researched well enough to not realise for instance that CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth, or that previous occurrences of natural climate change do not falsify anthropogenic climate change, is, quite frankly, hubris on your part.
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.
I see. So now you are back to asserting that some unknown factor is limiting the forcing from anthropogenic emissions. What is this factor?
Show working.
The problem with the models is that they make basic assumptions that are unfalsifiable, such as "CO2 drives global average temperature".
And again - are you again asserting that Tyndall is wrong? Or are you asserting that some unknown factor is limiting the forcing from anthropogenic emissions? What is this factor?
Show working.
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!
Unicorns?!? What are you on about? You said:
I'm not asserting any hypothetical effects
In response to my question:
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? And show working.
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. Unicorns don't enter into it.
Why not? What climate effect do the models fail to account for? Please be precise.
Really? How about clouds?
Ok. Clouds. Is that your answer? Think carefully.
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?
Are these your answer? Think carefully.
I mean, really, you think the GCMs actually contain simulations of every last thing that can effect climate? Really?
Did I say that? Because if you can't find a reference to me saying that, then you are lighting up a strawman. Don't think behaviour like that will do much for the old credibility eh?
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.
You might not like it, but magical thinking, Jedi fantasies, pyramid energy, indeed, any form of quackery will not substitute as scientific proof. If you want to convince us as to the veracity of your hypothesis, provide proof that can be scientifically verified. Proposing that everyone who ever built a climate model or examined the results arising is somehow unknowingly trapped in a group delusion doesn't cut it. We are not possessed by the devil.
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.
This has already been covered a number of times: If you wish to falsify the hypothesis, simply repeat the experiment done by Tyndall and publish the result - or otherwise, explain the flaw in his methodology and have your explanation pass peer review. Have you done that?
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? And then publish your results. Have you done that?
I'm not sure if you understand the semantics of the game you're playing:)
On the contrary, I understand this game very well - and I suspect you know it by now.
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
Then you agree that there is no such effect?
And therefore you agree that this current warming phase is caused by anthropogenic emissions?
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
Why not? What climate effect do the models fail to account for? Please be precise.
The problem is that modeling asserts a level of knowledge over natural climate cycles that isn't justified.
What is the variable that the models fail to account for? What is the result if this variable is included?
That is to say, there is no logical way that they've excluded natural climate cycles from their observations.
What then, is the true fraction of natural warming (or cooling) as a percentage of the sum of the observed warming?
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.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You have already admitted that Tyndall is correct (in short, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Now you are asserting that CO2 acts differently in the atmosphere as opposed to an experimental atmosphere. If that is true, what causes that change in behaviour?
If you think the atmosphere is too complex to model - I refer you to the question above - what forcing has not been considered by the models?
If you are now reversing your previous position and saying that Tyndall as wrong, and that nothing is known about the radiative properties of CO2 and methane - then please explain precisely why repetitions of Tyndall's experiment have yielded the same result?
And show working.
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.
I'm not responsible for your ignorance. This economic modelling has been conducted by Stern, and the results well published.
If you think Stern is wrong - what economic variable did Stern fail to take into account? Please present your results in the form of a revised economic model.
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.
As noted, these results have been well publicised. Google it yourself, I'm not here to do your homework.
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:)
Wonderful. Barefaced denial in all it's glory. I should tell you to go back and re-answer that one again, but I have little hope you will be able to do better then simple contradiction.
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.
Now you are getting the hang of it! The null hypothesis cannot be chosen as a construct of convenience or to absolve yourself of the burden of proof. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis. Also notewort
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.
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 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.
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. Without actually being able to state the cause of this change to the natural warming cycle. By saying that there is nothing we can do about the warming (as reducing emissions will do nothing), you are really saying that we should start adapting now. And as you are aware, adaptation will cost 5-10x more than mitigation - which is why mitigation is preferred. So what you, and others like you are saying, is that we should 5x as much funding to the issue and uproot millions of people. So if you think the advocates of mitigation require scrutiny, you must agree that an order of magnitude more scrutiny ought to apply to your own theories.
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.
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. Otherwise, I could declare "the null hypothesis is that everybody in the room owes me $50". In reality, I won't collect anything. In your case, you are proposing a hypothesis, and expect the burden of proof to fall on others. And in reality, you wont collect anything either.
CO2 does not have a causal correlation with global average temperature
Please provide of of your assertion, bearing in mind that you have already admitted that Tyndall is correct - so don't contradict yourself.
