Guest post by Hans Custers. Nederlandse versie hier.
A very, ehhrmm… interesting piece on
Variable Variability, Victor Venema’s blog: Interesting what the interesting Judith Curry finds interesting. And I don’t mean interesting in a rhetoric, suggestive way; I mean it is a well-written and well-reasoned article, worth reading.
Victor writes about the meme regularly used by the anti climate science campaign, often supported by some straw man arguments, that the science of human impacts on climate would not be falsifiable. He shows it’s nonsense, by giving some examples of how it could be falsified. Or, more likely, already would have been falsified, if the science would be wrong. Victor’s post inspired me to think of more options to falsify generally accepted viewpoints in climate science. If there are any ‘climate change skeptics’ who want to contribute to real science, they might see this as a challenge. Maybe they can come up with a research proposal, based on one of the options for falsification. Like proper scientists would do.
First, a few more things about falsifiability in general. Bart wrote a concise post about the subject four years ago, explaining that a bird in the sky does not disprove gravity. What looks like a refutation at first, might on second thoughts be based on partial or total misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Natural climate forcings and variations do not exclude human impacts. Therefore, the existence of these natural factors in itself, cannot falsify anthropogenic climate change. A real skeptic is cautious about both scientific evidence and refutations. ‘Climate change skeptics’ like to mention the single black swan, that disproves the hypothesis that all swans are white. Of course that is true, unless that single black swan appears to be found near some oil spill.
Some of the falsifications that I mention later on might be somewhat cheap, or far-fetched. It is not very easy to find options to falsify the science of human impacts on climate. Not because climate scientists don’t respect philosophical principles of science, but simply because there’s such a huge amount of evidence. There are not a lot of findings that would disprove all the evidence at once. A scientific revolution of this magnitude only happens very rarely. Whoever thinks differently, doesn’t understand how science works.
Karl Popper
Even more, the claim ‘The AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable’ demonstrates a lack of understanding of Popper’s ideas, in which falsifiability is so important. I don’t think Popper’s philosophy implies that some three word hypothesis – Anthropogenic Global Warming – can be rejected by nothing but a few simple claims. Popper would expect a more serious intellectual effort from a scientist. First, he will have to find an accurate wording for his hypothesis. The next step is some thorough thinking about the consequences. This will help him to design tests that can either support or falsify his idea. If, in the end, the result of the test appears to be worthwhile, the scientist will write a paper on this whole enterprise.
As a matter of fact, the ‘AGW-hypothesis’ is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted.
One more thing. The philosophical principle of falsifiability and the feasibility of tests for it are two different subjects. Scientists are still busy testing some of the implications of Einsteins ideas, because the technology did not exist in Einstein’s days. And it is highly unlikely that the scientists that proposed the Higgs boson ever even dreamed of the Large Hadron Collider, because it was beyond anyone’s imagination at the time. Philosophy of science does not set a time frame for hypotheses testing. The issues involved in the testing of hypotheses are the story of almost every scientist’s life. They’re not sitting back, thinking of new and brilliant ideas, most of the time. Instead, they are busy digging for data, messing with measuring equipment, or evaluating errors in experiments. For climate scientists, one of the major issues is the pace at which they can get new information: one year of data every year. And one year of data is not a lot for climate research. There are no test tube planets for climate experiments. They will have to do with what is left: observations of (changes in) the climate in the present and the past and simulations of the relevant processes in the climate system in computer models. Most self-proclaimed skeptics seem to have objections to the latter as well. Wouldn’t it be nice if they, just for a change, would say how it should be done?
That’s it for falsifiability in general. Here are the 10 way to disprove the human impact on climate.
1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
The average global temperature is almost 1 °C higher now than it was in the early 20th century. The widget by Skeptical Science (which unfortunately does not work very well in a WordPress blog) adds some perspective to the amount of energy accumulating in the climate system. These huge amounts of energy do not simply stay in the climate system without a cause. It is what we expect to happen, based on the greenhouse theory. And there’s no other explanation that is supported by a reasonable amount of evidence. It would be very clear that science overlooked something important, if all the energy would suddenly escape without something extraordinary happening (like a huge volcanic eruption), or hide in some unknown place.
2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
There are two major causes for sea level rise: thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land ice. Water extraction from and (temporal) accumulation on land play a minor role. At this moment, thermal expansion is the main factor. This is evidence for warming of the oceans, which is important because the oceans can store much more heat than the atmosphere. Thus, the ocean level falling, would not only be evidence for cooling of the oceans; it would be strong evidence that the climate system as a whole would be losing energy. (Note: pure water has a strange property: the density decreases with an increase in temperature between 0 and 4 °C. This effect disappears with increasing salinity. For almost all sea water, the maximum density is at freezing point).
Changes in sea level on a short term are not caused by thermal expansion or contraction, so they do not falsify anthropogenic climate change. The figure below, from the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group, for instance, shows a substantial seasonal variation. This variation can be filtered out of that data, and that’s the graph that is usually shown.
3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
Since the late 50’s, the Keeling Curve shows an ongoing rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If there would be a sudden huge change in the CO2 level, without a clear, demonstrable cause, that would be proof that our knowledge of the carbon cycle falls short.
Climate change skeptics sometimes refer to a graph by Ernst-Georg Beck, in which thousands of megatons of CO2 mysteriously seem to appear in atmosphere within a few years, and then disappear again, causing wild fluctuations in CO2 levels. The fluctuations miraculously stop in 1958, exactly when Keeling started his measurements on Mauna Loa. Maybe we are being fooled for more than half a century by all CO2 molecules in the world. But it’s more likely that the graph below, from Cripps, father and son Keeling’s home base, displays the more accurate data.
4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks
One of the ways to estimate climate sensitivity, is by looking at temperature changes in the past and the knowledge of their causes. It is very likely that the magnitude of a temperature change mostly depends on the magnitude of a change in the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, rather than the exact cause of this change. In other words: a Watt per square meter is a Watt per square meter, no matter if it comes from the sun, from an increased greenhouse effect, or something else. So, smaller temperature changes in the past, of larger forcings causing them, would be evidence for a low climate sensitivity.
5. Warming of the stratosphere
Many changes that are happening in the climate system are caused by warming itself. Observations of these changes cannot be used as evidence for the cause of warming. But there are some changes – fingerprints – that are specific for the increased greenhouse effect. Cooling of the stratosphere is one of these fingerprints. This cooling is confirmed by measurements, as is shown in the figure below, from ‘State of the Climate 2012‘ by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Stratospheric warming is not the only human fingerprint that can be found. More detailed information on fingerprints can be found in last year’s paper: ‘Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere‘ by Santer et al.
6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing longwave radiation
We can see the absorption of heat by greenhouse gases in satellite measurements of longwave radiation that leaves the earth’s atmosphere. The absorption bands of CO2, methane, ozone and water vapor are clearly visible in these measurements, as shown in the figure below. Whoever can demonstrate the measurements to be wrong, will make it into the history books. It would not only disprove the human impact on climate, it would wipe quite a lot of established physical science off the table.
7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature
If specific humidity would not follow temperature, the relative humidity would be lower in a warmer world. Then, there would not be a positive water vapor feedback, or it would be very small. It is highly likely that this would make matters rather worse than better. Our greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a smaller rise in temperatures than expected, but the downside would probably be disastrous: world-wide drought. Unless Clausius and Clapeyron were wrong.
8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet
All the evidence shows the heat in the climate system has been increasing for decades, and still is. Assuming even climate change skeptics do not dispute the law of conservation of energy, there has to be a source of heat somewhere. Who knows, one day, we might find some kind of mini-sun, hidden deep in the oceans. It would be a game changer for climate science.
9. A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics
This one is especially for the ‘slayers’, who deny that there is a greenhouse effect at all. Their ideas are either utter nonsense, or they are about to discover the very biggest mistake in the history of science. It would mean that we’d have to reevaluate fundamental physical science, that has been undisputed for decades to centuries, like the Stefan-Boltzman law or even the laws of thermodynamics. We would probably end up rewriting every single physics book in the world.
10. CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory
I added this last one as a ‘tribute’ to one of the veterans of the war on climate science in The Netherlands. He, whose name I will not mention, does not dispute the greenhouse effect, but thinks it is relevant to mention that absorption of longwave radiation by CO2 has only been measured ‘in laboratory conditions’. He’s wrong, of course, because there are satellite measurements as well. But let’s forget about that. I think the idea of molecules behaving differently in the lab, compared to their behavior in the wild, is so creative that it deserves attention. I won’t go into the consequences of this revolutionary hypothesis. I will leave that, dear reader, to your imagination.
Tags: Climate science, climate skeptics
February 17, 2014 at 21:14
Well, we do have to wonder how CO2 molecules that have been bred in the laboratory, or even “domesticated”, so-to-speak, might behave differently than the wild-grown ones. It’s not appropriate to assume they act the same. Perhaps someone can do an experiment.
February 17, 2014 at 22:56
Oh God, I’m surrounded by feral chemicals. p.s. brilliant post, a lot to work through, saved for posterity!
February 17, 2014 at 23:20
Windchasers, you are seriously assuming that ‘domesticated’ CO2 molecules might behave differently than those floating about in the wild blue yonder? Do you think their behaviour changes when they are brought from the outside into the domestic environment or into the lab… any lab?
I hope it is appropriate to assume you are kidding. :)
Anyway, the experiment has been done. Figure 7 shows the absorption spectra of CO2, O3, CH4 etc. as measured in the free atmosphere. Earth observation satellites but also CO2 probes in the open air use these absorption spectra to measure concentrations.
Of course, in astrophysics the CO2 absorption lines (among others), are used to measure concentrations, temperatures (line broadening) and velocities (Doppler shifts) in planetary and cometary atmospheres as well as in stellar nebulae and other objects. The Zeeman effect is used to measure the strength of magnetic fields etc.
The absorption lines are not just an empirical find, but from quantum mechanics we can calculate these spectra and the intensity of each of these lines. This works equally well for any molecular or atomic spectrum, so it is consistent across the whole field of IR spectroscopy.
February 18, 2014 at 01:35
If there are any ‘climate change skeptics’ who want to contribute to real science, they might see this as a challenge. Maybe they can come up with a research proposal, based on one of the options for falsification. Like proper scientists would do.
If someone at an oil company only had the slightest doubt such a challenge might be possible, he had already funded this research. If every visitor to WUWT would pay one cent, they could hire a good scientist. That they rather fund PR firms and write daily erroneous posts shows that even they know the AGW is solid.
February 18, 2014 at 19:04
Sorry, Bob – I’d added a [/ tongue-in-cheek ] tag, but I think the HTML editor ate it. :-p
February 18, 2014 at 19:30
On of the problems of the climate “debate” is that sarcasm and nonsense is often indistinguishable.
February 19, 2014 at 18:36
Victor Venema Says:
February 18, 2014 at 19:30
On of the problems of the climate “debate” is that sarcasm and nonsense is often indistinguishable.
~ ~ ~
. . . and too often accepted as fact by too many. ;- |
February 19, 2014 at 21:53
Point 8 made me laugh; wilst it is very true that we do like to blog and tweet about it; I believe that your “law of conversation of energy” should rather have been the law of CONSERVATION of energy.
An interesting post which has given me some areas for thougt.
[thnkx: typo fixed – JH]
February 23, 2014 at 01:35
Oh yes, and the Crip(p)s are an LA gang. The Keelings nest at Scripps.
That being said, there have been at least one major instrumental error discovered in the sun observing satellites, but, sad to say, it made everything fit a lot better with the climate model.
February 23, 2014 at 01:35
Let us not forget the serial errors of Christy, Spencer and McNider on measuring global temperature. Somehow always in the same direction.
March 24, 2014 at 15:57
I would pose a challenge to this author. Write us a narrative, even if make believe, which would describe falsification of global climate change…..
Seems to me anything and everything observable has been declared proof of global warming……. rain, no rain, snow, no snow, too hot, too cold……..
It seems problematic to have a theory were anything and everything is considered proof to support it!
I also find statements made by global climate change supporters to be contradictory. When we have a huge snow storm or a very cold span of weather they declare that “no single storm is proof against global climate change…….”
But then we have a storm like Sandy or weeks of hot weather in summer and we are told these ARE PROOF of global climate change………
How can they say one weather event does not disprove the theory, but one weather event seems to prove it!
March 27, 2014 at 15:09
Heather,
Your challenge has been more than met with this post I’d wager. It offers 10 such narratives that you ask for.
For a truly contradictory statement, check out John Christy’s comments about the hotspot: It is not specific to the greenhouse effect on one day, and the next day it is a fundamental sign of a greenhouse effect. Want more? Here you go.
March 27, 2014 at 16:19
You posted statements from climate change deniers that were then attacked by climate change supporters. I did not ask for the idea’s of people who deny climate change. I asked what experimental outcomes, what data, would be accepted by those who support the theory…. to lead them to decide the theory is wrong.
To be a valid theory it has to have the possibility of being proven wrong, what would fulfill that possibility? Would it have to be CO2 levels at X value with no warming seen? Would it need to be 100 years of decreasing temperatures with CO2 levels still rising? Something observable would need to qualify – I am not saying it would ever be observed, I am merely asking what that something would be.
In other words, when scientist conducted an experiment to prove global warming, what would have been considered valid proof for their null hypothesis? If their hypothesis is that man-caused CO2 was causing global warming…. then surely they had a null hypothesis that man-caused CO2 has no effect at all……..
So what would they have accepted as proof that man-caused CO2 has no effect? I am not suggesting they got this result, I am asking what would that result have had to have been for it to have been accepted? I am not asking this question of the climate change deniers, I am asking it to the supporters.
My issue is that it seems we are told that anything and everything is proof of global warming and I just do not see how you have a valid theory if absolutely nothing could ever disprove it. It seems your response was just to cite the opinions of those who deny climate change and that was not my question.
If a week of warm weather proves global warming and a week of cold weather proves global warming then how can the theory be disproven – it is going to either be warm or cold – all possible events become proof in favor. If anything that will happen is proof for a theory, then how does it meet the criteria of falsifiable?
A perfect example is global cooling. It was once the mainstream theory held by climate scientist. At the time man was also dumping CO2 into the air, but the mainstream theory scientist came up with was not global warming…… but global cooling…..
Something, some data, some experimental outcome, something led to them falsifying global cooling…. and led them to global warming.
I am merely asking what something would need to be seen to do the same for global warming. ____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 27, 2014 at 16:22
Heather,
From your statement is seems that you don’t have an appreciation for what our global climate system is all about. Might I recommend an excellent video tour:
Earth From Space HD 1080p / Nova
~ ~ ~
Beyond that the first thing about global warming you need to learn about is our atmosphere and how greenhouse gases behave within that atmosphere. Everything else following on that awareness.
Here’s one good short description:
“Scott Denning of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University gives a stripped-down explanation of the structure of greenhouse gas molecules like CO2 and how they trap heat in our atmosphere: “Why Greenhouse Gases Make the Planet Warmer” ” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIBk0pGV_BQ
Happy learning,
Cheers
March 27, 2014 at 16:28
I am not asking about climate specifically. I am asking about the scientific method as they are applying it to global warming theory.
I am not debating climate. I am debating procedure.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 27, 2014 at 16:31
What I am saying is that a theory, any theory, that we are told everything and anything is proof of, does not seem to follow the scientific method.
If anything and everything proves a theory and no data of any form is a possible disproof of it, is it a valid theory?
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 27, 2014 at 16:46
Heather,
about that global cooling canard, here you can hear an objective review of the “global cooling” claim (check out 4:10)
“In the 70s, They said there’d be an Ice Age”
~ ~ ~
You say: “If anything that will happen is proof for a theory, then how does it meet the criteria of falsifiable?” but, that’s simply not a realistic description of what’s happening within climatology !
You need to do some good-faith research and learning on your own. Might I suggest becoming familiar with the information in the following pages, since they directly relate to your claim that everything proves global warming, so nothing can disprove it.
NOAA – TEN SIGNS OF A WARMING WORLD
http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/
~ ~ ~
NASA – Climate change: How do we know?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
~ ~ ~
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/
Happy learning,
Cheers
March 27, 2014 at 16:55
Your very fixated on ‘climate’, when as I said my question was not about climate. My question was about how the scientific method is applied to the theory.
I am not asking about atmospheric chemistry. I am asking about the process of applying the scientific method to this particular theory; falsifiability is an aspect of a proper theory. All I am saying is that a theory were everything proves it and nothing can disprove it, does not follow the scientific method.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 27, 2014 at 16:57
heathergirl1234 Says:
March 27, 2014 at 16:28
“I am not asking about climate specifically. I am asking about the scientific method as they are applying it to global warming theory.”
~ ~ ~
Are you claiming “they” are applying the scientific method differently for climatology than they do in other Earth Sciences?
Can you explain that claim in any detail?
~ ~ ~
Incidentally, to understand why this past winter was so severe for parts of the country, {while my part has been experiencing spring since the end of January… not good at all!}
you simply need to learn about climate specifics, such as the increasingly weird Jet Stream behavior effecting weather.
March 27, 2014 at 17:00
heathergirl1234, I am afraid I have to agree with Bart Verheggen that what you are asking is exactly the topic of this post.
Maybe you could clarify using one of the 10 falsification examples mentioned, why you disagree that this is a falsification example. Maybe a more concrete discussion would help us understand each other.
March 27, 2014 at 17:08
heathergirl1234 Says:
March 27, 2014 at 16:55:
“All I am saying is that a theory were everything proves it and nothing can disprove it, does not follow the scientific method.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But, when you start out with a false statement it leaves us with nothing to discuss. You claim, everything “proves” global warming, so nothing can disprove it. But, that’s simply not true – unless you do some serious cherry picking, which equals ignoring all you don’t like.
~ ~ ~
As for “falsifiability of climate science” this entire article is about explaining that. Why not pick something specific in this article you disagree with, or that you find lacking.
March 27, 2014 at 17:22
What was my false statement? Are you tell me that we are not told that all observable weather, that all events are proof of global warming?
So let’s try, tell me which of the following is NOT proof of global warming?
A lot of snow….. No snow…… a lot of rain….. no rain….. a hot summer……. a cool summer……
From what I see and hear all of these events have been attributed to global warming! So what event is left that isn’t proof? A theory can not have everything as proof it otherwise as I said it lakes the scientific method requirement of falsifiability!
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 27, 2014 at 19:31
Heather,
As Bart said, I presented 10 ways to falsify global warming. They are not rebuttals of “skeptic” ideas, as you seem to think, but they are the narratives you ask for. Or else, I don’t understand your question.
A single weather event can never either prove or disprove any theory on climate. And I’m quite sure you can’t find a serious cimate scientist who says it can. What they do say now and then is that observations of extreme weather or “weather weirding” are in line with what they expect to see in a warming world. Because, well, that’s how it is. But they will not claim it as proof or evidence.
If climate would change the same way and at the same rate at any time and any place in the world, it would be much easier to understand. Unfortunately, science cannot create a climate that’s easy to understand. They have to deal with the world as it is. Accumlation of energy in the real world doesn’t just mean it’s getting warmer, it also affects air flows, ocean currents and evaporation. Because of that, it can cause more extreme droughts and more extreme precipitation, more heat waves and maybe even cooler temperatures at some places. The climate system is quite complicated and you can’t blame climate science for that.
There’s one single and simple reason why it’s so hard to disprove climate change: because it’s real. You cannot disprove what is really happening!
March 27, 2014 at 19:36
Heather, both a lot of snow and no snow can indeed both be linked to global warming. You see, global warming can mean that a region becomes, on average, too warm to have significant snowfall (meaning that there is less snow than some decades ago). At the same time, global warming increases the amount of precipitable water in the atmosphere, meaning that if any snow falls, it can be more than ever seen before. What you get is weather weirding.
Other example: if it rains it pours more than ever, and at the same time you get drought in the same region because the rain is less frequent, and those deluges are not very good in replenishing water supplies.
A simple falsifiable part of the theory is that in the absence of strong negative forcings (e.g. large volcanic eruptions) but with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, no further heat accumulation is observed, neither in the ocean or the atmosphere.
March 27, 2014 at 23:18
But then didn’t we see exactly that, no further heat accumulation for the past decade, but an increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations.
Oh I forgot. Just in time to save the day they decided the missing heat was in the deep ocean. So if the deep ocean absorbed X amount of heat over that decade, shouldn’t have also absorbed the same amount of the decade before that and the one before that?
Seems if you want to say this mechanism absorbs the heat then you have to add its effect to the total span of time the model covers and not just to the span of time you need to explain away missing heat! ____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 27, 2014 at 23:59
Heather,
Nonsense, nobody “decided that the missing heat was in de deep ocean”. All the evidence simply shows that this is happening. There have always been natural variations in surface temperature, caused by variations in heat exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans. Climate change does not switch the internal variablility off.
March 28, 2014 at 00:18
But they decided this only when they suddenly needed to account for the past decade. If they didn’t do so, then how do they explain the past decade of no significant warming?
Your response is also odd. How does heat trapped in the deep ocean, have anything to do with variations in surface temperature?
Articles such as these only popped up after the IPCC had to explain away the lack of warming seen over the past decade! If they knew of this all along then shouldn’t it already be accounted for in the models…. and therefore not an explanation of the lack of warming seen over the past decade?
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 28, 2014 at 00:29
Heather,
“.. if you want to say this mechanism absorbs the heat then you have to add its effect to the total span of time the model covers and not just to the span of time you need to explain away missing heat!”
Certainly, here it is across the total span of time:
It shows the observed change in total heat content of all compartments of the climate system. This increase is not completely homogenous, since:
1. the ‘dips’ you see follow volcanic eruptions, which temporarily decrease radiative forcing;
2. the radiative forcing does not increase linearly. It increases somewhat faster since the nineties.
Of course there are uncertainties because the heat content of the oceans has only been crudely sampled since about 1957. However, the uncertainties are denoted in the graph.
The partitioning of these extra zetajoules between atmosphere and ocean varies in time, because of fluctuations in e.g. wind direction and strength across the largest body of open water on Earth, the Pacific Ocean. This is part and parcel of ‘internal variability’.
March 28, 2014 at 00:49
Interesting chart. That sure seems a lot of uncertainty! That amount of uncertainty does not disturb you? ____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 28, 2014 at 01:18
And why would that disturb me? Whether you follow the highest or the lowest curve in the graph — it shows the same phenomenon, including the effect of volcanic eruptions on the total heat content.
Considering that the ocean has only been sampled since 1957, and more comprehensively since the eighties, a large uncertainty in earlier decades is to be expected.
I would have been disturbed… if no uncertainties were shown.
March 28, 2014 at 02:04
Interesting. I have a hard time with so much uncertainty in ‘settled science’.
Well it was nice talking to you.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 28, 2014 at 22:51
Heather,
if you’re interested in how climate science stacks up to the scientific methods, I can recommend this book chapter on that exact question or slides on the same.
However, I’m a little puzzled by you throwing in things like global cooling or ‘settled science’; these are typical buzz words in “skeptical” circles (and not remotely true, see e.g. the global cooling link). You may want to be a bit more critical towards the sources you get your information from.
Re the recent “pause” in global temperature: Doesn’t it make sense that if observations are slightly different from expected that you look for reasons why that may be the case? (in response to your “just in time” comments). That is how science works.
March 29, 2014 at 00:35
I guess I am skeptical. Odd I thought on average scientist were!
What I meant by ‘just in time’ is that you would think these things would have been mentioned ongoingly and not just when needed when something confronts the theory.
If they have been measuring this deep ocean heat accumulation since 1957, why wouldn’t they have been aware that it would cause pauses in observable global warming before now?
But they tell us this only when the theory was confronted with such a pause!
So yes, I guess I am a skeptic!
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 00:38
Also, I only mentioned global cooling because at one time they seemed just as sure of that theory. And as for ‘settled science’…. isn’t this the term that is used? That people should not be skeptical because it is settled science?
I think it is those who support the theory who call it settled science!
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 01:15
No Heather I’m afraid you are not honestly “skeptical”
I say this because I know that the information is out there.
Why not visit http://scholar.google.com and plug in “ocean warming” then look through pages worth of papers you’ll find. Just because the news media doesn’t report on it doesn’t mean scientists aren’t studying it !
As in your claim about “global cooling” there again you grab a label, wave it around, but never investigate to find out what that was all about. If you did you wouldn’t be so flippant about serious scientific work and how knowledge evolves.
Throughout your comments here, there seems to be a deep underlying conviction that climate scientists ‘must’ be lying to you if they “advocate” global warming. I can’t answer that for you, but I hope your intellectual integrity will force you to be a little skeptical about your own biases – question your own assumptions a little… that’s the sign of a true rational skeptic.
March 29, 2014 at 03:22
I would think the last thing we want in science is for everyone to agree on consensus. It seems to me a good things if some question it.
The idea that the earth was the center of universe was once consensus! Those who held this consensus did not get us to the truth, the skeptics did.
Were would we be without skeptics? ____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 04:44
Have an open mind,
but not so open,
that your brains fall out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for skepticism,
you are right,
we need it,
but we need to use it towards ourselves also !
March 29, 2014 at 04:50
Heather, do you think it is a bad thing that physicists have a consensus that apples fall from trees due to gravity? Do you think that this indicates that physicists are not thinking critically? If not, why are your norms for climatology different?
A scientific consensus indeed does not mean that an idea is true, but it does give an idea credibility. If you are a scientist you should try to disprove any idea and the main price is disproving a consensus idea. That shows that you are smarter than all the others in the field.
If you are not an expert on a topic on which there is a strong consensus after a significant amount of study, it is a reasonable strategy to trust the consensus. The alternative is to make yourself an expert, which is unfortunately not possible for every topic.
Let me add that there is only a consensus on the basics of climate science, on details there is still much discussion. For example, when it comes to extreme weather.
The reason why it is communicated that there is a consensus is because the public has the wrong impression that scientists are not sure yet whether climate change is a problem.
March 29, 2014 at 05:02
Well, I find that those who are skeptical read the works of those who are in the consensus, but I have to wonder how much time those who are in the consensus read the work of the skeptics!
An open mind goes both ways!
I was just reading various materials on the issues of skeptics and consensus. It always seems they employ a demeaning term to refer to anyone who dissents – skeptic, denier, contrarian. It seems if they rely on such ‘nicknames’ then their bias is readily visible!
It would be the same as my referring to you as an “alarmist” but then implying I am being open minded! Language betrays us!
It has been interesting talking too you!
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 05:34
Maybe you can answer a question I have, educate a skeptic!
I read once on the UN website that raising livestock was the largest contributor to human generated greenhouse gases…….
So why would we focus all the climate change talk on fossil fuel use, instead of maybe passing a law mandating vegan-ism? Why is it you have to stable across the idea that the large greenhouse gas source is livestock, everything in media suggests its my car and not my cheeseburger!
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 05:35
Oops. “Stumble”….. not stable. I speak fluent typo.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 06:23
Don’t try to misunderstand…
It is the repetition of known lies that’s contemptible and insult inspiring.
Add to that… it seems like your average “science skeptic” type accepts these repetitions of known lies as a fair part of the “debate” or something. (you yourself bring up the nonsense about ‘global cooling’ among others)
Can you explain that part?
March 29, 2014 at 12:24
You “read once on the UN website that raising livestock was the largest contributor to human generated greenhouse gases”
Well, go ahead, find us the reference. You will not, because you did not read that on “the UN website”.
What you might have read is the press release about a FAO report, which put the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions related to raising livestock at 18% of all greenhouse has emissions. That’s everything included, from deforestation to transport.
It should also be noted that reducing meat intake has already been mentioned a few times as one of many ways to mitigate climate change – apart from quite a few other advantages.
March 29, 2014 at 14:43
I tried to find the article but I can’t. It is not the one your referring too since the one I read was many years ago. But I am very sure it was on the UN’s site.
If I have more time later I will look some more. This was maybe later then like 2005.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 18:08
The idea that we have seen a decade of no warming, while the CO2 emissions have continued unchecked seems at least a hint of falsifiability. The infamous “pause”.
This obviously was an issue, didn’t the IPPC report need to comment on the “pause” in global warming? The lack of measured temperature increase over the past decade?
But we are now told this ‘missing heat” is being absorbed by the deep ocean and most likely it is. Bart even produced a nice graph of this data and said they have been measuring this since 1957.
So doesn’t this mean they were aware of this deep ocean heat absorbing effect? Shouldn’t the models have been adjusted to account for it, to include it? Maybe that data was not that good in 1957, but according to Bart’s chart the ‘uncertainty’ has been decreasing since 1957 and definitely by 1970.
If the models were adjusted to include this deep ocean heat absorbing mechanism, shouldn’t they have PREDICTED the pause and not been surprised by it…..?
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 19:23
I did not see any way to respond to a single post here so I will post the one I am responding too…….
heathergirl1234 Says:
March 27, 2014 at 16:55:
“All I am saying is that a theory were everything proves it and nothing can disprove it, does not follow the scientific method.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But, when you start out with a false statement it leaves us with nothing to discuss. You claim, everything “proves” global warming, so nothing can disprove it. But, that’s simply not true – unless you do some serious cherry picking, which equals ignoring all you don’t like.
~ ~ ~
As for “falsifiability of climate science” this entire article is about explaining that. Why not pick something specific in this article you disagree with, or that you find lacking.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you miss read what I meant by ‘everything proves it”. I did not mean literally everything, as in seeing a flock of ducks proves it.
The winter is either going to be cold or it is going to be warm. Those are the options, one of those options will occur. So if we are told that both confirm global warming theory, then what is left to not confirm global warming theory?
The summer is going to be hot or mild. If a hot summer and a mild summer are both considered the results of global warming, what option remains to be considered disproof of global warming?
If we have a rainy summer we are told this is also due to global warming, if we have a dry summer that too is proof of global warming, so again the summer has to be one or the other! What remains as disproof of global warming if all the weather events prove it.
This is my original question, what becomes disproof of global warming? It seems we are told that all possible weather events are proof.
I think what I am more reacting too is what seems an odd double standard. When we had a massive snow storm global climate change suppoerters were lined up on TV to tell us how “no sinlge snow storm is proof against global warming…… its just weather”.
OK, got it, no single storm is proof against global warming…… so no sinlge storm would be proof of global warming either, right?
But along comes hurricane Sandy…. and these same TV stations have an endless line of global climate change supporters telling us how Sandy is OBVIOUSLY proof of global warming…….
So what happened to the idea that no single storm is proof….. I thought it was “just weather”.
It seems the criteria changes based on if your trying to proof global warming or disprove it!
March 29, 2014 at 19:52
Heather,
You do throw out a lot of questions, isn’t it?
And as soon as someone puts in any effort to try to answer your ‘question’, you immediately jump to an unrelated one. Never ever exploring one particular issue in depth, just demanding answers to some other random talking point.
As soon as you get an answer… you jump to another ‘question’:
ocean –> the nature of scientific consensus
consensus –> random imagined statement about raising livestock
livestock –> models
Then you state the following: “If I have more time later I will look some more.”
Great, you do seem to have quite some time now. How about you answer Marco’s question first? Or acknowledge you were misguided about:
Before we invest more of our precious time, maybe you might dedicate some of yours to answer Marco’s question?
March 29, 2014 at 20:18
I think I have been responded to statements made in the emails I was sent. I referenced deep ocean heat capture as a response.
I also believe I did respond to the question on the UN paper. I know what I read, but as I said I can not find it and I said so. I was asked to post it and I said I could not find it. Isn’t that an answer?
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 20:23
I am responding to the emails I receive. I am a lay person on this so I am responding with the knowledge I have.
Or do you think this issue will be resolved only by climatologist, with the consent of the masses? Seems to me sooner or later you got to answer the questions of the masses…… who are not all going to have read every peer reviewed climatology paper!
Don’t you have to get this all past someone like me…… Jane and Joe Citizen?
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 20:25
Bob Brand good post, well said and worth saying.
~ ~ ~
Incidentally Heather,
it seems to me we’ve gotten to the point that if you aren’t feeling “alarmist” about the whole situation you aren’t paying attention.
After all when a fire starts in a theater, you really want someone(s) to become alarmed in a hurry. No, but instead you play silly word games and act for all intents like that proverbial turtle in the warming pot of water that’s going to turn it into dinner.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Beyond that, honestly understanding what is happening upon our planet requires an attitude of interested curiosity and a willingness to allow new information to soak it.
Skepticism towards the pros and experts means nothing when it’s coming from an absolutist hostile mentality and that I’m afraid is what you sound like.
The Republican approach, which you parrot quite well, is a non-stop hostile barrage of insincere questioning and doubting every conceivable detail, then they’re never interested in listening to explanations. It’s contrarianism and has nothing to do with gaining a personal understanding and appreciation for what’s happening to (as I like to call it) our global heat distribution engine.
PS
Fabricating Climate Doom: Checking Up on Jim Steele’s Science
Friday, March 28, 2014
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/fabricatingclimatedoom-steeles-science.html
March 29, 2014 at 20:53
Odd and that was what I thought I was doing. Asking questions, from a lay persons perspective – there are more people like me in the world then there are people with piles of climatology peer review journals. Not everyone who has questions is going to ask them with a deep understanding of climatology.
If I was hostile I would be calling you an alarmist. I think you used that term once and only to refer to others who use that term. I have not called anyone an alarmist.
But yes, my knowledge of all this is based mostly on TV news. How many of us do you think there are out there? Aren’t we the people who vote in elections to decide who will go and decide issues such as this? Isn’t people with the knowledge level I have the people who you need on your side?
For whatever reason my knowledge of climate change is most likely the level of knowledge of the majority, we do not subscribe to ‘Global warming is us’ journal, we do not attend IPPC meetings, we watch the news. That is where we see and hear what we know of climate change.
That is why I asked the original question I asked. I am common citizen, I sit and watch the news during the sever snow storm we had in my area in 2013 and I see the “global climate change expert” declare that a huge blizzard “is not proof against climate change, one storm is just weather……” OK GOT IT…..