You asserted that climate models aren't a falsifiable methodology. But of course, they are. One needs only to examine the methodology described for the model and demonstrate where the model is inaccurate
Pretend for a moment you've got in your hands a GCM. You make a prediction for the CO2 and temperature of the globe for 2012, including error bars. Observations go beyond your error bars on either CO2 or temperature. Do you:
A) admit that the basis of your GCM has been falsified and AGW or CAGW is no longer true?
B) come up with an ad hoc special pleading to explain your discrepancy.
Be honest with yourself when you answer.
I remember a few years I was approach by a member of the LDS who used pretty much the same argument. She made an assertion about the nature of the deity, and then as proof of that assertion said: "search your feelings, that will confirm that what I have told you is the truth". At the time, I thought that completely inadequate as a proof for anything - even assertions about something non-empirical like deitie(s). As an empirical proof, it is beyond absurd. 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.
Needless to say I'm not convinced.
Again, I'm not making a hypothesis here for you to fight against - that's your own built strawman. I'm stating, very explicitly, that the null hypothesis that must be considered is that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature.
Nobody is interested in playing a semantic game with you. By all means, keep flailing this "null hypothesis" canard around like a guy trying to hold back the tide by waving his arms.
Tyndall's work does not simply scale up to a global level automatically
You say you have no hypothesis - yet here it is! Stated but one sentence later. 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? And show working.
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.
That's true from every observations we've ever made. Show me any point in time with low CO2 and positive plant growth, or high CO2 and negative plant growth (limit yourself to periods of time where plants existed, of course).
The funny part about your defense here (attacking my tabletop experiment by asserting that the tabletop does not necessarily represent the globe), is that the same rationale can be used against tabletop experiments which show CO2 in a bottle absorbing more heat than nitrogen:)
Um. No, it isn't - because nobody is asserting that climate doesn't naturally change. This is simply another strawman.
Sure you are.
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.
If you believe that the climate change we've observed over the past 50 years is caused by humans, you're denying that it is a natural change. Now, if you want to be reasonable and say "humans have had an impact for the past 50 years, but are just one factor out of many", maybe we're closer together. Put another way, asserting that observed climate change is at least 50% human induced means you're denying that at least 50% of climate change is natural. If you don't like that percentage, pick a different number and defend it.
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.
(a) What is the natural phenomena in question? Show working.
(b) What is the (so far unpublished) effect removing the energy associated with increased concentrations of CO2? Show working.
But based on the work of Tyndall - which we agree on - we of course expect that adding more CO2 into a system where the amount of CO2 moderates the temperature will lead to an increase in temperature
But we don't agree on the magnitude there, and we cannot blithely assume that natural climate change will stop and all other variables will be held constant so we can isolate the effect of CO2.
You are starting to waffle here.
Again:
(a) Please reference a major work of climate science which asserts that natural climate change has halted
(b) If (as you assert) the current published breakdown between natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change is wrong - then detail what the true proportions are. And show working.
You say that the current calculations as to the magnitude of that change is wrong, but you cannot explain why.
Sure I can - they're not falsifiable.
See our other conversation under this topic - and our previous conversation on the matter. Your problem seems to be that you expect others to falsify the results for you. That is completely illogical.
You're trying to avoid the null hypothesis again - you don't have a falsifiable theory showing that any specific fraction of climate change over the past 50 years is not natural.
As I have already mentioned - You misunderstood what the null hypothesis was. Happy to be more explicit, if that will help.
If you think the models are wrong you need to create a more accurate model and publish the results.
You keep beating that drum, pretending that in the absence of a competing model, the null hypothesis must be *your* hypothesis. Until you can realize the impotence of that argument, your understanding of the issue isn't going to increase.
Who said there aren't competing models?
You asserted that climate models aren't a falsifiable methodology. But of course, they are. One needs only to examine the methodology described for the model and demonstrate where the model is inaccurate - where some effect, e.g. absorption of CO2 by a large sink, such as the ocean, or reflectivity, etc is not taken into account. Then you can build a more accurate model. And indeed, early models were effectively falsified by this method. Even our current models will, at some point, be replaced with models that are more accurate.
Of course, your difficulty is Tyndalls work, and proving your own hypothesis (that the impact of anthropogenic emissions is impossible to predict). Hence the reason why you keep asking us how you might proceed in proving it. But that is YOUR problem, not ours.