Then I sit and watch my TV again, for coverage of Hurricane Sandy. There is the “global climate change expert” again… declaring the hurricane is obviously proof of global warming……
So I sit there and ask “odd, I thought no single storm was proof of global warming, so why is hurricane Sandy proof and the feet of snow I shoveled last year isn’t………”
And I hear this almost constantly from TV News. As I have said repeatedly, if there is a lot of rain someone on the news blames it on global warming, if there is no rain someone blames it on global warming…. so I asked the question how can all the potential weather events all prove global warming, to my thinking this left nothing as disproof – so I asked a question from a lay persons perspective.
And I am willing to bet a lot of people just like me are sitting and watching the news and asking exactly the same question.
And it seems to me that we are who you need to make this all make sense too. It’s not going to be room of climatologist who picks the next Congress, or the next Senate, it’s not going to be the UN IPPC….. it’s going to me people like me. People with the same level of climate change knowledge I have.
But from your response I am not likely to ask any of my questions here!
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 21:02
Heather,
You say:
Do you think that is a satisfactory answer? How about if we would answer to you: “We know we have read it somewhere, but we can not find it … You’ll just have to believe it.”
And then you mention “the UN paper” while initially it was “the UN website”. In reality, if the UN (probably it would have been the FAO, but no matter) puts out a statement or a report, it is always heavily scrutinized by scientists as well as officials in many countries.
You can bet on it that the livestock industry reads every single syllable in such a report, many times over. If the UN would have claimed that: “raising livestock was the largest contributor to human generated greenhouse gases” it would have been all over the Internet. Not least of all at the International Energy Agency etc.
The 18% of all GHG’s which Marco quoted is about correct, at least it was in 2006:
LIVESTOCK’S LONG SHADOW – Environmental issues and options
What you *may* have been confused about, is that this 18% is larger than the contribution by cars and planes combined. It is NOT, however, the largest contributor. That is the energy sector.
March 29, 2014 at 21:12
There has been a lot of additional research done on that contribution since 2006, and livestock practices have been changing in many countries, like in Holland. Also, other sectors have been growing.
The latest FAO report on this issue is from 2013. In that report the latest research has been combined and updated figures have been used. It is now (2013) at about 14,5% of all GHG’s:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/world-on-a-plate/2013/sep/27/environment-food-ipcc-emissions-greenhouse-gas-livestock-vegetarian-meat
Livestock production mainly produces CH4 (but also CO2 and NOx). Many measures are being initiated by the industry to gradually reduce the CH4 emissions from livestock.
March 29, 2014 at 21:14
What was wrong with my reply? “I know what I read, but I can not find it”. I did not say anyone had to believe it. I referenced a paper I saw and since I could not find it I did not pursue the subject.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 21:50
Heather,
How about concentrating on the subject? On one subject?
You were curious about livestock emissions, and I provided you with the original 2006 FAO report. If you had been seriously curious you would probably have googled it yourself — it took me about 12 seconds to find it.
Also, I gave you the link to a very fine and very readable piece by Emma Bryce about the updated 2013 FAO figures. Did you read it?
So, livestock is currently about 14,5% of all GHG emissions, which is just a bit more than the 13% by cars and planes. The energy sector produces a considerably bigger slice of the total emissions, however.
On another matter: would you agree it is common decency to thank other people if they happen to do your research for you — and if they provide you with the requested information on a silver platter?
March 29, 2014 at 22:05
Oh boy. Actually I wasn’t. I was curious about falsifiability. The livestock emissions was a question I asked when I thought the falsifiability question was exhausted.
I also had no idea all my emails were going to a blog. I thought I was simply exchanging emails with Bart. Which may be way it appeared I was ignoring questions.
I saw the small paragraphs at the tops of the emails but had no idea I could read the rest of it. I was not even sure why it was there.
I think also my questions are being miss read. I was not asking about the data on livestock emissions. My question was more why just the idea of those emissions being so significant never makes it to the news……
So in fact data on % of emissions really had nothing to do with my question. Like I said I am viewing this from the perspective of a person who gets information on TV.
So my question is and never was the actual percentage of CO2 cattle produce. My question was why we never hear about livestock as a second or third most significant source – we only hear about one source. As a lay person I am curious why one source seems to be a focus, when I then hear there is a second source that is also significant.
How many people in the general public are aware of livestock’s role in global warming? I am sure if you ask most people they will blame it all on oil.
And yes thank you for the link. Sadly I did not realize how this email/blog works and I never saw it. ____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
March 29, 2014 at 22:29
OK I am done. Really thanks for so much time. But seriously, spend more time worrying about Joe and Jane.
____________________________ Heather Sarah Adams heathergreeneyes@comcast.net
May 21, 2014 at 06:27
A good start, but some pretty big holes there:
1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
We’ve already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.
2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
Same as #1.
3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
Same as #1.
4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks
Argument from ignorance. Just because we can’t enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn’t mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.
5. Warming of the stratosphere
No reason this cannot happen naturally.
6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing long wave radiation
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.
7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature
Same as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven’t happened.
8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet
Another argument from ignorance.
9. A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics
Necessary, but certainly not sufficient. You could claim that if the speed of light is wrong, then astrology is debunked, but the speed of light itself, or any other physical constant, does not imply a complex theory must be true.
10. CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory
Same as #9
May 23, 2014 at 16:39
krischel, I believe you’ve got yourself quite the disingenuous Gish Gallop going there. Most of your questions reflect a disinterest in actually learning what’s known about those various topics, or you wouldn’t have asked them the way you have.
Instead you seem to be relying on headlines you’ve culled from denialist websites such as WUWT. In the end it “was too ripe not to pick and too long not to share over at my own blog.
“Contemplating the contrarian mind in action”
Thursday, May 22, 2014
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action.html
May 23, 2014 at 21:13
citizenschallenge – the trick is that trivial falsifications do not automatically add up to a falsifiable hypothesis.
You need to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. So,
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change.
If anything, the original list of 10 items was a Gish Gallop in the classic sense – as is the typical response of “look at all this evidence and ignore any contradictions you see!” :)
The post is called “is climate science falsifiable”? And to the extend that it provided specific falsifications for specific parts of climate science, perhaps it did it’s job. However, the implication that the 10 falsifications being lacking, the only conclusion left is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for 50%+ of climate change since 1950, is simply unfounded.
May 23, 2014 at 21:40
citizenschallenge – Wow, your gish gallop blog post was quite the read! A few answers for you:
1) you’ve got no citation for any models which can accurately hind cast prior ice ages. Searching google scholar for “modeling past ice ages” is hardly a citation :)
2) you’re assertion that ignoring the ocean’s role in climate change is dishonest is an indictment of all the AGW supporters who insist that the oceans cannot be drivers of climate change, but must first be affected by human CO2 emissions;
3) I don’t expect them to produce perfect images – but simply responding to observations with ad hoc special pleadings, in order to preserve the central conceit, is dishonest.
4) Insisting that the short term accuracy of weather forecast models can be extrapolated to long term climate models is a non sequitur;
5) Asserting that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are simply a function of independent sources and sinks is unfounded;
6) The claim that skepticism of failed predictions is “obsessing over minor details” sounds a lot like the response of an astrologist :)
7) It’s ironic that you outsource your rational thought processes to “true experts”, but try to argue individual points :) Again, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy;
8) You can’t go from underlying physical properties of gases and extrapolate to some grand theory of global climate change dominated by human CO2 emissions (or any source of CO2 emissions in the past for that matter). You’re skipping important steps.
It’s funny, in the end, you assert that disagreement with your position is driven by politics, “clinging to our greed-based ever increasing consumerist life-styles”. And in this, you show your true colors – you’re a partisan, who has picked a side, and will believe it regardless of any observations that contradict it.
Let’s argue for a moment, that the year 1914 was both cooler, and less “greed-based”. Please explain to me how you consider the year 2014 worse for humanity, with an expanded population, incredible “greed-based” technology advances for health and well-being, reduced poverty, reduced hunger, and an arguably healthier biosphere.
May 24, 2014 at 16:20
krischel,
It’s obvious you missed the whole point of this post, as you write:
If anything, the original list of 10 items was a Gish Gallop in the classic sense – as is the typical response of “look at all this evidence and ignore any contradictions you see!”
Contrarions don’t need to falsify all the items in the list to disprove anthropogenic climate change. They only need to falsify one. So it’s the opposite of a Gish Gallop: the longer the list, the easier it should be for contrarians to pick one item to falsify.
May 24, 2014 at 16:31
Oh, and krischel, the list of 10 items is not the main part of this post. I had some fun trying to get to 10 items, after writing the rest of it. Not all items are supposed to be taken too seriously, although even the most nonsensical ones are based on claims by climate pseudoskeptics.
And, citizenschallens, thanks for you extensive reply to krischel’s first Gish Gallop.
May 24, 2014 at 16:32
Ehmm, that should have been: citizenschallenge, thanks!
May 24, 2014 at 18:53
@Hans Custers – 1, 2 and 3 are already observed in the ice core records. If you truly believe that it wasn’t a Gish Gallop, then you’ll accept that AGW has been disproven.
A necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement would include observations that may *not* be observed, as well as a logical argument as to why the lack of those observations excludes all other explanations but the preferred one.
A Gish Gallop throws out a bunch of stuff, and replies to any failure with an ad hoc special pleading, or an appeal to the god of the gaps, or an ad hominem attack.
Currently, your ad hoc special pleading is “not all items are supposed to be taken too seriously” :)
I understand that some people might argue against the need for falsifiability, even though I disagree with them. But to argue that you’ve shown that AGW is falsifiable, with a list of ten falsification observations, of which some have already been seen, and others which do not by their absence exclude natural climate change, is silly.
The problem with most of the arguments regarding AGW is that without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, people are simply arguing against a religion, which, if you’ve ever tried to convince someone that God does not exist, is a hopeless task :)
May 24, 2014 at 19:06
@krischel,
How can ice cores from the past falsify what’s happening in the climate right now? Thats nonsense.
And did you really think I was totally serious when I wrote: “CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory”?
It seems you’re still not getting the main point of this post: there are many, many hypotheses in climate science that paint the overall picure. In other words: climate science is not about one single “AGW hypothesis”.
May 24, 2014 at 19:13
@Hans Custers – If, in fact, we had never before humanity existed, seen CO2 levels rise, you can make the argument that we are prima facie responsible for the observed rise.
However, if current observations are not unprecedented (and they’re arguably not, either in amount or rate), then you’re left with a conundrum – how do you discern between natural changes, and artificial ones? Thus far, nobody has put together a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes natural changes as being the reason for modern observed warming after 1950.
As for CO2 molecules and their behavior in the wild vs. laboratory, yes, I think you were serious – you truly believe that the spectral properties of CO2 must lead us to believe AGW is true, despite the complexity and interdependence of CO2 sources and sinks in nature, and despite the fact that you have no cogent argument as to why the spectral properties support your hypothesis and exclude natural processes.
If the point of the post is that there are “many many hypotheses”, then in fact, I was right – it’s a Gish Gallop. Your overall picture isn’t apparently falsified if just one of your “many many hypotheses” is proven wrong – you preserve your central conceit in the face of any observations.
Theists will present “many many miracles” to support their faith in God – but disproving a single miracle will not change their mind about the “overall picture”. Sound familiar? :)
May 24, 2014 at 20:39
“how do you discern between natural changes, and artificial ones?”
You’re missing the point. The existence of naturale climate variabliity does not falsify human impacts in any way Actually it’s the oppsite: if (small) natural variations can have a significant impact on climate, it’s very likely that the change in radiative forcing caused by human greenhouse gas emissiens will have a significant impact as well.
For the rest of your comment: you seem to misunderstand almost everything I write. And you seem to think you know better what I mean, than I do myself. I’ll can assure you this: you don’t. It’s very clear to me that trying to explain to you what I really mean is a waste of time. For me, this is the end of the discussion.
May 24, 2014 at 21:12
@Hans Custers – You misunderstand – it’s not that natural climate change is small, or insignificant – natural climate change, after all, isn’t just about small variations we know about, but it is the sum total of all variations and dependencies, known and unknown, that affect the climate. Nobody can make the argument that climate is significantly driven by *one* driver – otherwise, by now, history would’ve seen that feedback mechanism overload.
The trick here is to realize that all observed rates and amounts of change have been previously observed in the historical record – nothing new is going on here. Given that fact, asserting some sort of special status for minuscule human CO2 emissions is a fool’s errand, since obviously everything we’ve ever observed since 1950 has had some natural analog in the past without human CO2 emissions.
To date, nobody has excluded natural variations for observed climate change. They can claim with some confidence that they have not found a *single* natural variation that explains it all, but nobody can make the claim that they have enumerated and understand *all* natural variations and their effect on the climate system – or even a large majority of natural variations.
I’ll leave you with this, since you’ve decided you can’t continue the discussion – fat accumulation is mediated by the hormone insulin. High insulin levels drive fat into fat cells. High insulin levels are caused by high blood sugar levels. High blood sugar levels are driven by carbohydrate intake. The “common wisdom” for the past 40 years is that fat accumulation is driven by calories in/calories out, but it is predicated on the misapprehension that calorie intake and usage are two independent variables. If the relationship is actually driven by insulin (driving someone to more calorie intake because muscle cells are being starved as calories are driven into fat storage), then focusing on calories in/calories out is not only misleading, but destructive.
It’s quite possible that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not, in fact, driven by independent sources and sinks, and that some other mediating factor (climate “insulin” as it were), actually drives the relationship, affecting sources and sinks in complex ways.
May 25, 2014 at 08:38
Krischel, there is a consilience of evidence that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere observed in the last century is due primarily due to human activities.
Do you agree or disagree with this science? If you disagree, please provide explanations as to why this scientific assessment is wrong.
To me it looks like you alreadt disagree with this point. So before going through the whole apparent Gish gallop, we better take it one issue at a time.
May 25, 2014 at 08:57
@Marco: There are a few problems in the attribution of CO2 changes primarily to humans.
1) CO2 levels measured at mauna loa seem to be moving up steadily, without regard to variations on human CO2 emissions: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2
2) There’s some argument against the isotope fingerprint:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
3) Attempts to splice the 1958 and onwards Mauna Loa CO2 data to ice core records are problematic:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
4) The missing CO2 – this implies complex interactions between sources and sinks (and some potential moderating factors) that buffer to a set point (much like a buffer solution neutralizes both acids and bases, a CO2 buffer might neutralize extra sources and extra sinks)
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go
I guess my question to you is, what observations would falsify your hypothesis that CO2 increases since 1950 are primarily due to human influence, and what logical argument would you present that would show the lack of those observations means the only possible hypothesis is yours?
May 25, 2014 at 17:51
Actually, Krischel, there are hardly any problems. Even without the isotope fingerprint, which points to fossil origin of the CO2, we know(*) humans emit significantly more CO2 every year than the atmospheric increase. Half our emissions are taken up by sinks.
(*) we have a pretty good overview of how much fossil fuel is burned every year – within sufficiently accurate confidence limits.
But let’s go through your links:
1. What do you mean with “steadily” rising? We know there is natural variability on the CO2 increase, both intra-annual and interannual (e.g. as a result of ENSO). However, there is a clear long term acceleration in the CO2 increase, see e.g. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckey-business/
This fits nicely with the increasing CO2 emissions from human activity
2. What you mean is that Roy Spencer has argued against it. You may want to read the comments from Ferdinand Engelbeen in the second thread. Spencer is wrong on the isotope fingerprint, but as I already noted, we don’t even need it. It’s just confirmation, consilience of evidence.
3. Your link does not prove your point. It only shows plant stomata in specific places do not fit well with the ice cores. Oh, and see also
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/19/5/757.abstract
4. We know there is “buffering” in that especially the oceans will take up more CO2 as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases. That follows from Henry’s Law. It’s the reason marine scientists are warning for ocean acidification. From that same Henry’s Law one expects that the ‘buffering’ capacity of the oceans will have to decrease as the temperature increases.
That “missing CO2” issue is just a red herring.
Falsification depends on too many interacting factors to give you a simple answer. For example, a sustained decrease in global temperature is expected to significantly decrease the CO2 content in the atmosphere, and this may be bigger than the human emissions. Similarly, if we are somehow able to displace most C3 plants with C4 plants, we’d see a significant change in the 13C/12C ratio simply because of that (C4 absorbs C13 better than C12 – a lot better, even). A really big El Nino could cause a short-term CO2 increase that is larger than the human emissions, while a really big La Nina could result in no increase in CO2 at all. I would thus have to come with “If A, but not B, nor C, nor D, nor E, nor F, nor G…” situation. It’s not so much about falsification, but about finding a *better* explanation: a hypothesis that more accurately describes all the observations.
So far, the hypothesis that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily due to human activities fits with *all* observations. As such it should be, and is, called a theory.
May 25, 2014 at 18:41
@Marco:
1) By “steadily rising”, I mean rising at a rate that does not correlate to human activity. Again, see the NASA graph:
Even Tamino’s graphs show a disconnect between human CO2 emissions and the global CO2 level.
2) Fair enough – if you can admit that it’s possible that the isotope fingerprint is an artifact, rather than evidence, then we can focus on other points.
3) The point that I’m trying to prove is that the Mauna Loa CO2 data since 1958 has no useful proxy analog in the ice cores. It is an interesting record, but sadly, a very short term one. The assertion that we’re on some exponential curve of CO2 is dependent on the assertion that CO2 levels before 1958 were of a specific shape on the graph.
4) Far from a red herring, it’s a crucial point – if oceans buffer (or if other natural systems buffer), and the buffer set point is not driven by global CO2 levels (but rather *sets* them), then it shows that other CO2 sources and sinks are *irrelevant* to the final global CO2 level unless they can overcome the buffer. This is *especially* critical when we already know that human CO2 emissions to date are taken up by an ever increasing, unknown sink. The fact is, it could be that that sink “can’t keep up” – i.e. humans are still driving CO2 levels upwards, but it could *also* be that the sink’s effect is being moderated by some other mediating factor.
I understand the request for falsification requires a complex answer – but I simply don’t believe that you can assert consilience exempts you from that basic requirement of the scientific method. Consilience from 100 independent astrologists, arriving at the same forecast for Leos today, does not make astrology scientific, especially if in order to have faith in consilience we must ignore the other 100 independent astrologists that didn’t agree.
So far, you’ve put forth a theory which can be stretched to fit all observations, but without falsifiability, that stretching seems more like a clever argument than a scientific one.
Let me put the question another way – do you believe that there are non-computable problems? I.e., do you believe it’s possible that we’ll never have artificial intelligence because there is something inherently non-computable about biological intelligence? Can human consciousness be programmed?
May 25, 2014 at 21:06
1. This is just simply wrong:
(for the sources, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm)
2. Anything can be an artefact. The evidence is extremely strong that it is not an artefact. If you can admit that it is extremely likely that the isotope ratio shows that fossil fuel burning is the most important contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2 we can talk further. Otherwise we just have one person arguing science (me) and another arguing against science (you).
3. But you are not proving but rather asserting that the ice cores are poor proxies. Somehow you make plant stomate the ultimate comparator, even though researchers in the field show huge (HUGE) uncertainty in that data, and even then there’s good correlation between the ice cores and those plant stomata during the time period we have good data (as shown in the link I gave you).
Also in the Mauna Loa data we can actually show exponential increase (actually, as shown in the link to Tamino, *more* than exponential increase).
4. It is a red herring because the sink is not missing. We know where it goes (primarily the ocean). The increase in DIC has been observed in just about any ocean of the world. The rest you argue is just pure handwaving: “There might be another factor”. There might always be another factor. There might be a factor that actually *increases* the current ocean uptake. But it’s not like scientists in the field are stupid and haven’t worked on these things. I recommend you start reading some actual scientific papers on the topic. You’ll likely be surprised how much we actually know.
Your response to consilience of evidence suggests you don’t understand the terms. Let me explain: consilience of evidence looks at the *evidence*, not at a consilience of *experts*, which is what your astrology example is. But even if we were to take that, there are no equal numbers of “astrologers” in climate science who disagree with the consilience of the evidence on these topics. We mostly have a few outsiders with often very limited knowledge and understanding, who just wave away or are blissfully ignorant of all the work that has been done already, as well as very few dissidents, just like any scientific field.
The simple fact is that a thorough description of what we know about the carbon cycle, human emissions, the increase in atmospheric CO2, etc, etc, etc cannot be written down in a few words. Not even in a book without leaving a lot of information out (David Archer has made a brave attempt, though). It’s not *my* theory, but a theory of thousands of scientists standing themselves on the shoulders of other giants. It’s easily falsifiable, but you cannot come with a falsification example without having to come up with loads of boundary conditions, as in many other sciences.
Regarding your last point: I’ve learned to never say something is completely impossible, especially since there already have been steps on the way, such as those by Stan Franklin. Depending on how you define “consciousness”, there are various examples of at the very least rudimentary consciousness in artificial systems, including supposedly self-awareness.
May 25, 2014 at 23:44
Fun, looks like my comments weren’t lost, they’re being censored :)
I suppose that’s par for the course…
May 25, 2014 at 23:45
Trying again with no links:
@Marco: Darn, wordpress ate my lengthy response. Let’s see if I can recreate it.
1. Your graph proves my point – human CO2 emissions vary in ways that global CO2 levels don’t.
2. You’ve already conceded that isotope evidence is not necessary for your argument – let’s not beat that dead horse anymore.
3. You can’t ignore proxy divergences in order to “hide the decline”, as it were :) The divergence of proxies casts doubt on the accuracy of the ice core proxies for CO2 levels, and without those spliced onto the Mauna Loa record, you can’t assert that we have an exponentially increasing function with such short a time scale.
4. Let’s stipulate for a moment that the ocean is the moderator of CO2, absorbing extra CO2 (regardless of source), and emitting extra CO2 (regardless of sink), keeping CO2 levels at a certain set point. It seems odd to assert that the thing being set is in fact doing the setting.
I fully understand the conscilience argument you’re trying to make – I simply don’t believe it. In your response to my astrologist example, you conflate *evidence* with *experts* (the astrology predictions are *evidence*), and that’s the problem with your model. If you assert that falsifiability is no longer required by science, then you let astrology and even creationism in. Conscilience is *exactly* what Duane Gish does:
“If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory.”
Now, the fact that you believe that it’s possible to compute human consciousness is very telling though – if you can believe that we can recreate the complex mind through computation, I can understand how you could believe that you can recreate the complex climate through computation. As a computer scientist and mathemetician, I’m highly doubtful of the possibility of modeling a complex stochastic phenomenon such as the mind with any sort of accuracy, much less a complex stochastic phenomenon such as the earth’s climate.
Now, you may choose to outsource your rational thought processes to “experts”, but I like how Feynman put it:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
May 26, 2014 at 08:29
1. A perfect correlation is not expected
2. Your choice of words betrays you: I did not “concede” anything.
3. Actually, it was you who ignored the evidence about the proxies. Read the paper I suggested, and maybe you learn something. Also, when would you consider the time period long enough? We already have 56 years of data.
4. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. However, it does look to me like you have a very oversimplified view of the carbon cycle. Maybe I’ll just have to recommend David Archer’s “The global carbon cycle” anyway.
Regarding the consilience of evidence: no, you clearly do not understand. You talked about forecasts from astrologers, which is not the same as evidence.
Moreover, you ignored that I specifically pointed out falsifiability is present; I just didn’t want to list all the boundary conditions to someone who doesn’t even want to read the scientific literature. That’s just going to end up in moving goal posts. In other words, your comment about creationism and astrology was completely off the mark.
Your comment on consciousness and what I consider a misrepresentation of my position just tells me that you just don’t want to listen. Of course, all followed by a Feynman quote, who would have made minced meat of your argumentation. You must be a regular at WUWT.
May 26, 2014 at 09:12
@Marco:
1) Of course a perfect correlation isn’t expected – but certainly a closer one than demonstrated. Global CO2 level rise is quite surprisingly even in comparison to the fits and starts of human CO2 emissions.
2) You absolutely conceded the point – you said we could proceed “Even without the isotope fingerprint”, much like the Gish Gallop, which as cited from rationalwiki:
“If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory.”
3) 56 years of data is hardly adequate for large scale climate change analysis…I’d think given the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age during the maunder minimum, we’d only really be happy with at least 200 years before being very confident the keeling curve is indeed exponential, if not longer.
4) I’m trying to say that if you stipulate that our “missing carbon” is in fact, being taken up by the ocean, matching or nearly matching the rate of emissions growth, then you’ve discovered an active buffer with essentially no practical limits (oceans are pretty huge, after all). Put another way, if there was some upper limit to the buffering effect, and we *hit* it, we would’ve seen ocean uptake hit a plateau. Instead, it’s closely matched the growth of our emissions profile.
Far from being a simplistic view, the understanding of the carbon cycle as a set of *interdependent* sources and sinks (reacting to changes in each other) is much more complex than the assumption that the carbon cycle is a set of *independent* sources and sinks, and that any independent source can disrupt the balance of global CO2 levels because it is *not* cause reactions in other sources and sinks.
Back to the astrologist conscilience, consider each astrologer’s forecast an *independent* line of evidence, just as you might, if you were Michael Mann, consider bristle cones and tiljander sediments independent lines of evidence. The point is that if you decide that conscilience trumps the need for falsifiability, then you let pseudo science in the door.
Now, if you assert that falsifiability is present, but you don’t want to list all the boundary conditions, let me ask this – do you believe that *anyone* in the history of mankind has listed all the boundary conditions? Or do you just take it on faith that they exist somewhere?
The fact that your falsification criteria are necessarily complex doesn’t remove the burden from you to produce the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. If you can’t list it out yourself, quote someone. If there is nobody to quote because nobody has done it, perhaps the science isn’t as solid as you believe :)
Regarding consciousness, if you indeed believe that it is highly unlikely that it is computable in any practial way, do you also believe that it is highly unlikely that climate is computable in any practical way? Could it be possible that the question of “can we predict the climate of the future” is largely unsolvable, much like the fantasies of the “singularity” where we download our minds into computers?
May 26, 2014 at 12:05
1. Why “certainly”? Only if you believe human CO2 emissions are the only relevant source
2. Again, “conceded” is the wrong word. Pointing out that the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase does not depend on the isotope ratio (especially since it will change if we would e.g. switch to other CO2 emitting sources that are not fossil in nature or by altering C3/C4 plants ratio) is not a “concession”. Clearly we cannot get past this point without one of us conceding (yes, now it’s the right word to use) that either they are wrong or that they simply do not have the skills to contradict the work by experts in the field. It will have to be you making the concession, because so far you could not get any further than a blog post of non-expert Roy Spencer, which was already rebutted by Ferdinand Engelbeen in the comments to that post.
3. Your argument makes no sense. We can mathematically describe the shape of the Keeling curve without having to know what the curve looked like before that. The ice core record just makes it even more obvious.
4. Even if the oceans were unlimited sinks, so what? So far they clearly do not take up all the excess CO2. There’s loads of work done on the role of the oceans in CO2 uptake; maybe you should try and read some of those paper. Ari Jokamäki’s homepage is a good starting point to find papers (agwobserver.wordpress.com)
5. I didn’t say consilience trumps falsifiability. Again, do not twist my words, please. The issue with consilience is that if you have independent measures that all point to the same thing, a finding that makes one of those points potentially(!) less certain does not make the whole theory uncertain. It also means you should take a good look at your observations, which may well be more of a problem than the actual theory. Plenty of examples of that, like those “neutrinos faster than light! —- Oops, we f*cked up the measurement”.
6. I don’t think anyone has made a specific list, it’s an implicit list that you should be able to construct yourself by reading a climate science textbook (I propose you start with Ray Pierrehumberts “Principles of Planetary Climate” of climate science in general, and I already mentioned David Archer’s book for the carbon cycle).
I’ll give you one example: if we were able to stop with fossil fuel emissions right now, and there is no large change in the C3/C4 plants ratio nor in biomass, an unaltered trend in the C13/C12 ratio and in atmospheric CO2 growth for several years would be a major problem for the theory and likely constitute falsification.
7. I didn’t say that either. We already have examples of artificial systems that have characteristics of rudimentary consciousness, all depending on what you define as “consciousness” and what not.
The notion that the prediction of climate in the future is unsolvable is at least in part contradicted by our ability to hindcast climate many centuries back within practical limits that are useful. What we do know about the future is that some aspects cannot be predicted, and those ‘Black Swans’ could thus invalidate the projections. For example, suppose some kind of killer bug manages to kill off 99% of the human population. This will reduce CO2 emissions enormously, and who knows what else. Or suppose Yosemite Park explodes; tha’ll be the end of humanity for all practical purposes, too.
May 26, 2014 at 19:16
@Marco:
1) Isn’t AGW predicated on the assertion that human CO2 emissions are the only relevant source? Put another way, are you asserting that there is some incredibly specific combination of other sources that perfectly adjust to the ups and downs of human CO2 emissions to create a very smooth and regular keeling curve? :) If you can go so far as to admit that human CO2 emissions aren’t the only relevant source, maybe you can even admit that human CO2 emissions aren’t the most relevant source?
2) Whether Spencer or Engelbeen is correct, you have stated that the point is unnecessary to your argument. It seems silly of you to continue arguing the point if it truly is unnecessary. Put another way, are you admitting that if Spencer is right, then you’ve lost the entire argument, or do you still hold that even if Spencer is right, your argument stands (much like say, Duane Gish might hold if you rebutted one of his dozen points)?
3) We can mathematically describe a line from two points. It doesn’t mean that the phenomenon we measured behaves linearly. Exponential curves are used by all sorts of con-men to try to get people to support their product or ponzi scheme, because they focus on a short term behavior and inappropriately extrapolate it to the longer term. 58 years is hardly enough time to decide that CO2 levels are going to continue to rise exponentially indefinitely.
4) Ask yourself *why* don’t the oceans take up excess CO2. Is it because they can’t handle it? If so, why did they take up *less* in one year, and *more* the next year? Couldn’t they have taken up just ast much in year 1 as in year 2? Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because the trend in global CO2 levels is regulated by the oceans, which adapt, much like a buffer, to whatever inputs and outputs are around to set it at a given level. Can you admit that possibility?
5) You’re restating my assertion even as you disagree with it. If you have independent astrologist predictions that all point to the same thing, a finding that makes one of those astrologists less certain does not make the whole theory uncertain. As for f-d up measurements, I think the tiljander proxy is one of the most amusing ones in recent memory :)
6) You admit that nobody has ever made a specific list. Don’t you think it’s important that somebody should? Given the number of very large IPCC reports, and the thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientists doing work in this field, and the gobs of money we’ve already thrown at this area of research, don’t you think rather than rely on unstated implications, someone should make the explicit case? Would it be appropriate to ask people to learn java by implication, rather than by an explicit API?
Further, the hedge “would likely constitute falsification”, gives me little faith in your sincerity, much like the falsification criteria by NOAA 2008, which excluded statistically insignificant warming for periods longer than 15 years was responded to by an ad hoc special pleading in order to preserve the central conceit (much like Duane Gish, again).
7) If you believe that there isn’t a *qualitative* difference between “rudimentary consciousness”, and “complex consciousness”, I’m not sure if there’s much more to argue on this point, but it certainly explains your faith in the models. I’d love to have you cite any single, multi-century hindcast model that is useful on any human-relevant geographic scale, though – it would be even more interesting to see what kind of fudge factors they needed to put in their source code to curve fit to observations :)
Judith Curry speaks eloquently of the “Uncertainty Monster”, and I think that you touch on her point slightly, but you seem internally conflicted on it. On the one hand, you admit that some aspects cannot be predicted, but you only seem to believe that large, apocalyptic, extremely low probability black swans can disturb your “useful” predictions. Isn’t it possible that there are large collections of tiny black swans in the climate system that can make it so that your predictions don’t come true either? Isn’t “the pause” a classic example of that?
May 27, 2014 at 08:00
1. a) No, it is not predicated on that
b) Yes and no, the human emissions are estimates and therefore subject to uncertainty. There are scientific papers that go into more detail, but since you are unwilling to read the literature, there’s litte use to refer you to that
c) I will not admit to anything that is hogwash
2. Since you decided to twist my words into something it didn’t say, I have decided to take up the point again, until you admit you are wrong. If Spencer is right that natural sources can also produce a similar change in C13/C12 ratioes, he’d still have to show how that fits with many other observations (which he can’t). I remember his earlier ocean outgassing hypothesis and calculation, which would require the upper oceans to have lost, IIRC, some 1/3rd of its total CO2 (which contradicts measurements) and some unknown sink that can essentially only be biomass, that should have caused (IIRC) a doubling in that biomass without anyone noticing. Oh, of course he didn’t do those calculations himself, because he doesn’t think of those things that may contradict his ideas. Consilience of evidence again, which failed for him. To put it simple: take an observation 1 that can be explained by process A and B, but not C, and an observation 2 that can be explained by process A and C, but not B. Obviously, observations 1 and 2 combined strengthen the hypothesis that it is process A, and that B and C are unlikely.
3. An indefinite exponential rise is not projected. Please stop trying those strawman
4. Perhaps you need to go back a little and see my reference to Henry’s Law (and yes, that is somewhat of a simplification). I *know* why the oceans cannot just take up all that excess CO2. They just physically can’t. There are also complex couplings between the oceans, annual regional temperature and rainfall, and therefore with biomass growth. I *know* all of this, thanks to studying the literature. Maybe you should start there, before coming up with all kinds of ideas based on ignorance.
5. You’re still comparing consilience of predictions with consilience of evidence. The two are not the same, regardless of how much you try to make it so.
6. Your words betray you again. “Central conceit” eh? I also doubt NOAA claimed 15 years of non-statistically significant warming constituted falsification. Finally, I know have to point out the consilience of evidence, AGAIN. It’s simple, if you can show that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is due to a non-human process, you’d have falsified the current theory. However, just pointing to an alternative explanation is not falsification. Without necessary falsifying a theory, you can also propose a new one that not only explains the observations but actually provides a *better* explanation to the observations.
7. Again, why should I point you to the scientific literature when you just don’t want to read it anyway? There are papers out there, but they’re clearly wasted on you since you already have decided they are wrong anyway.