We can't expect that Kennedy would have realised the future direction of technology anymore then, say, Queen Victoria could have proposed aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy or Churchill the transistor. Nevertheless of course when Kennedy wanted something big to prove American supremacy, NASA proposed sending a probe to Mars - Mars being scientifically, a place of interest. But Kennedy wanted something showy and heroic and so went with a moon landing.
But I wonder if these days, such displays of macho nationalism (crudely called 'dick waving') would impress anybody.
So - you don't have a theory as to why the climate is changing in a way that is unexplained by natural change, nor what happened to the the energy gained by the system by the extra CO2 we humans added? Why then, would we believe your assertion that "something else" is causing the earth's climate to change?
, you're fighting the null hypothesis of natural climate change.
As already noted, you've misunderstood either what a null hypothesis is, or the basis of the science itself, with it's grounding in the work of Tyndall. Maybe you should come back after covering the basics.
While it is clever to try and adjust the null hypothesis to "my climate model", to avoid any strict scrutiny, it doesn't convince.
Convincing you isn't a task that is on anybodies agenda. Hubris on your part, I suspect.
Put another way, in the absence of a competing model, is there any observation that can falsify the GCM you believe in?
What are you on about? If you think the models are wrong you need to create a more accurate model and publish the results. If you think the models are fundamentally flawed so that the error bar is too wide for the prediction to be significant you need tell us, specifically, what that error component is.
Otherwise, what we have is you making baseless assertions. And that is not that impressive.
Let's take a moment to consider what you did there:
denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life,
Wait wait, are you *really* denying that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life? You do know we've got table top experiments that can prove this - not to mention CO2 enriched greenhouses for growing plants.
See other reply for the stock debunking of this canard - and may I say hsthompson69, how personally disappointing it is to see you making a positive assertion of an experimental basis to denialists theories - so unsophisticated compared your usual posing of loaded questions from a self styled sceptic. Do try to do better - you know we rely on you for our exercise.
Sorry, I missed that - you've got a stock reply that refutes the well established scientific phenomenon of increased plant growth with increased CO2? Really?
So you are attempting to have me address a strawman (that CO2 cannot have a positive impact on plant life) rather than yourself address the topic at hand (which is the denialist canard that increasing global concentrations of CO2 will have a net positive impact on plant life). Obviously some attempt at droll humour on your part, as you would know better than play at kindergarden level tricks like that.
Let's get back to basics -> what falsifiable hypothesis statement do you think is not in dispute?
That posed by Tyndall. Of course.
Tyndall did not make any statement that human CO2 was going to cause a specific amount of warming over a specific time, nor did Tyndall assert that that warming would be catastrophic for humanity or the biosphere.
Irrelevant, since none of those are the topic at hand. Please do try to follow the train of the conversation. And I note that in another place you have already said yourself that Tyndalls observations are not in dispute. Have you forgotten? Obviously not, because here is you saying it again:
Nobody rational is going to dispute that Tyndall observed an effect that differed between gases.
You are a puzzling fellow.
The null hypothesis is that climate changes naturally, as it did for all the years before humanity, or industrialization.
Um. No, it isn't - because nobody is asserting that climate doesn't naturally change. This is simply another strawman.
No particular falsification is necessary for the null. Further, there is a distinction between asserting that we don't know the specific magnitude, and asserting that the specific magnitude will be trivial or of no effect.
But based on the work of Tyndall - which we agree on - we of course expect that adding more CO2 into a system where the amount of CO2 moderates the temperature will lead to an increase in temperature. This behaviour can be experimentally observed. So the default position - the null hypothesis, if you will, is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will lead to climate change.
This situation is analogous to me taking my accident damaged car to a mechanic because it is making a noise. The mechanic tells me the diagnosis and prescribes a fix. Meanwhile a passerby interjects to tell me that mechanic is wrong, that there is nothing wrong with the car. Upon questioning, the passerby changes his tune and starts alleging malpractice on the part of the mechanic, and proclaiming that nobody is qualified to diagnose the noise. Suspicious, my wife checks his briefcase, and finds that he is not a random passerby, but a representative of the insurance company disputing the claim.
You say that the current calculations as to the magnitude of that change is wrong, but you cannot explain why. You are making a specific claim without evidence. Why should I believe you
You want to falsify the climate models? Build a better model that proves your theory, and have it pass peer review. The ball, as they say, is in your court on that one.