Curry doesn’t speak eloquently on “uncertainty” at all. She even managed to make that Italian flag that was so obvious nonsense that it nicely separated the Curry fans from those who were actual scientific skeptics. What she ignores is that increased uncertainty makes action more urgent. Unlike you seem to believe, black swans can go both ways. The current ‘pause’ in SAT is for climate change a minor issue, since ocean heat continues to accumulate. You’re just hoping it will stay this way, without any reasonable evidence it will. I, on the other hand, can point to basic physics: as the SAT does not go up, the earth will continue to accumulate energy
Anyway, with your now clearly stated belief climate science is “conceit”, I think our discussion is over. You have decided you will not believe it, period. I therefore decide you are not an honest discussion partner. Go back to WUWT where your friends will enjoy your comments and believe just about all you say, because it fits their beliefs, regardless of how much they defy reality.
May 27, 2014 at 16:51
@Marco:
1) If you’d like to cite scientific papers, please be more specific.
2) I think you misunderstand the critique here – the C13/C12 ratio well very well be driven by human CO2 emissions, while the global CO2 level may *not*. This ties into the idea of a buffer (which you’ve decided is the ocean, which we can stipulate for now), and how the buffer set point may be what drives global CO2 levels, even as say, human CO2 emissions could be altering the C13/C12 ratio. Put another way, your conscilience of evidence doesn’t exclude the possibility that natural drivers determine global CO2 levels *separate* from the C13/C12 ratio driven by human emissions.
3) If we had an explicit necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, I wouldn’t have to resort to strawmen :) But I digress – pray tell when you believe what you have identified as an exponential rise in CO2 levels is going to stop?
For even more fun, tell me what kind of graph you get when you say that some variable rises *per doubling* of some other variable :)
4) You’re simply wrong, and the data shows it. When will oceans (or whatever other sinks that continue to grow without limit like biomass) stop being able to take up excess CO2? What is the physical limiter, the “climate insulin”, as it were, that is going to magically *stop* CO2 absorption? Every year, as human CO2 emissions have increased, the natural sinks have kept pace, absorbing more CO2 than the year before – exactly how much human CO2 must be emitted for these natural sinks to be overwhelmed? You admit that there are complex couplings, yet seem to insist that there is a simple, as of yet unspecified physical upper bound to phenomenon we’ve observed.
5) Odd to hear someone say that when their conscilience is based on various climate model predictions :) Do you at least admit that a great many climate science papers in support of AGW base their conclusion on what *model runs* show them rather than what *observations* show them? For example, Zhao and Running in August 2010 (Science (Vol. 329, p. 940)) in regards to plant productivity had a model based paper that was refuted the next year in the same magazine.
6) Have you read NOAA 2008? They claim their models exclude 15 year and longer pauses at the 95% confidence level. If, in fact, you want to Gish Gallop away from this, and claim we can ignore their failed prediction and still declare victory for AGW, I suppose that’s your prerogative, but it’s not a very convincing argument.
7) If you cannot make specific citations, you’re simply asking me to take your word on your interpretation of literature you *may* have read. Surely you don’t expect people to take you on faith, do you? Is that your version of the scientific method? Should I simply do the same, and cite unspecified literature as the reason for your error?
As for “conceit”, you misunderstand the definition of the term I’m using:
“something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours.”
It’s not an insult, it’s a description of the central thought or idea of AGW, namely, that no matter what the observations show, we continue to blame global CO2 levels, and therefore global temperature levels, on human CO2 emissions. I’m more than happy to entertain that central conceit as possibly true – I’ve got no belief system in the matter – however, I’m not willing to call something “scientific” when in fact, the central conceit cannot be falsified by observation.
For example, the central conceit of creationism, proposed by Duane Gish, is that some supernatural being (namely God), is responsible for all evidence ever observed, no matter what that evidence is. This central conceit is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.
Now, if you were insulted by the use of the term “conceit”, I apologize – that wasn’t my intent. Your arguments are clever, thus far mostly polite, even though they’re mistaken, and I was hoping that you would actually get down to more specific citations rather than Gish Galloping away :) However, how you spend your time is your choice. If you cannot discuss further, I thank you for your engagement and wish you well in your future endeavors!
May 29, 2014 at 07:18
OK lets take a look
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
krischel Says:
May 23, 2014 at 21:40
citizenschallenge – Wow, your gish gallop blog post was quite the read! A few answers for you:
K-1) you’ve got no citation for any models which can accurately hind cast prior ice ages. Searching google scholar for “modeling past ice ages” is hardly a citation :)
~ ~ ~
CC: I’m saying there has been plenty modeling done, and by the shear fact that there is a coherent story regarding previous deep time ice ages you can bet, the story has been well researched including modeling… as if any modern research doesn’t involve modeling.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-2) you’re assertion that ignoring the ocean’s role in climate change is dishonest is an indictment of all the AGW supporters who insist that the oceans cannot be drivers of climate change, but must first be affected by human CO2 emissions;
~ ~ ~
CC: Shame on you – no one is claiming the oceans are “drivers” of global temperatures – Global temperatures are a balance between the sun’s output, our planet’s albedo, and our atmosphere’s greenhouse gas insulation ‘value’ regulating how much heat radiates back to space, among a few other minor players.
What we were talking about is that surface temperatures appear suppressed when ocean’s suck up more of that atmospheric heat… you know the ebb and flow inherent in all geophysical processes.
PS. According to observations, it’s looking like some of that “sequestered” heat is getting ready to spill back into the atmosphere and weather systems. Stay tuned 2014 may turn out to be quite interesting.
Deep Ocean Warming is Coming Back to Haunt Us:
Record Warmth for 2014 Likely As Equatorial Heat Rises
May 16, 2014
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/deep-ocean-warming-is-coming-back-to-haunt-us-record-warmth-for-2014-likely-as-equatorial-heat-rises/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 3) I don’t expect them to produce perfect images – but simply responding to observations with ad hoc special pleadings, in order to preserve the central conceit, is dishonest.
~ ~ ~
CC: You spit out “ad hoc special pleadings” as though it were a curse. Watt’s up with that? Why won’t you talk about the specific special pleading you seem upset about? What was being investigated, what was the issue?
Beyond that don’t you realize mistakes are what leads to new insights and understanding?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 4) Insisting that the short term accuracy of weather forecast models can be extrapolated to long term climate models is a non sequitur;
~ ~ ~
CC: I didn’t claim that at all. They are entirely different animals looking for different dynamics.
My point was that models are serious f’n business and not deserving of stupid ad hom attacks – … all your mumbo jumbo just helps confuse, rather than clarify.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 5) Asserting that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are simply a function of independent sources and sinks is unfounded;
~ ~ ~
CC: That sentence doesn’t make sense. Your number five was:
“5. Warming of the stratosphere.
No reason this cannot happen naturally.”
I asked you to explain yourself.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 6) The claim that skepticism of failed predictions is “obsessing over minor details” sounds a lot like the response of an astrologist :)
~ ~ ~
CC: Absolute nonsense! On the other hand, the game your type plays is akin to veering off towards a tree at high speed – then obsessing about whether the speed of vehicle was 60mph or 65mph – rather than doing something to slow down, stop, miss the tree.
We know what CO2 does in the atmosphere, we have enough observations here on Earth to have a dang good idea at what recent warming means to the real world climate engine and the weather patterns that flow from it as the future unfurls.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 7) It’s ironic that you outsource your rational thought processes to “true experts”, but try to argue individual points :) Again, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy;
~ ~ ~
CC: What kind of cynical diversion is that. I explained things best I can then point to experts for folks to do their own good-faith learning.
Why do you side step your false claim/insinuation about atmospheric humidity going down. It is not.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/how-not-to-discuss-the-water-vapor-feedback/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K- 8) You can’t go from underlying physical properties of gases and extrapolate to some grand theory of global climate change dominated by human CO2 emissions (or any source of CO2 emissions in the past for that matter). You’re skipping important steps.
~ ~ ~
CC: What kind of cynical diversion is that? K said: “#8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet – Another argument from ignorance.”
It’s a bonkers claims, what can I say.
Learn to respect experts… when people spend their lives and the hours of their days dedicated to learning about something, it does the rest of us good to listen to them. Call it what you what, I call it common sense and what made humanity great. You on the other hand seem to me to have intellectually anarchy dangling from the end of our nose.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K – “It’s funny, in the end, you assert that disagreement with your position is driven by politics, “clinging to our greed-based ever increasing consumerist life-styles”. And in this, you show your true colors – you’re a partisan, who has picked a side, and will believe it regardless of any observations that contradict it.
Let’s argue for a moment, that the year 1914 was both cooler, and less “greed-based”. Please explain to me how you consider the year 2014 worse for humanity, with an expanded population, incredible “greed-based” technology advances for health and well-being, reduced poverty, reduced hunger, and an arguably healthier biosphere.”
~ ~ ~
UN Refugee Agency
http://www.unhcr.org/51c071816.html
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a02afce6.html
CC: NO, no, I don’t have the time for such a silly game, Rome is burning, and you seem to believe the Reaganomics business plan should be eternal… we’ll see who’s surprised by outcomes.
Seriously though, you made a string of nonsense claims, which I addressed as directly as I could. I notice you have been unable to counter like wise. … with facts and information sources.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action.html
May 29, 2014 at 07:36
K writes: “7) If you cannot make specific citations, you’re simply asking me to take your word on your interpretation of literature you *may* have read. …”
Surely that goes both ways too.
May 29, 2014 at 16:37
@citizens challenge:
1) A set of google search parameters isn’t a citation. If you have a paper, or set of papers to cite, *specify* them.
2) The “deep ocean warming” trope is a clever ad hoc special pleading, but an unconvincing one. As for nobody claiming that oceans are drivers of global temperatures, exactly why do we have ENSO adjustments for global temperature if the ENSO cycle *doesn’t* drive global temperatures?
3) Ad hoc special pleadings, if they are the only response to observations that contradict the central conceit of one’s hypothesis, are to be cursed. In order to avoid such behavior, as exemplified by Duane Gish, we insist on a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, whose falsification criteria, if observed, definitively falsify the central conceit, and cannot be Gish Galloped away from with ad hoc special pleadings. Or do you find Duane Gish’s process of defending his position scientific? :)
4) Weather forecast models are serious. Global climate models are toys. They’re not only entirely different animals, the problem being attacked by global climate models is quite possibly as non computable as an accurate regional weather forecast 1 year ahead of time. Your dishonest comparison of the two didn’t help your argument :)
5) I explained myself – you didn’t understand what I was driving at by asserting that warming of the stratosphere (or other observations claimed as “consistent” with AGW) did not exclude natural warming. The assumption that a warming of the stratosphere must be driven by an independent source (human CO2 emissions in the case of AGW), is unjustified. CO2 cycles in our biosphere are not only complex, they’re interconnected, and lead rise to system behavior that is both complex and natural.
6) No. You’ve got an apocalyptic faith that asserts that we’re veering off towards a tree at high speed. Like evangelists who insist that hurricanes in florida are caused by gays, your key assumption is that our sins will lead to eternal damnation. You have failed to specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, yet you insist that we must believe that unless we repent, and make sacrifices to your gods, wrath will fall down upon us. That seems much more in line with Duane Gish than anyone else, don’t you think? :)
7) Why haven’t you asked your experts for the foundation of the scientific method, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the experts you’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to?
8) See #7 – “respecting experts” is a very Gishy thing to ask for. Science democratizes the process of finding truth, although like most democracies, nobody can actually force you to vote :)
9) So, 1914 was *not* better than 2014, even though it was less greed based and colder :) I wonder what kind of spiritual moment you must have experienced to now fear a warmer and more greed based 2114, given the fact that we’re still okay today :)
10) When I have a citation, I’ll very specifically attribute it (for example, the Feynman quote, or the Spencer argument). And by the way, your citation for global forced displacement has *nothing* to do with climate, and everything to do with zealous foes fighting each other. If you’re trying to make the point with the UNHCR dataset that the # of refugees is increasing shows 1914 is better than 2014 (even though their data doesn’t go back that far), you might want to get a denominator of there of global population – unless of course, if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population to reduce the refugee numbers.
May 30, 2014 at 07:37
krischel Says:
May 29, 2014 at 16:37 @citizens challenge:
K-1)>> A set of google search parameters isn’t a citation. If you have a paper, or set of papers to cite, *specify* them. <> The “deep ocean warming” trope is a clever ad hoc special pleading, but an unconvincing one. As for nobody claiming that oceans are drivers of global temperatures, exactly why do we have ENSO adjustments for global temperature if the ENSO cycle *doesn’t* drive global temperatures?<> Ad hoc special pleadings, if they are the only response to observations that contradict the central conceit of one’s hypothesis, are to be cursed. <> Weather forecast models are serious. Global climate models are toys. They’re not only entirely different animals, the problem being attacked by global climate models is quite possibly as non computable as an accurate regional weather forecast 1 year ahead of time. Your dishonest comparison of the two didn’t help your argument :) <> I explained myself – you didn’t understand what I was driving at by asserting that warming of the stratosphere (or other observations claimed as “consistent” with AGW) did not exclude natural warming.
The assumption that a warming of the stratosphere must be driven by an independent source (human CO2 emissions in the case of AGW), is unjustified. CO2 cycles in our biosphere are not only complex, they’re interconnected, and lead rise to system behavior that is both complex and natural.<2gigatons, and growing, of CO2, >>> a confirmed “greenhouse gas” {plus its pals}, into our oh so thin atmosphere.
Tell me again K what the hell are you going on about? What part of the significants of that little reality escapes you? What part of the climatological understanding do you think has been falsified?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-6)>> No. You’ve got an apocalyptic faith that asserts that we’re veering off towards a tree at high speed. Like evangelists who insist that hurricanes in florida are caused by gays, your key assumption is that our sins will lead to eternal damnation. {1} You have failed to specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, yet you insist that we must believe that unless we repent, and make sacrifices to your gods, wrath will fall down upon us. That seems much more in line with Duane Gish than anyone else, don’t you think? :) <> Why haven’t you asked your experts for the foundation of the scientific method, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the experts you’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to?<> “What kind of strict scrutiny have you applied”<> See #7 – “respecting experts” is a very Gishy thing to ask for. Science democratizes the process of finding truth, although like most democracies, nobody can actually force you to vote :) <> So, 1914 was *not* better than 2014, even though it was less greed based and colder :) I wonder what kind of spiritual moment you must have experienced to now fear a warmer and more greed based 2114, given the fact that we’re still okay today :) <> When I have a citation, I’ll very specifically attribute it (for example, the Feynman quote, or the Spencer argument). And by the way, your citation for global forced displacement has *nothing* to do with climate, and everything to do with zealous foes fighting each other. If you’re trying to make the point with the UNHCR dataset that the # of refugees is increasing shows 1914 is better than 2014 (even though their data doesn’t go back that far), you might want to get a denominator of there of global population – unless of course, if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population to reduce the refugee numbers.<<
~ ~ ~
CC: If my citation has nothing to do with "climate" then why can't you focus on that citation and what you think I got wrong – instead you chose to paste up more labels, but you examine nothing…
But then, that's the idea isn't it, run out the clock until there's no point is caring about any of it any longer.
– – –
Oh and I gotta give you bonus points for your kicker: "if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population"
Is that really all that's going on in your head? Yea, well I guess, war is about all the right-wing has on their mind anyways ain't it, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Cheers, CC
May 30, 2014 at 07:43
Oh, oh, I should not have used “>” or “2gigatons, and growing, of CO2, >>> a confirmed “greenhouse gas” {plus its pals}, into our oh so thin atmosphere.
Tell me again K what the hell are you going on about? What part of the significants of that little reality escapes you? What part of the climatological understanding do you think has been falsified?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-6) No. You’ve got an apocalyptic faith that asserts that we’re veering off towards a tree at high speed. Like evangelists who insist that hurricanes in florida are caused by gays, your key assumption is that our sins will lead to eternal damnation. {1} You have failed to specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, yet you insist that we must believe that unless we repent, and make sacrifices to your gods, wrath will fall down upon us. That seems much more in line with Duane Gish than anyone else, don’t you think? :)
~ ~ ~
CC: I find it tragic that you don’t recognize the difference between Gay Bashing/religious crazies and serious science or attempts at seriously discussing it. But, that’s your fault not mine!
What is it about melting cryosphere and rising sea levels that you don’t get?
What is it about more moisture, heat and energy in our atmosphere along with warmer oceans and higher sea levels leading to more extreme extremely destructive weather events – that you don’t get?
What is it about our complex society having developed within a biosphere of minimal sea rise, moderate and predictable weather patterns – that makes you feel so secure and cavalier about future stability?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-7) Why haven’t you asked your experts for the foundation of the scientific method, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement? As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the experts you’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to?
~ ~ ~
CC: I wish I had a sharper brain because that is one load of revealed psychology you just shared with me.
But, OK I’ll play – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the experts you’ve outsourced your rational thought processes to? –
to begin with, I was fascinated by this Earth I was born into since before I was five. Thankfully I was blessed by being born of two parents who where fascinated with the world around them, with an eight year older brother (future jet pilot) who subscribed to Popular Science and Popular Mechanic, with National Geographics over at Grandma’s.
You see, I been participating, as an interested spectator, in humanity’s quest to understand our planet real time since the Trieste touched the Challenger Deep in 1960, and the space program first blasted off, the Plate tectonic Revolution wow’ed me, National Geographic’s first map of the ocean floor and subsequent astonishing discoveries, the Leakey family discoveries about human origins and all the subsequent twists and turns of our own origins story, oh and those Voyager flights… all that jazz has been my playground, forget all your silly TV/Hollyworld Fictions, I wanted to know about the real world!
Thus, I know a thing or two about the twisty trail that understanding requires; I also understand the difference between assumptions and evidence; I appreciate that scientific consensus includes caveat’s and that scientific “consensus” remains provisional depending on new and compelling information.
I’ve also learned to recognize the difference between a con-job and a serious interest in learning/teaching.
And I’ve been watching this manmade global warming story unfold since the early seventies when I learned about it in high school – I been paying attention to this right-wing “driven” PR attack on science ever since, (though it was Reaganomics that really kicked it into high gear), so you’re not dealing with innocent here.
– – –
K – “What kind of strict scrutiny have you applied”
Well for one, I’ve spent a lot of years chasing a lot of Gish Gallop bone’s “skeptics” like you love tossing out. I actually know how to abandon myself and submerse myself in someone else’s argument – for a short while at least, until the weight of evidence brings be back to reality. I’ve listened to pretty near all the “Skeptical Arguments” and looked into them, up close, starting from the “skeptics” arguments and working out from there towards the scientists approach.
I’ve been educated by comparing the two different approaches, and I continue doing the best I can with what I got.
I love reading (and listening) to books, and articles scientists have written, over past years on YouTube the amount of educational and fascinating scientific lectures that have become available has skyrocketed beyond anything I can keep up with. Though my old favorite remains UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Sciences –
I’d love to do a comparison of lectures sometime – K (or any other takers), you take a Lindzen, or a Curry, or heck Monckton and let’s compare their talk to a research focused climatologist’s talk.
You game? – offer one “skeptical” talk by your favorite and I’ll match it with one of my favorites – I’ll even tip my hand and let you know I’ll go with either Schneider or Santer – come on, let’s have a little show down.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-8) See #7 – “respecting experts” is a very Gishy thing to ask for. Science democratizes the process of finding truth, although like most democracies, nobody can actually force you to vote :)
~ ~ ~
CC: I think your politics is showing. Sounds to me like you simply can not imagine the scientific community being on the up and up and with enough Checks and Balances that errors get caught out.
Interestingly, your type never brings up any actual examples for us to examine – you just got your faith-based suspicions that these scientists telling us this ugly news, must be part of the “bad folks” the faithless folks, the enemy.
… always the vague what-if’s. – guess if one has their mind made up then “what-if’s” are enough.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-9) So, 1914 was *not* better than 2014, even though it was less greed based and colder :) I wonder what kind of spiritual moment you must have experienced to now fear a warmer and more greed based 2114, given the fact that we’re still okay today :)
~ ~ ~
CC: We are not at all okay, as a look outside your bubble would reveal.
{What a shame K, I’ve concluded that I don’t believe you have any intellectual sincerity about you – otherwise, it would be quite interesting to do a serious comparison between 1914 and 2014. Not just a comparison of different times, but also an look into our different perspectives and value judgements regarding recent human history.}
We have a worldwide degrading of the political atmosphere,
US driven international arms sales is about our only growth industry,
degrading human rights conditions abound,
degrading farmland situation, with increasing droughts and torrential rains only one of the many threats to future prosperity,
polluted and poisoned lands on a massive scale,
ocean fisheries depletion and destruction of all classes of habitat,
rising sea levels and how that’s changing coastal areas now and into the future,
there’s more. . .
– – –
K, my turn to ask a question: what metric do you use when asserting: all is fine and dandy in the world these days?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-10) When I have a citation, I’ll very specifically attribute it (for example, the Feynman quote, or the Spencer argument). And by the way, your citation for global forced displacement has *nothing* to do with climate, and everything to do with zealous foes fighting each other. If you’re trying to make the point with the UNHCR dataset that the # of refugees is increasing shows 1914 is better than 2014 (even though their data doesn’t go back that far), you might want to get a denominator of there of global population – unless of course, if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population to reduce the refugee numbers.
~ ~ ~
CC: If my citation has nothing to do with “climate” then why can’t you focus on that citation and what you think I got wrong – instead you chose to paste up more labels, but you examine nothing…
But then, that’s the idea isn’t it, run out the clock until there’s no point is caring about any of it any longer.
– – –
Oh and I gotta give you bonus points for your kicker: “if part of your proposed solution is destroying a massive part of the human population”
Is that really all that’s going on in your head? Yea, well I guess, war is about all the right-wing has on their mind anyways ain’t it, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
Cheers, CC
May 30, 2014 at 07:50
WOW, my scripting illiteracy shows.
Guess I’ll stay away from ” ” altogether – it does crazy things.
Since the last post missed krischel’s first five points, here they are:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action_29.html
krischel Says:
May 29, 2014 at 16:37 @citizens challenge:
K-1) A set of google search parameters isn’t a citation. If you have a paper, or set of papers to cite, *specify* them.
~ ~ ~
CC says: You act like you don’t appreciate that scientists have been looking at climate changes in deep time long and hard – and they have learned a great many things, that you wouldn’t know about if you aren’t interested in learning from them. For example:
Neoproterozoic ‘snowball Earth’ simulations with a coupled climate/ice-sheet model
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6785/full/405425a0.html
A ‘snowball Earth’ climate triggered by continental break-up through changes in runoff
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6980/abs/nature02408.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-2) The “deep ocean warming” trope is a clever ad hoc special pleading, but an unconvincing one. As for nobody claiming that oceans are drivers of global temperatures, exactly why do we have ENSO adjustments for global temperature if the ENSO cycle *doesn’t* drive global temperatures?
~ ~ ~
CC: What are you talking about ?
Oceans a “clever ad hoc special pleading” you gotta be joking?
ENSO adjustments are made for all sorts of technical reasons – not because oceans are “drivers” of global temperatures.
Jeez, it’s like you don’t care that we are talking about a substantial component of our global weather engine!
Don’t you realize that the oceans hold around 90% of the heat in our global heat distribution engine… or that our atmosphere is proportionally thin as finest silk upon your arm. From your word-smithing I don’t get the least hint of curiosity about understanding any on this. No K, you’ve got some other agenda going here.
I’m curious, in a few words, could you describe what I mean with the term:
“our global heat distribution engine” ?
Please, no deflection: What does the term “our global heat distribution engine” – refer to?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-3) Ad hoc special pleadings, if they are the only response to observations that contradict the central conceit of one’s hypothesis, are to be cursed.
~ ~ ~
CC: That barely makes any sense. Come on, get real.
Please recall your original #3 was “A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level”
Present a real world example, not some vague gobbildy-gook.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K… – In order to avoid such behavior, as exemplified by Duane Gish, we insist on a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, whose falsification criteria, if observed, definitively falsify the central conceit, and cannot be Gish Galloped away from with ad hoc special pleadings. Or do you find Duane Gish’s process of defending his position scientific? :)
~ ~ ~
CC: Again, enough with the fancy word-smithing. Want something sufficient to falsify manmade global warming – falsify this:
Manmade global warming would be falsified if:
… if you could show that humans weren’t injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.
… if you could prove that the physical properties of CO2 as outlined within the scientific consensus was false – of course, then you would have to explain why a whole spectrum of modern marvels actually operates based on “false” physical properties.
… if you could show our global cryosphere has remained stable – instead we have compelling evidence of melting at increasing rates throughout our planet.
… if you could show that our biosphere has remained stable – instead we have compelling evidence of species habitat migrating to higher elevations and more northerly terrain, plus growing seasons lengthening.
… If ratio between record heat extremes and record cold extremes remained more or less equal – But they have not, 14 to 1 is pretty ugly odds.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/17/446621/blow-out-march-heat-wave-meteorologist-masters-this-is-not-the-atmosphere-i-grew-up-with/
– – –
Furthermore, if you were actually into learning about this, you’d owe it to yourself to consider the information within this article:
The top ten global warming ‘skeptic’ arguments answered
Contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer put forth the top 10 ‘skeptic’ arguments – all are easily answered
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-4) Weather forecast models are serious. Global climate models are toys. They’re not only entirely different animals, the problem being attacked by global climate models is quite possibly as non computable as an accurate regional weather forecast 1 year ahead of time. Your dishonest comparison of the two didn’t help your argument :)
~ ~ ~
CC: “Global climate models are toys.” Listen to yourself.
Please explain your reasoning…
Can you describe the difference between “weather models” and “climate models”? . . .
Why do you believe climate models are “toys” to be dismissed with contempt? Can you explain the basics of our climate system?
I’ve heard many people rail against “climate models” but when I ask a few questions it usually turns out they don’t understand a thing about climate models, except that they hate climate models out of some principle… to some vague value-set they were taught somewhere . . .
Not being very intellectually honest, when you won’t even question your own assumptions now and then.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K-5) I explained myself – you didn’t understand what I was driving at by asserting that warming of the stratosphere (or other observations claimed as “consistent” with AGW) did not exclude natural warming.
The assumption that a warming of the stratosphere must be driven by an independent source (human CO2 emissions in the case of AGW), is unjustified. CO2 cycles in our biosphere are not only complex, they’re interconnected, and lead rise to system behavior that is both complex and natural.
~ ~ ~
CC: Your playing games with words again – it is you who made that leap to “human CO2 emissions.”
Please produce a citation of a climatologist who claims what you say they claims.
Incidentally, all the stuff I look at indicates that the Stratosphere is cooling, not warming. Maybe you should show more interest in learning about your topics, rather than just parroting Anthony’s soundbites.
The Human Fingerprint in Global Warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
Earth Observatory: Is Current Warming Natural?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
– – –
Yes, CO2 cycles are complex and natural and currently human society continues injecting on the order of >2gigatons, and growing, of CO2, >>> a confirmed “greenhouse gas” {plus its pals}, into our oh so thin atmosphere.
Tell me again K what the hell are you going on about? What part of the significants of that little reality escapes you? What part of the climatological understanding do you think has been falsified?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
May 30, 2014 at 17:34
@citizenschallenge:
1) You’re gish galloping again, oddly quoting and swapping order of points too – although I’ve had problems with the comment system too ;) I’ll try to succinctly address your issues, but given the poor comment formatting, I apologize if I missed something you intended:
You made a specious claim that oceans don’t drive atmospheric temperatures (even though we all know about ENSO). Your conflation of short term weather forecast models and long term GCMs is still dishonest. Your assumption that the CO2 cycle is simply independent sources and sinks, and that human emissions must inevitably drive CO2 levels (because, you assume that the system doesn’t *react* to the new source, but simply lets it accumulate) is contradicted by the data showing ever increasing natural CO2 sinks as human CO2 emissions have risen (the “missing CO2” as it were).
2) The “I know you are but what am I” response doesn’t sufficiently answer the sincere question posed to you – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the august authorities you’ve decided to believe in?
3) Your refugee citation remains unrelated to climate (another Gish Gallop) – I examined your citation, and found no reason to extrapolate from it that 1914 was a better overall year for humanity and the world than 2014.
4) What part about naturally changing sea levels over time don’t you get? What makes you think that we’ve had any more destructive weather, or that humanity has existed in any period of moderate, and predictable weather? Do you deny the existence of the Holocene optimum? Do you deny that we’ve had increasing damages from hurricanes not because they are unprecedented, but because of our expansions along the coast? Do you deny that we’ve have increasing resilience from hurricanes because we have had the quality of life, driven by cheap energy, to adapt to those that do come?
Do you have anything more than a Duane Gish list, and an actual necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that takes all of your proposed anecdotes and subjects them to the strict scrutiny of the scientific method? Be specific :)
5) Being an “interested spectator”, it doesn’t seem like you’ve ever applied strict scrutiny to your own preconceptions and beliefs. You talk about challenging “skeptics”, but you haven’t mentioned a single instance where you’ve actually made a challenge to your own “experts”. We know you’ve never asked them for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement (the foundation of the scientific method)…but have you ever, for example, felt it odd they would use the tiljander proxy upside down and claim it supported their thesis? Have you ever, for example, questioned the hockey stick *adjustments* made to the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present? Have you ever, for example, questioned the press that claims a 4m sea level rise as a typo that misquoted a potential 4ft. sea level rise?
Have your “experts” ever been significantly wrong on *anything* in your eyes, or are they infallible like the pope? :)
6) Checks and balances would be great, if it weren’t for the direct knowledge we have about “the team” from the climategate emails that showed obvious abuse:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
7) Besides apocalyptic thinking, another favorite of the religiously inclined is the false idea of a past “golden age”. For all your complaints about the world today, I’ll assert, with the optimism only a secular humanist can, that in fact humanity has made incredible advances since 1914, and that the rose colored glasses with which you view the past with have blinded you to the terribly poor state of humanity, and the world, in 1914. While we certainly have problems, the ingenuity of mankind in adapting and exploiting the resources around it to provide for greater efficiency, technology, population, food, shelter, and knowledge, is as of yet unbounded.
8) Funny you would cite “snowball earth” model simulations that show that rapid changes of temperature have happened before in the past when humans were not a significant factor :)
9) You really don’t believe that ENSO affects global average temperture, yet we must *adjust* our global average temperature record to compensate for it? Really?
That’s like measuring your height, adjusting for the height of your shoes, but then claiming your shoes don’t have an effect on your height :)
10) “our global heat distribution engine”, as apparently described by you, is 90% the oceans and 10% atmosphere and planet – which is surprising, considering your AGW belief is predicated that this heat distribution engine is driven by the GHG effect of a single type of human emitted molecule.
Here’s the issue – the oceans, quite obviously, drive atmospheric temperatures in significant ways, both on a regional and global level. If the atmosphere has *anything* to do with ocean heat levels, it isn’t going to be through the GHG effect (warm air warming oceans), it’s going to be through the albedo effect (clouds either reflecting sunlight away from the ocean surface, or allowing it through). This is really quite trivial physics – have you ever run an experiment where you’ve heated a pot of water through the temperature of the air above it? Do you even have a guess on the order of magnitude of temperature difference required for the air to heat up the water by any significant amount?
11) None of your supposed falsification criteria listed exclude natural drivers.
– CO2 levels of the atmosphere could be independently set regardless of individual source contributions due to complex mediation mechanisms
– the physical properties of CO2 do not exclude complex mediation mechanisms of global CO2 levels
– our cryosphere has melted and reformed many times in the past without human influence, so asserting that observed changes must be caused by humans is unfounded
– our biosphere has never been stable, in the history of the planet
– there is no reason why record extremes cannot be caused by natural changes, especially considering the short length of the records in question
12) Weather models admit the truth that a chaotic and stochastic pheneomon, such as weather, cannot be accurately predicted beyond a certain point. GCMs pretend that by running themselves dozens of times and averaging them, that the mathematical properties of chaotic and stochastic systems no longer apply.
Do you know enough math to understand the inherently unpredictable nature of stochastic systems?
13) If you claim that a warming stratosphere is required by AGW, and then state that in fact, the stratosphere is *cooling*, doesn’t that mean you’ve falsified AGW for yourself?
May 31, 2014 at 03:44
K writes: Do you have anything more than a Duane Gish list, and an actual necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that takes all of your proposed anecdotes and subjects them to the strict scrutiny of the scientific method? Be specific :)”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The following is not a Duane Gish Gallop – it is simple list of specific basics that support the notion that humanity is behind the global warming and weather weirding of late.
Now – you asked what it would take to “falsify” the manmade global warming hypothesis – I offered some (far from complete) thoughts – but it’s a start –
Come on, now respond to these indicators
~ ~ ~
“CC wrote: Again, enough with the fancy word-smithing. Want something sufficient to falsify manmade global warming – falsify this:
Manmade global warming would be falsified if:
… if you could show that humans weren’t injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.
… if you could prove that the physical properties of CO2 as outlined within the scientific consensus was false – of course, then you would have to explain why a whole spectrum of modern marvels actually operates based on “false” physical properties.
… if you could show our global cryosphere has remained stable – instead we have compelling evidence of melting at increasing rates throughout our planet.
… if you could show that our biosphere has remained stable – instead we have compelling evidence of species habitat migrating to higher elevations and more northerly terrain, plus growing seasons lengthening.
… If ratio between record heat extremes and record cold extremes remained more or less equal – But they have not, 14 to 1 is pretty ugly odds.”
============================================
May 31, 2014 at 03:54
krischel Says: May 30, 2014 at 17:34:
“You made a specious claim that oceans don’t drive atmospheric temperatures (even though we all know about ENSO){1}. Your conflation of short term weather forecast models and long term GCMs is still dishonest.{2} Your assumption that the CO2 cycle is simply independent sources and sinks,{3} and that human emissions must inevitably drive CO2 levels (because, you assume that the system doesn’t *react* to the new source, but simply lets it accumulate){4} is contradicted by the data showing ever increasing natural CO2 sinks as human CO2 emissions have risen (the “missing CO2″ as it were).{5}”
=====================
Quite the misunderstanding you’ve got going there:
{1} look it up, I was talking about our “global heat distribution engine” – Might I ask if you are claiming that the “atmosphere” is all there is to our global climate engine?
{2} I’ve made no such claim or assumption. You are letting your imagination run wild.
{3} CO2 is a major regulator of our atmosphere’s insulating properties. Humanity has been adding increasing amounts of CO2 (et al.) that rival major geologic events. Currently the amount of manmade greenhouse gas injections into our atmosphere are weighting in at over two gigatons per month.