If existing models are too complex for you to understand, then that is a problem with you, not the models.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't be long before someone does say Doughnuts cause Global Warming. Or, Global Warming causes doughnuts. Does it really matter?
Indeed - that alternate theory has the same strength of evidence as other denialist theories as to why the earth is warming - it's the sun, it's water vapor, it's volcanoes, etc.
and I would agree with you, but even though you don't seem to understand my flippant sarcasm,
Let us then review your "sarcasm":
what viable solutions will enable us to survive on this increasingly crowded pale blue dot?
you -> Get off this rock.
Viable is the term you missed. Which, in case you lack comprehension, means that transport off the planet is not a viable solution
Sorry, I mistyped Thermo Nuclear War.
Any sensible person would interpret this remark as replacing the phrase "get off this rock" with "Thermo Nuclear War".
Come to think of it, the argument that space travel might somehow be a viable option in the face of a major disaster is not just wrong, but quite psychotic. Interesting.
O...K. Well it is *your* idea.
Zero points for trolling.
Many people would consider that monstrous, but then, so is flying away and leaving billions to die. In either case, the choice as to who lives and who dies is arbitrarily taken.
Come to think of it, the argument that space travel might somehow be a viable option in the face of a major disaster is not just wrong, but quite psychotic. Interesting.
Viable is the term you missed.
Yes indeed. Firstly, good for him giving it a go and following his passion. Secondly, that footage is spectacular - I have that same camera, or at least one very much like it, which I use for trail riding. And here it is, videoing the black of space, with the curvature of the earth below. It never hurts to be reminded that space is very big, and the earth very small.
Indeed. If we treat the earth as a simple black body for radiative purposes, and ignore sinks, differential absorption rates in the atmosphere and other variables, we have a simple model that predicts warming due to anthropogenic emissions. Tyndall and others used a simple model such as this - but this model was quickly falsified when they realised that the climate was not changing at the rate expected. Hence more sophisticated models were built, and so on, until raw computing power enabled the models we have today. Plus, we have a period of accurate, planet wide temperature records which we can use to test the models - this methodology is described below.
I would not expect anybody with any knowledge of the matter to engage in the manner you are expecting. That is because predictive modelling is a matter of probabilities, so no climate scientist would say "anthropogenic CO2 will cause X degrees of warming over Y years if released in Z amount", they would predict a result either as a figure with an error range, or as a set of decreasing probabilities, e.g. 95% likely that the temperature will increase in the range 0.2 - 0.3 C over the next decade. Secondly, you question implies that the model is itself the hypothesis, and and the prediction and observed result are the test to see if the model is correct. But if we need to wait for the result of the prediction, what would be the point? By then it is too late. So models are not falsified by this method, as a matter of necessity. Instead, models are run against temperature data from the past, in which the beginning and the end delta are known. The difference between the model result and the observed temperature from the end point is used to calculate the error range. The wider the error range, obviously the less useful the model is. It is really only in the last, say 40 years that models have become sophisticated enough to produce a useful result - and that is why the issue was not widely publicised by scientists when Tyndall made his discovery 150 years ago.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - you've got a probability model here that may for short periods of time match observations fairly well, but doesn't address the root issues that are assumed. Even the most dramatic deviation from prediction could be asserted to be "consistent with" the model, simply improbably so.
So I've faithfully copied back in the section you are addressing, just to highlight the fact that you have (perhaps inadvertently) used a rhetorical construction as a basis for your argument, by skipping the section regarding the testing of the models, and then formulating an argument on the basis that no such testing occurs. In short, if there were a fundamental error in the models (an unknown variable which is skewing the result) then this would be obvious by the comparative trend line versus the real trend line when testing using the previously observed temperature data. Now - every model will deviate somewhat from the observed trend line - but that deviation can be used as a measure for the error, which is always included when the model is used for prediction. So if there is a large unknown the error range is also large.
Astrology is like this - the personality traits of the various signs can be said to have some sort of probability associated with them, and one might find even in large population segments, some degree of confidence that the personality traits actually match. But would you call Astrology scientific in its approach?
I would call a false analogy a false analogy.
If AGW (or CAGW) is going to be taken seriously, it has to be more than just a probability model that can always be excused for missing the mark. The basic assumptions of say, how CO2 effects are amplified by H2O, have to be subject to strict scrutiny with clearly falsifiable hypothesis statements.