It doesn’t matter one bit to the system if those added CO2 molecules are from “natural” sources or from “manmade” sources, the warming result would be the same. It just happens that the incontrovertible fact is that it’s humans who are doing this… no mysterious unknown something else… we know exactly what’s happening. But, you prefer to play cute and dumb.
{4} Where ever did you get the notion of “simply accumulating” ?
Remember I’m a fan of our dynamic Earth – nothing “simply accumulates”! Heck you should see what that CO2 is doing in our oceans… but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
{5} The fact that there’s a tiny increase in carbon being sequestered by CO2 “greening” is minuscule against the back drop of the entire situation – – you know, the fact of the impossible amounts of CO2 we continue injecting into our planet’s atmosphere.
======================
krischel,
The drag with trying to converse with folks like you, is that rather than working towards some mutual understanding, all you want is to add obfuscation and confusion – as is displayed by your disingenuous retelling of my post and my various statements in the above post.
May 31, 2014 at 04:07
======================
krischel writes: 2) The “I know you are but what am I” response doesn’t sufficiently answer the sincere question posed to you – what kind of strict scrutiny have you applied to the august authorities you’ve decided to believe in?
~ ~ ~
Actually I did a sincere job of trying to explain my background and appreciation for the scientific process at K-7 – you can find it here: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action_29.html
—
Sure it comes down to judgement calls, such as when I hear scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Christy etc. repeat known falsehoods – that’s a red flag.
When I listen to real scientists explaining their craft and findings, I can gauge their integrity to some extent. Particularly when compared with the Lindzens of the scene…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see you fear taking me up on my offer to do a side by side examination of one of “your” scientists explaining the situation – compared to someone I feel is a legitimate climatologist explaining their branch of understanding.
Too bad that might actually be fun. But I understand why you would fear to tread there.
May 31, 2014 at 04:48
@citizenschallenge:
Simply spouting off observations, without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, blithely asserting that the observations magically make your hypothesis true, is *exactly* what Duane Gish, and astrologers do.
Here’s the fatal flaw in your argument – you’re “far from complete” as you admit :)
Here, let’s just work on *one* of your points (since your Gish Gallop seems otherwise unbounded):
“… if you could show that humans weren’t injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.”
So there are really two parts to this, so let’s see if we at at least agree on a simple decomposition:
1) there are the emissions that humans produce;
2) there is the level of global CO2 resultant after all sources and sinks react with each other.
Can you agree that those are two separate issues?
May 31, 2014 at 04:49
@citizenschallenge: Here’s a good start on comparing CO2 sources and sinks, and how they have behaved over time:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go
May 31, 2014 at 04:53
@citizenschallenge:
“When I listen to real scientists explaining their craft and findings, I can gauge their integrity to some extent”
Oh, I love this one!
Tell me, how do you judge Michael Mann’s integrity? Does his use of the Tiljander proxies upside down factor into that judgement, or do you find him honest, but just wrong?
May 31, 2014 at 04:57
@citizenschallenge:
“The drag with trying to converse with folks like you, is that rather than working towards some mutual understanding, all you want is to add obfuscation and confusion ”
The way to avoid obfuscation and confusion is to proceed scientifically, and that means a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. So, the burden upon the proponents of CAGW are:
1) a list of observations excluded by the hypothesis;
2) the logical argument that shows that the *lack* of those observations must lead us *only* to believe in our hypothesis.
Simply hand waving about “2.0 gigatons” like Doc Brown and his gigawatts, is theatrical, but not very convincing :)
We’ve already had one warmist here admit that nobody, in the history of mankind, has ever provided a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW – can you agree that is true as well?
May 31, 2014 at 05:20
krischel writes:
“Do you have anything more than a Duane Gish list, and an actual necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that takes all of your proposed anecdotes and subjects them to the strict scrutiny of the scientific method? Be specific :)”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder why your side should be free of this requirement ! ?
______________________________________________
The case for manmade global warming has been made in many ways by many people –
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://www.livescience.com/40006-united-nations-report-calls-global-warming-unprecedented-infographic.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
This stuff isn’t a “gish gallop” krischel, it is a coherent explanation of what’s happening and why. You’re the ones galloping away from facing this information!
… you can run and hide, come up with all sorts of distractions – just like little kid’s endless string of “whys – but events are unfolding with every new season…
“Extreme weather of last decade part of larger pattern linked to global warming” – March 25, 2012 – (PIK)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm
– – –
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/18/2013-extreme-weather-events
– – –
and there’s much more – besides the shear physical logic that an energized climate system (atmosphere, oceans, landmasses, melting cryosphere…) will result in energized weather patterns, as we are witnessing.
We have moved into the drivers seat, and we live in a brave new world and our decisions, or lack there of, will have significant consequences. We can never, and don’t need to, know every detail down to “certainty” to know we got a monster situation on our hands that we should stop ignoring… or long term outcomes will be nothing but ugly.
– – –
What I find saddest is the disconnect you folks have with this planet, it’s physical being and it’s processes, you sure write like none of it means anything real to you. You approach all of this with the seriousness of a video game. – and you don’t want to know more. so sad.
May 31, 2014 at 05:23
@citizenschallenge:
Your latest Gish Gallop, and attempt to shift the burden of proof from the null hypothesis is amusing, but again, not convincing.
I’ll be eagerly awaiting your response to my earlier comment:
Here, let’s just work on *one* of your points (since your Gish Gallop seems otherwise unbounded):
“… if you could show that humans weren’t injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.”
So there are really two parts to this, so let’s see if we at at least agree on a simple decomposition:
1) there are the emissions that humans produce;
2) there is the level of global CO2 resultant after all sources and sinks react with each other.
Can you agree that those are two separate issues?
May 31, 2014 at 05:42
krischel Says:
May 31, 2014 at 04:53
@citizenschallenge:
“When I listen to real scientists explaining their craft and findings, I can gauge their integrity to some extent”
Oh, I love this one!
Tell me, how do you judge Michael Mann’s integrity? Does his use of the Tiljander proxies upside down factor into that judgement, or do you find him honest, but just wrong?
====================================
you sound like a prosecutor trying convict someone – BUT this is supposed to be about learning from the evidence at hand.
What’s wrong with actually listening to scientist presenting their cases – or with assessing how solid their arguments sounded to me – why you gotta treat that with such contempt?
Have you ever spent time listening to climatologists presenting there case? Can you give any examples?
~~~~~~~~~~
But since you brought it up,
Know what I hate, when under-educated folks think they are smarter than the experts – even though they haven’t a clue about the various details and pit falls in these technical issues.
I mean like asking me to judge the significance… or heck even the reality of the “Tijander upside down data” is ludicrous – but folks with even less understanding than I have do it all the time, laughing at the experts like naughty boys ridiculing their school masters.
Even you K, you talk a lot, but never get into the science of it – I’ve asked you a few times to explain details of claims you make – but you never do.
So I’m curious, can you explain what was so significance about the “Tijander data” being “upside” so to speak – how was it upside down – and what did it falsify? Why was it be important?
What did we learn from it?
May 31, 2014 at 05:48
@citizenschallenge:
The way we proceed with the scientific method is to start off with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. I’m happy to begin our learning together there, if you dare :)
“I mean like asking me to judge the significance… or heck even the reality of the “Tiljander upside down data” is ludicrous”
So, you can judge people’s integrity, but can’t understand when they fail to tell the truth? :)
Here’s a great reference for the Tiljander proxy issue: http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/
The fact is that Michael Mann used an upside down proxy as evidence to support his hypothesis, and subsequently disregarded the contradiction to his hypothesis when his mistake was exposed. Whether or not you consider this incompetence or deception is up to you.
I’m still eagerly awaiting your response to my earlier comment:
Here, let’s just work on *one* of your points (since your Gish Gallop seems otherwise unbounded):
“… if you could show that humans weren’t injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.”
So there are really two parts to this, so let’s see if we at at least agree on a simple decomposition:
1) there are the emissions that humans produce;
2) there is the level of global CO2 resultant after all sources and sinks react with each other.
Can you agree that those are two separate issues?
May 31, 2014 at 06:13
krischel Says:
May 31, 2014 at 05:23
@citizenschallenge:
Your latest Gish Gallop, and attempt to shift the burden of proof from the null hypothesis (your “null hypothesis” is a H.F. game and not at all amusing) is amusing, but again, not convincing.
I’ll be eagerly awaiting your response to my earlier comment:
Here, let’s just work on *one* of your points (since your Gish Gallop seems otherwise unbounded):
“… if you could show that humans weren’t injecting on the order of two gigatons CO2 into our thin atmosphere per month.”
So there are really two parts to this, so let’s see if we at at least agree on a simple decomposition:
1) there are the emissions that humans produce;
2) there is the level of global CO2 resultant after all sources and sinks react with each other.
Can you agree that those are two separate issues?
=============================================
citizenschallenge:
Lordie, lordie what a disingenuous cluster fuk’n (sorry, since you’ve stolen “gish gallop” how else could I describe it. :)
Yes there are human emissions and there is what’s left in the atmosphere http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and we are over 400ppm and that’s ugly. Don’t know what you’re smug about.
As for the other part, why are you ignoring that it’s going into the oceans creating the other modern monster???
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/04/ocean-acidification-already-eating-away.html
(“Acidification already eating away at tiny creatures along our coast” – Craig Welch | Seattle Times | April 30, 2014 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beyond that we know that major components of our weather system are significantly changing… from various ocean circulation currents; to atmospheric changes as reflected in the increasingly meandering behavior of the Jet Stream; to the new phenomena of evaporation driven convection currents adding unprecedented heat and moisture into the Arctic Troposphere because of the newly and increasingly exposed Arctic Ocean.
Then you wave away stuff like this like it’s meaningless.
– – –
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
– – –
http://www.livescience.com/40006-united-nations-report-calls-global-warming-unprecedented-infographic.html
– – –
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
– – –
“Extreme weather of last decade part of larger pattern linked to global warming” – March 25, 2012 – (PIK)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm
– – –
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/18/2013-extreme-weather-events
———————————————
{as for your Tiljander proxy come back,
you didn’t explain a thing: “to support his hypothesis, and subsequently disregarded” –
doesn’t describe anything about the issues involved or what’s significant. And I asked you, not Mc.
May 31, 2014 at 06:20
@citizenschallenge:
1) Appreciate the answer on the two separate issues:
“Yes there are human emissions and there is what’s left in the atmosphere”
So let’s continue with that.
Is it possible that the amount of human emissions is not what determines what is left in the atmosphere?
May 31, 2014 at 06:22
@citizenschallenge:
“Then you wave away stuff like this like it’s meaningless.”
Of course I throw it away – it’s a Gish Gallop. If you want to examine the science you start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Quote one.
“And I asked you, not Mc.”
Steve McIntyre is by far the person with the most integrity in the entire AGW wars. If you’re not willing to read his very clear description of exactly what errors Mann made, you’re being willfully ignorant, don’t you think? :)
Or are you asserting that I’m not allowed to specify citations? :)
May 31, 2014 at 15:51
Hey, I got no problem with citations – I just wanted to see if you yourself had a conception of what you were talking about – if you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it very well.
And then there’s McIntyre’s game.
It’s when you pick someone with the shady reputation of McIntyre as your man with the “Most Integrity” it undermines all the nice facade you’re trying to build up. I have read McI’s stuff and talk about splitting hairs, misrepresenting facts, and in generally dedication to furthering confusion rather than any clarity – he’s your man alright. He also remains firmly within the vacuum of the denialist community – considering the critiques and take downs he’s suffered and ignored.
==========================
Is Steve McIntyre an expert statistician?
Posted by coby on September 21, 2012
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2012/09/is-steve-mcintyre-an-expert-statistician/
~ ~ ~
Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy
Posted on 4 October 2013 by dana1981
http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html
~ ~ ~
Posts Tagged ‘Steve McIntyre’
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/steve-mcintyre/
~ ~ ~
Climate “auditor” Steve McIntyre: Yamal like “crack cocaine”
Posted on October 4, 2009
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/
~ ~ ~
McIntyre’s irrational demands
Posted by Tim Lambert on August 8, 2005
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/08/08/mcintyre/
~ ~ ~
=============================================
PS. playing trick question games, doesn’t help anyone learn…
K – Is it possible that the amount of human emissions is not what determines what is left in the atmosphere?
~ ~ ~
CC – During the current era – NO!
We have had a relatively steady state going for quite a geological period: “Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide, by CIRES & NOAA”
But, that is not to say other factors aren’t involved, but basically it’s our emissions that have become the gorilla in the room.
… aand you are suggesting something else?
May 31, 2014 at 18:38
@citizenschallenge:
“if you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it very well.”
Or, alternatively, maybe you just don’t understand clear explanations very well :)
Did you actually read Steve McIntyre’s work on exposing the Tiljander issue? Be honest.
Oh, and the Mauna Loa data really can’t be accurately spliced onto the ice core data – there are issues with both resolution and accuracy there.
“K – Is it possible that the amount of human emissions is not what determines what is left in the atmosphere?
~ ~ ~
CC – During the current era – NO!”
Funny then, how over time natural climate sinks seem to magically increase as human emissions increase, isn’t it :)
Imagine a tub. It can drain 2L/day, and we have static sources that pour into it at exactly 2L/day.
Some scenarios for you to consider:
1) You add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining water, it begins draining 3L/day. In this case, obviously the tub has some sort of mechanism that adapts to additional sources.
2) You add nothing to the equation, and it begins draining 1.95L/day, for a net increase in level of 0.05L/day. In this case, obviously the tub has some sort of regulating mechanism that determines its drain rate regardless of static sources.
3) You add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining 1L/day, it begins draining 2.95L/day, for a net increase in level of .05L/day. In this case, it could be similar to #1, but it could also be that the tub has an adaptive mechanism to additional sources that can’t quite compensate.
4) Day 1, you add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining 1L/day, it begins draining 2.95L/day, for a net increase in level of 0.05L/day. Day 2, you add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining 1L/day, it begins training at 3.9L/day, for a net increase in level from original of 0.1L/day. In this case, it’s harder to make the argument that the adaptive mechanism can’t quite compensate for additional sources, especially if our source variation, from day to day, changes, and yet the net increase in the level of the tub smoothly increases.
Global CO2 levels are in the case of #4.
What I’m suggesting is that you haven’t even *thought* of how you could have gotten it wrong. You’ve got bile and invective for people with honesty and integrity like Steve McIntyre, and hold them to an incredibly demanding standard, but you haven’t bothered to turn that skepticism onto your own beliefs. Despite your protestations, you’re preaching here, not practicing science :)
So, given those four scenarios I pointed out, on this very narrow point of whether or not humans are driving global CO2 levels (rather than them being moderated by some other factor in spite of human CO2 emissions), can you think of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for that?
May 31, 2014 at 19:06
Some great testimony here regarding the IPCC 2014 report:
Click to access HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf
June 1, 2014 at 02:32
krischel asks: “Did you actually read Steve McIntyre’s work on exposing the Tiljander issue? Be honest.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny that, I usually don’t spend much time on McIntyre’s ratchet jawing – but as it happens, a while back, I did spend a bunch of time reading ClimateAudit’s Tiljander stuff, trying to figure out what all the fuss was about. – and since you ask, I found McIntyre a cynical and smooth manipulator with quite the talent for distorting an issue and molding it to his own storyline. He does deserve a CrichtonFictionWritingAward. He also has a habit of setting up impossible expectations. And a worse habit of getting too offended when busy experts don’t have time for his transparent games.
In the end it seemed too much ado about nothing and I lost interest.
For those interested:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/29/tiljander/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=194
~~~~~~~
This one sums it up –
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/tiljander/
“Are McIntyre’s claims about the issue correct?
“Looking at McIntyre’s claims on this and the real situation descibed above shows that McIntyre’s claims are false. Just look at the graphs McIntyre presented. In all graphs there the values in X- and Y-axes give matching values, and yet McIntyre shows them as they would show the mistake.
The graphs he presents just show how the data is in the TEA and in the input of the MEA reconstruction so basically those graphs just show that MEA have not flipped the data upside-down before feeding it to their analysis, which is exactly the opposite that McIntyre claims to be the case. He claims that MEA have flipped the data, while in real world the problem is that they haven’t flipped the data.
“McIntyre’s role in this is very strange. Even when the basic claim is correct, i.e. the claim that the data is used upside-down in MEA, McIntyre still cannot make correct claims about it. It makes one wonder. If a person is aware of this problem, then why make false claims about it?
Bizarre, indeed. …”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a noticeable difference between the pursuit of learning and a high pressure sales-pitch.
~ ~ ~
McIntyre, (mathematician, mining prospector – climatology illiterate), built a PR career on injecting confusion, raising contrived – in the end inconsequential knit-picking distractions… plus salting it with an unnecessary undercurrent of paranoia and hostility – when this was supposed to be a grand public educational and planning dialogue.
Instead he helped turn the AGW dialogue into a ridiculous, very counter-productive political battle field arguing about all the wrong questions while precious time keeps slipping by.
I notice K ignores the links to stories detailing McIntyre’s significant record of misrepresenting scientific evidence and setting up impossible expectations while ignoring credible corrections he’s received… etc.