So, again, you've adopted a rhetorical argument
Sending a vehicle into orbit has been done before too, but as soon as SpaceX did it, it was huge news.
Was it? I had to google it to recall when that was (it was 10 months ago)
It was hardly groundbreaking since there is footage of NASA doing it FIFTY YEARS AGO.
And footage of the Soviet Union doing before then. Which emphasises the point - the criteria needed to 'impress' random slashdotter x seems entirely arbitrary and unrelated to any real milestone. Specifically, the criteria that hoisting a human into orbit is a milestone any startup is required to acheive is quite ridiculous in the post human era of space exploration.
Wake me when one of the "private" space outfits finally puts a human being in space.
This seems like a fairly arbitrary success criteria. Why not a lemur? Or one of those big ass tortoises from the Galapagos Is.?
I'm pretty sure I saw footage of humans being launched into space before - it's been done before, so doing it again would hardly be groundbreaking either.
What evidence is there that the program is in actual decline?
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.
Indeed. If we treat the earth as a simple black body for radiative purposes, and ignore sinks, differential absorption rates in the atmosphere and other variables, we have a simple model that predicts warming due to anthropogenic emissions. Tyndall and others used a simple model such as this - but this model was quickly falsified when they realised that the climate was not changing at the rate expected. Hence more sophisticated models were built, and so on, until raw computing power enabled the models we have today. Plus, we have a period of accurate, planet wide temperature records which we can use to test the models - this methodology is described below.
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.
I would not expect anybody with any knowledge of the matter to engage in the manner you are expecting. That is because predictive modelling is a matter of probabilities, so no climate scientist would say "anthropogenic CO2 will cause X degrees of warming over Y years if released in Z amount", they would predict a result either as a figure with an error range, or as a set of decreasing probabilities, e.g. 95% likely that the temperature will increase in the range 0.2 - 0.3 C over the next decade. Secondly, you question implies that the model is itself the hypothesis, and and the prediction and observed result are the test to see if the model is correct. But if we need to wait for the result of the prediction, what would be the point? By then it is too late. So models are not falsified by this method, as a matter of necessity. Instead, models are run against temperature data from the past, in which the beginning and the end delta are known. The difference between the model result and the observed temperature from the end point is used to calculate the error range. The wider the error range, obviously the less useful the model is. It is really only in the last, say 40 years that models have become sophisticated enough to produce a useful result - and that is why the issue was not widely publicised by scientists when Tyndall made his discovery 150 years ago.
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).
That is not my position. My position is that both the basic principles (as found from Tyndalls work and according the established laws of thermodynamics) and the models themselves are falsifiable science, both having been tested and proven (or in the case of earlier models, proven false, in accordance with the test criteria). They are peer reviewed and accepted science based not on correlation, but on observation and testing.
Oh bull poop. Ever looked at a map? Noticed how much land mass is currently useless for growing in Russia, Canada, etc? Warm things up a bit and we will lose some land and gain some.
Maybe you should try looking at a globe rather than a map imaged from a Mercator projection. Then you will see that areas in the high (and low) latitudes are far smaller than you believe.
Secondly you might want to think about how fertile the soil in siberia would be - currently this soil is frozen in permafrost, and covered in pine forest. Neither condition is conducive to soil fertility. If the permafrost melts (releasing it's methane) then Siberia will be an infertile, poisonous swamp.
Anyway, this is the second Warmer story today, this is getting silly. This isn't dkos... or it least it wasn't.
Does this topic make you uncomfortable?
You don't know what the variable is? Yet you assume it exists?
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? :)
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 propose the following (1) That we close down this thread and continue on the other. I don't want this to turn into an exercise in stamina - who has the most time to continue posting etc. etc. (2) That we address the topic at hand, and that rhetorical questions, replies, use of logical fallacies (strawmen, burden of proof, falsifying the whole etc) and associated gymnastics can simply be called out by the other party.
If you agree to this approach, then let me know, and we can close this thread and concentrate on the other. Otherwise, I will reply to your last.
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 :)
You don't know what the variable is?
Yet you assume it exists?
Based on what, gut feel?
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.
Then what factor is limiting the effect of anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases [Tindall]. Oh - I forgot. You don't know that either.
Predictions to the contrary are novel, must be specific, and must be falsifiable.
It's not 1801 anymore. 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?
If you want to convince us of the veracity of the AGW or CAGW hypothesis,
Let me stop you there. I'm no trying to convince you of anything. To suggest that it is anybodies job to convince you personally, of well established scientific theories that you have not researched well enough to not realise for instance that CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth, or that previous occurrences of natural climate change do not falsify anthropogenic climate change, is, quite frankly, hubris on your part.
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.
I see. So now you are back to asserting that some unknown factor is limiting the forcing from anthropogenic emissions. What is this factor?
Show working.
The problem with the models is that they make basic assumptions that are unfalsifiable, such as "CO2 drives global average temperature".
And again - are you again asserting that Tyndall is wrong? Or are you asserting that some unknown factor is limiting the forcing from anthropogenic emissions? What is this factor?
Show working.
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!
Unicorns?!? What are you on about? You said:
I'm not asserting any hypothetical effects
In response to my question: 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? And show working.
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. Unicorns don't enter into it.
Why not? What climate effect do the models fail to account for? Please be precise.
Really? How about clouds?
Ok. Clouds. Is that your answer? Think carefully.
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?
Are these your answer? Think carefully.
I mean, really, you think the GCMs actually contain simulations of every last thing that can effect climate? Really?
Did I say that? Because if you can't find a reference to me saying that, then you are lighting up a strawman. Don't think behaviour like that will do much for the old credibility eh?
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.
You might not like it, but magical thinking, Jedi fantasies, pyramid energy, indeed, any form of quackery will not substitute as scientific proof. If you want to convince us as to the veracity of your hypothesis, provide proof that can be scientifically verified. Proposing that everyone who ever built a climate model or examined the results arising is somehow unknowingly trapped in a group delusion doesn't cut it. We are not possessed by the devil.
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.
This has already been covered a number of times: If you wish to falsify the hypothesis, simply repeat the experiment done by Tyndall and publish the result - or otherwise, explain the flaw in his methodology and have your explanation pass peer review. Have you done that?
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? And then publish your results. Have you done that?
I'm not sure if you understand the semantics of the game you're playing :)
On the contrary, I understand this game very well - and I suspect you know it by now.
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
Then you agree that there is no such effect?
And therefore you agree that this current warming phase is caused by anthropogenic emissions?
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
Why not? What climate effect do the models fail to account for? Please be precise.
And show working.
The problem is that modeling asserts a level of knowledge over natural climate cycles that isn't justified.
What is the variable that the models fail to account for? What is the result if this variable is included?
That is to say, there is no logical way that they've excluded natural climate cycles from their observations.
What then, is the true fraction of natural warming (or cooling) as a percentage of the sum of the observed warming?
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.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You have already admitted that Tyndall is correct (in short, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Now you are asserting that CO2 acts differently in the atmosphere as opposed to an experimental atmosphere. If that is true, what causes that change in behaviour?
If you think the atmosphere is too complex to model - I refer you to the question above - what forcing has not been considered by the models?
If you are now reversing your previous position and saying that Tyndall as wrong, and that nothing is known about the radiative properties of CO2 and methane - then please explain precisely why repetitions of Tyndall's experiment have yielded the same result?
And show working.
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.
I'm not responsible for your ignorance. This economic modelling has been conducted by Stern, and the results well published.
If you think Stern is wrong - what economic variable did Stern fail to take into account? Please present your results in the form of a revised economic model.
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.
As noted, these results have been well publicised. Google it yourself, I'm not here to do your homework.
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 :)
Wonderful. Barefaced denial in all it's glory. I should tell you to go back and re-answer that one again, but I have little hope you will be able to do better then simple contradiction.
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.
Now you are getting the hang of it! The null hypothesis cannot be chosen as a construct of convenience or to absolve yourself of the burden of proof. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis. Also notewort
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.
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 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.
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. Without actually being able to state the cause of this change to the natural warming cycle. By saying that there is nothing we can do about the warming (as reducing emissions will do nothing), you are really saying that we should start adapting now. And as you are aware, adaptation will cost 5-10x more than mitigation - which is why mitigation is preferred. So what you, and others like you are saying, is that we should 5x as much funding to the issue and uproot millions of people. So if you think the advocates of mitigation require scrutiny, you must agree that an order of magnitude more scrutiny ought to apply to your own theories.
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.
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. Otherwise, I could declare "the null hypothesis is that everybody in the room owes me $50". In reality, I won't collect anything. In your case, you are proposing a hypothesis, and expect the burden of proof to fall on others. And in reality, you wont collect anything either.
CO2 does not have a causal correlation with global average temperature
Please provide of of your assertion, bearing in mind that you have already admitted that Tyndall is correct - so don't contradict yourself.
You asserted that climate models aren't a falsifiable methodology. But of course, they are. One needs only to examine the methodology described for the model and demonstrate where the model is inaccurate
Pretend for a moment you've got in your hands a GCM. You make a prediction for the CO2 and temperature of the globe for 2012, including error bars. Observations go beyond your error bars on either CO2 or temperature. Do you: A) admit that the basis of your GCM has been falsified and AGW or CAGW is no longer true? B) come up with an ad hoc special pleading to explain your discrepancy. Be honest with yourself when you answer.
I remember a few years I was approach by a member of the LDS who used pretty much the same argument. She made an assertion about the nature of the deity, and then as proof of that assertion said: "search your feelings, that will confirm that what I have told you is the truth". At the time, I thought that completely inadequate as a proof for anything - even assertions about something non-empirical like deitie(s). As an empirical proof, it is beyond absurd. 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.
Needless to say I'm not convinced.
Again, I'm not making a hypothesis here for you to fight against - that's your own built strawman. I'm stating, very explicitly, that the null hypothesis that must be considered is that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and global average temperature.
Nobody is interested in playing a semantic game with you. By all means, keep flailing this "null hypothesis" canard around like a guy trying to hold back the tide by waving his arms.
Tyndall's work does not simply scale up to a global level automatically
You say you have no hypothesis - yet here it is! Stated but one sentence later. 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? And show working.
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.
That's true from every observations we've ever made. Show me any point in time with low CO2 and positive plant growth, or high CO2 and negative plant growth (limit yourself to periods of time where plants existed, of course). The funny part about your defense here (attacking my tabletop experiment by asserting that the tabletop does not necessarily represent the globe), is that the same rationale can be used against tabletop experiments which show CO2 in a bottle absorbing more heat than nitrogen :)
Sorry - I didn't immediately pick the fact that you are an ignoramus, at least as far as understanding the limiting factors for plant growth: see http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
Um. No, it isn't - because nobody is asserting that climate doesn't naturally change. This is simply another strawman.
Sure you are.
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.
If you believe that the climate change we've observed over the past 50 years is caused by humans, you're denying that it is a natural change. Now, if you want to be reasonable and say "humans have had an impact for the past 50 years, but are just one factor out of many", maybe we're closer together. Put another way, asserting that observed climate change is at least 50% human induced means you're denying that at least 50% of climate change is natural. If you don't like that percentage, pick a different number and defend it.
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.
(a) What is the natural phenomena in question? Show working.
(b) What is the (so far unpublished) effect removing the energy associated with increased concentrations of CO2? Show working.
But based on the work of Tyndall - which we agree on - we of course expect that adding more CO2 into a system where the amount of CO2 moderates the temperature will lead to an increase in temperature
But we don't agree on the magnitude there, and we cannot blithely assume that natural climate change will stop and all other variables will be held constant so we can isolate the effect of CO2.
You are starting to waffle here.
Again:
(a) Please reference a major work of climate science which asserts that natural climate change has halted
(b) If (as you assert) the current published breakdown between natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change is wrong - then detail what the true proportions are. And show working.
You say that the current calculations as to the magnitude of that change is wrong, but you cannot explain why.
Sure I can - they're not falsifiable.
See our other conversation under this topic - and our previous conversation on the matter. Your problem seems to be that you expect others to falsify the results for you. That is completely illogical.
You're trying to avoid the null hypothesis again - you don't have a falsifiable theory showing that any specific fraction of climate change over the past 50 years is not natural.
As I have already mentioned - You misunderstood what the null hypothesis was. Happy to be more explicit, if that will help.
If you think the models are wrong you need to create a more accurate model and publish the results.
You keep beating that drum, pretending that in the absence of a competing model, the null hypothesis must be *your* hypothesis. Until you can realize the impotence of that argument, your understanding of the issue isn't going to increase.
Who said there aren't competing models?
You asserted that climate models aren't a falsifiable methodology. But of course, they are. One needs only to examine the methodology described for the model and demonstrate where the model is inaccurate - where some effect, e.g. absorption of CO2 by a large sink, such as the ocean, or reflectivity, etc is not taken into account. Then you can build a more accurate model. And indeed, early models were effectively falsified by this method. Even our current models will, at some point, be replaced with models that are more accurate.
Of course, your difficulty is Tyndalls work, and proving your own hypothesis (that the impact of anthropogenic emissions is impossible to predict). Hence the reason why you keep asking us how you might proceed in proving it. But that is YOUR problem, not ours.
But I wonder if these days, such displays of macho nationalism (crudely called 'dick waving') would impress anybody.
Fairly sure that if we can send probes to other planets there won't be any need to send astro-men.
You're not fighting a competing theory
So - you don't have a theory as to why the climate is changing in a way that is unexplained by natural change, nor what happened to the the energy gained by the system by the extra CO2 we humans added? Why then, would we believe your assertion that "something else" is causing the earth's climate to change?
, you're fighting the null hypothesis of natural climate change.
As already noted, you've misunderstood either what a null hypothesis is, or the basis of the science itself, with it's grounding in the work of Tyndall. Maybe you should come back after covering the basics.
While it is clever to try and adjust the null hypothesis to "my climate model", to avoid any strict scrutiny, it doesn't convince.
Convincing you isn't a task that is on anybodies agenda. Hubris on your part, I suspect.
Put another way, in the absence of a competing model, is there any observation that can falsify the GCM you believe in?
What are you on about? If you think the models are wrong you need to create a more accurate model and publish the results. If you think the models are fundamentally flawed so that the error bar is too wide for the prediction to be significant you need tell us, specifically, what that error component is.
Otherwise, what we have is you making baseless assertions. And that is not that impressive.
denialists really say that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life,
Wait wait, are you *really* denying that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help plant life? You do know we've got table top experiments that can prove this - not to mention CO2 enriched greenhouses for growing plants.
See other reply for the stock debunking of this canard - and may I say hsthompson69, how personally disappointing it is to see you making a positive assertion of an experimental basis to denialists theories - so unsophisticated compared your usual posing of loaded questions from a self styled sceptic. Do try to do better - you know we rely on you for our exercise.
Sorry, I missed that - you've got a stock reply that refutes the well established scientific phenomenon of increased plant growth with increased CO2? Really?
So you are attempting to have me address a strawman (that CO2 cannot have a positive impact on plant life) rather than yourself address the topic at hand (which is the denialist canard that increasing global concentrations of CO2 will have a net positive impact on plant life). Obviously some attempt at droll humour on your part, as you would know better than play at kindergarden level tricks like that.
Let's get back to basics -> what falsifiable hypothesis statement do you think is not in dispute?
That posed by Tyndall. Of course.
Tyndall did not make any statement that human CO2 was going to cause a specific amount of warming over a specific time, nor did Tyndall assert that that warming would be catastrophic for humanity or the biosphere.
Irrelevant, since none of those are the topic at hand. Please do try to follow the train of the conversation. And I note that in another place you have already said yourself that Tyndalls observations are not in dispute. Have you forgotten? Obviously not, because here is you saying it again:
Nobody rational is going to dispute that Tyndall observed an effect that differed between gases.
You are a puzzling fellow.
The null hypothesis is that climate changes naturally, as it did for all the years before humanity, or industrialization.
Um. No, it isn't - because nobody is asserting that climate doesn't naturally change. This is simply another strawman.
No particular falsification is necessary for the null. Further, there is a distinction between asserting that we don't know the specific magnitude, and asserting that the specific magnitude will be trivial or of no effect.
But based on the work of Tyndall - which we agree on - we of course expect that adding more CO2 into a system where the amount of CO2 moderates the temperature will lead to an increase in temperature. This behaviour can be experimentally observed. So the default position - the null hypothesis, if you will, is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will lead to climate change.
This situation is analogous to me taking my accident damaged car to a mechanic because it is making a noise. The mechanic tells me the diagnosis and prescribes a fix. Meanwhile a passerby interjects to tell me that mechanic is wrong, that there is nothing wrong with the car. Upon questioning, the passerby changes his tune and starts alleging malpractice on the part of the mechanic, and proclaiming that nobody is qualified to diagnose the noise. Suspicious, my wife checks his briefcase, and finds that he is not a random passerby, but a representative of the insurance company disputing the claim.
If existing models are too complex for you to understand, then that is a problem with you, not the models.