K, why don’t you care that McIntyre has a track record of misrepresentations and lies?
K, what about ignoring important evidence, in favor spending precious time on inconsequentials?
=================
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well I made it half way through Daniel Botkin’s page – am I supposed to be impressed? What in the world is Daniel’s contrived list supposed to add to the discussion? Looks to me like another nominee for the CrichtonFictionWritingAward.
June 1, 2014 at 03:49
@citizenschallenge:
“I found McIntyre a cynical and smooth manipulator with quite the talent for distorting an issue and molding it to his own storyline”
Wow, that’s a *fascinating* interpretation, but I suppose it’s the only thing left once you’ve lost on the facts :)
Your first cite: “So you can look at S8 – I’ve inlined it – to discover that the Tiljander series don’t affect the overall result much.”
Isn’t that the dictionary definition of a Gish Gallop? If any single point is refuted, just ignore it? :)
Even your third cite states: “MEA should have turned the data upside-down before using it in their analysis.”
Which is *exactly* McIntyre’s point :)
“I notice K ignores the links to stories detailing McIntyre’s significant record of misrepresenting scientific evidence”
So, some guy on a blog simply states “it seems that MEA did an honest mistake”, and all of a sudden that’s twisted int McIntyre misrepresenting something? :) Whether or not it was done in step 1 or step 3, MEA used the data *upside-down*. The fact that Mann is willing to ignore the data (since it “don’t affect the overall result much”) shows that his work is by definition cherry picking data to fit his narrative :)
Back to the question you missed though:
Imagine a tub. It can drain 2L/day, and we have static sources that pour into it at exactly 2L/day.
Some scenarios for you to consider:
1) You add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining water, it begins draining 3L/day. In this case, obviously the tub has some sort of mechanism that adapts to additional sources.
2) You add nothing to the equation, and it begins draining 1.95L/day, for a net increase in level of 0.05L/day. In this case, obviously the tub has some sort of regulating mechanism that determines its drain rate regardless of static sources.
3) You add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining 1L/day, it begins draining 2.95L/day, for a net increase in level of .05L/day. In this case, it could be similar to #1, but it could also be that the tub has an adaptive mechanism to additional sources that can’t quite compensate.
4) Day 1, you add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining 1L/day, it begins draining 2.95L/day, for a net increase in level of 0.05L/day. Day 2, you add 1 more L/day, and instead of gaining 1L/day, it begins training at 3.9L/day, for a net increase in level from original of 0.1L/day. In this case, it’s harder to make the argument that the adaptive mechanism can’t quite compensate for additional sources, especially if our source variation, from day to day, changes, and yet the net increase in the level of the tub smoothly increases.
Global CO2 levels are in the case of #4.
So, given those four scenarios I pointed out, on this very narrow point of whether or not humans are driving global CO2 levels (rather than them being moderated by some other factor in spite of human CO2 emissions), can you think of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for that?
June 1, 2014 at 20:31
krischel Says (June 1, 2014 at 03:49) :
“So, given those four scenarios I pointed out, on this very narrow point of whether or not humans are driving global CO2 levels (rather than them being moderated by some other factor in spite of human CO2 emissions), can you think of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for that?”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Contrived scenarios are no replacement for real world evidence!
But first, as for the Tijander specifics this sums it up well.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/tiljander/
Mann et al. (2009) responded:
“The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”
~ ~ ~
Beyond that Tijander data is all pretty irrelevant to the greater understanding we have these days. It won’t help falsify anything about AGW one way or the another.
Worse seems like your basic position is that the real experts, who are studying all this full time are a bunch of bad guys who should never be trusted. You have nothing to base that assumption on but a bunch of calculated malicious innuendo – and irrelevant distractions like this Tijander data thing which is much ado about nothing.
Earth science studies and their data-sets are huge, complex affairs and they are tough to get perfect, every flaw does not negate findings and study results.
But your type never seems interested in understanding the details of flaws, their actual impact, or what was learned from them – Seems like all you see is a target to manipulate anyway you want for greatest PR damage effect, not for it’s learning potential.
You can be sure that the community of experts who understand these things has reviewed the Tijander issue from all sides for all it’s worth, they have learned their lessons and moved on, since learning and not beating a dead horse is their thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now to that list krischel finds so significant.
K, your CO2 List of Four, is a contrived what’ifs. OK, so your analogies may be a way to teach some basic fundamentals of heat sinks – but, it’s no reflection on the actual geophysical situation and shouldn’t be used as an example of real life.
Your List ignores that we know those numbers to a reasonable degree of accuracy and the bottom-line remains the Keeling Curve – there we can see how much is being left in the atmosphere – and it is a substantial amount, with significant cascading and compounding impacts –
so it could be worse, what’s your point?
I notice you don’t mention that some CO2 sinks are slowing down.
“Oceans’ Uptake of Manmade Carbon May Be Slowing
First Year-by-Year Study, 1765-2008, Shows Proportion Declining”
November 18, 2009 –
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586
~ ~ ~
Increased plant growth plays a real, but minor roll – well unless your land is being invaded by Kudzo or the like.
“Invasive forb benefits from water savings by native plants and carbon fertilization under elevated CO2 and warming”
Dana M. Blumenthal – July 2013
Click to access 34.%20Blumenthal%20et%20al%202013%20-%20New%20Phytol%20-%20Invasive%20forb.pdf
Incidentally here’s an excellent lecture by an expert in atmospheric CO2, Dr. Steve Running, that explains a bit about the science from the inside. Worth a listen for sure:
“Climate Change and the Forests of the West”
~ ~ ~
The ugliest deception about your pretty List of Four, is that you ignore the fact that the place most of Anthro CO2 is “draining” to is our oceans. Where it’s causing what’s called “ocean acidification” which has begun a whole different cascade of destructive consequences as ocean life is beginning to inhabit a radically changing ocean water environment – not just less alkalinity, but warmer too.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/04/ocean-acidification-already-eating-away.html
~ ~ ~
Tragically you do all you can to keep ignoring such basic fundamentals – in favor of your endless dog-chasing-tail arguments – so sad. Here are another couple learning opportunities:
Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care? – Perspectives on Ocean Science – Professor Andrew Dickson
~ ~ ~
Introduction to CO2 Chemistry in Seawater Part 1
June 1, 2014 at 20:52
@citizenschallenge:
1) Your tiljander cite makes no sense – Mann simply says “it doesn’t matter that I used it upside down”, and you accept that as reason enough to not worry? :)
The tiljander issue represents a lack of integrity, even if it is only a small part of the bigger picture you’re trying to paint – surely you can recognize that, can’t you?
2) The keeling curve works from 1958. Splicing ice core data on it is mixing apples and oranges.
3) The fact that ocean uptakes may be variable *further* leads to the conclusion that global CO2 levels are in fact, not moderated by the individual contributions of sources and sinks. Some years they increase, some years they decrease – that points to a moderating factor *beyond* any individual source.
4) Ocean acidification is a misnomer – it’s actually ocean neutralization (since oceans are, at last check, basic, not acid). That being said, the wild, disparate variation of ocean pH, both spatially and temporally, makes any conclusions about historical ocean pH levels and projected pH levels highly suspect.
—–
Now, I noticed you failed to try to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for the question “are humans driving global CO2 levels”. Let’s try find some falsification criteria for you, and logically connect them:
1) global CO2 levels may not rise faster than human CO2 emissions increases;
Logically, if they did rise faster, it would point to a different source to blame.
2) global CO2 levels may not fall faster than human CO2 emissions decreases;
Logically, if they did fall faster, it would point to a different source to blame.
3) global CO2 isotope fractions may not show a “non-human” fingerprint;
Logically, if the isotopes show a different source, it would point to a different source to blame.
4) global CO2 sinks may not vary in general alignment with human CO2 emissions changes;
Logically, if global CO2 sinks track to human CO2 emissions changes (even say, with some small secular residual), it would point to a CO2 level that is moderated by a different factor.
5) historically, global CO2 levels may not adapt to perturbations in sources;
Logically, if human CO2 emissions increases cause increases, so should other historical moments of CO2 increase.
6) historically, global CO2 levels may not change at the same rate as observed from 1950 to present.
Sadly, but logically, if we have precedent anywhere in the historical record for similar CO2 level changes, we cannot exclude natural drivers for changes.
As I reckon it, we’ve already observed #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6. If you’d like to present some different set of falsification criteria, and the argument as to why the lack of those observations excludes natural changes and only leads us to believe that human CO2 emissions are to blame, you’re more than welcome to.
June 1, 2014 at 21:46
heathergirl1234 Says to Citizenschallenge: March 27, 2014 at 16:55
“Your very fixated on ‘climate’, when as I said my question was not about climate. My question was about how the scientific method is applied to the theory.
I am not asking about atmospheric chemistry. I am asking about the process of applying the scientific method to this particular theory; falsifiability is an aspect of a proper theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yea, you could say I’m fixated on climate, it’s an Earth loving thing.
Besides, I find down to Earth stuff more reliable then all that fancy talk people can pump out.
As for responding to your question in a serious constructive manner, how about if I allow Stephen Schneider to take it from here.
There are better complete talks by Schneider, but this is a decent compilation of highlights worth considering – a tad too much Hollywood effects and creative music (hang on after 3:30 it settles down) to the important take away points:
Although if you were into the full version, here a 2010 talk:
“Climate Change: Is the Science “Settled”?” 2010
June 1, 2014 at 22:26
McIntyre’s thoughts on Steven Schneider’s passing:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/20/stephen-schneider/
Despite their conflicts with one another, McIntyre was quite kind in his reflection on Schneider’s life.
June 1, 2014 at 22:46
krischel Says:
June 1, 2014 at 20:52
@citizenschallenge:
1) Your tiljander cite makes no sense – Mann simply says “it doesn’t matter that I used it upside down”, and you accept that as reason enough to not worry? :)
The tiljander issue represents a lack of integrity, even if it is only a small part of the bigger picture you’re trying to paint – surely you can recognize that, can’t you?
~ ~ ~
======================================
Well nothing you’ve said about it makes sense either – you pointed at claims by other biased political player’s claims and fast talk – you haven’t explained a thing about it.
My position is, it’s beyond my serious understanding and I’ll leave it to the experts to hash out. What’s wrong with that? You on the other hand are hell bent on lynching Mann – for something you don’t actually understand and certainly can’t explain.
~ ~ ~
No you haven’t made your case that it involved “lack of integrity”
You despise the guy, why should I accept your biased value judgement.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2) The keeling curve works from 1958. Splicing ice core data on it is mixing apples and oranges.
~ ~ ~
Can you explain why to think that?
Why should those two different threads of information not been spliced together? Isn’t learning the point?
Do you accept that in the literature that slicing was clearly noted and explained?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3) The fact that ocean uptakes may be variable *further* leads to the conclusion that global CO2 levels are in fact, not moderated by the individual contributions of sources and sinks. {1} Some years they increase, some years they decrease {2} – that points to a moderating factor *beyond* any individual source.
~ ~ ~
Holy Moly, what a bunch of gobbledegook, go back and read and *think* about the substance of:
“Oceans’ Uptake of Manmade Carbon May Be Slowing First Year-by-Year Study, 1765-2008, Shows Proportion Declining” November 18, 2009 –
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586
Then come back with some more intelligent, dare I say honest, questions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4) Ocean acidification is a misnomer – it’s actually ocean neutralization (since oceans are, at last check, basic, not acid).
~ ~ ~
Here is an example that you aren’t participating in a dialogue, or that you are even paying attention to what I’m writing – Why didn’t you notice my scare quotes, or how I ended my paragraph.
===
CC wrote: “Where it’s causing what’s called “ocean acidification” which has begun a whole different cascade of destructive consequences as ocean life is beginning to inhabit a radically changing ocean water environment – not just less alkalinity, but warmer too.”
===
Nah, you aren’t interested in what I’m actually trying to discuss, you got your formula to work through.
What about the fact of “ocean life is beginning to inhabit a radically changing ocean water environment.” do you deny that?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4b) That being said, the wild, disparate variation of ocean pH, both spatially and temporally {A}, makes any conclusions {B} about historical ocean pH levels and projected pH levels highly suspect{C}.
~ ~ ~
A) K, makes the claim about “wild, disparate variation of ocean pH” but don’t cite any facts. It’s not even a claim you have here… it’s no intellectual foundation to build on.
{B} “Any conclusion” – what do you mean no conclusions can be made based on available evidence? The human mind is driven to trying to solve mysteries and striving for conclusions. It’s a matter of realistically weighting evidence at hand and drawing appropriate provisional conclusions based on the information at hand. Then to proceed gathering better information to refine our conclusions.
{C}”highly suspect” – That such a vague whatever – suspect in what regard?
Do you think scientists aren’t aware of the variety of point sources and sinks?
Or the differing quality of various data sets.
Have you ever listen to them explaining their studies?
Is your goal to hide from information or to learn from all available credible information?
=====================
K, I gotta pass on your lasted Gish Gallop Cluster H.F. of 6,
time to return to the real world.
Funny how you never feel the slightest inclination to answer some of my fundamental questions, nah, aways more Angels dancing on pinheads.
June 1, 2014 at 23:07
@citizenschallenge:
1) What part about “Mann used upside-down evidence to support his hypothesis, and then blithely claimed that his mistake didn’t matter”, don’t you understand?
Let’s say I’m an creationist, and I tell you I’ve got ten examples of unprecedented fossils with no prior ancestors, which obviously proves that they were intelligently designed and created. You find that one of the examples I gave in fact, had a very clear line of prior ancestor fossils. Your response is that the mistaken example doesn’t affect the overall point.
Would you buy that?
“it’s beyond my serious understanding”
I suppose that’s fairly obvious – but I’m surprised you think you can judge people’s integrity without being able to understand their work at least on the most basic level of “right side up” or “up side down” :)
2) ice core CO2 levels suffer from several issues when compared to the Mauna Loa data:
– migration of CO2, which reduces peaks and valleys in the data
– resolution of the data, which cannot match the Mauna Loa data
– contrary Stomata proxy data indicating much higer CO2 levels and variability during the Holocene
3) You’ve gone from “May Be Slowing” to “Must Be Slowing And Will Continue to Slow”.
Here, try this: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/
4) You missed the point again – you’ve got no evidence for ocean neutralization of any significant magnitude, given the vast variation both temporally and spatially of ocean pH. You’re asserting an effect you can’t measure.
What about that fact that ocean environments are always radically changing, regardless if humans are around or not?
4b) http://pages-142.unibe.ch/science/scor/gfx/Ridgwell%26Schmidt2010NGeo-PastOceanAcidification.pdf
The paper shows a mean pH of about 7.7 over the past 250 million years. Modern ocean pH is about 8.1-8.2.
On a more local scale, you can see that pH varies greatly over time:
Click to access 100240_167.pdf
June 2, 2014 at 15:15
krischel Says: June 1, 2014 at 23:07
Don’t have time for your games today. So I need to limit myself to your 4 – the point I don’t miss is that you have a great deal of confirmation bias going.
Why would CO2 reading from the Monterey Aquarium be representative of the entire ocean – what about local sources for variations? None of that is looked into or explained – so stop making impossible connections.
NoTrickZone hahaha, and do you actually find them an authoritative, trustworthy source. As for Murry Salby’s theory –
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/04/murray-salby-and-conservation/
“… It was quite good sport to play “spot the flaw” in real time. Fortunately, the talk was the last of the session, and both Alan Plumb and myself chatted with him right afterwards. Aside from whether a statistical argument makes physical sense, it also must hold water statistically by being applicable beyond the time frame of model development. In discussing what his model would mean for past variations of temperature and CO2, it eventually became clear that he believed all paleoclimate data that supported his statistical analysis and disregarded all paleoclimate data that countered his statistical analysis, even though the latter collection was much larger than the former.
Eventually I realized that if 0.8 C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120ppm CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative.
That was enough for me.” John Nielsen-Gammon
~ ~ ~
Murry Salby – Confused About The Carbon Cycle
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
~ ~ ~
Denier weirdness: defending the indefensible Murry Salby at WUWT
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/denier-weirdness-defending-indefensible.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sadly I imagine your other points are as transparently phony also. Gotta run, good day.
June 2, 2014 at 16:23
@citizenschallenge:
1) The whole point about the variation of the Monterey Aquarium is that there is variation *everywhere* in the ocean. No, the entire ocean doesn’t look like the Monterey Aquarium – and neither does any part of the ocean really look like the rest of the ocean either. Your claims of apocalypse due to a nearly undetectable neutralization of an otherwise generally basic ocean are completely unfounded. Rather than an incredibly fragile ocean, with a precariously balanced pH level whose disruption would wreak havoc, we have an incredibly *robust* ocean, with a wildly varying pH level, whose disruption is a *regular occurence*.
2) Funny that you would cite a rebuttal that points out that an argument discarded selected paleo data, but then still support Michael Mann after Tiljander :)
The simple answer to your confusion is this – CO2 is not 100% determined by temperature, so you cannot look at the last glacial maximum and try to calculate CO2 from temperature.
—–
Now, I noticed you failed to try to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for the question “are humans driving global CO2 levels”. Let’s try find some falsification criteria for you, and logically connect them:
1) global CO2 levels may not rise faster than human CO2 emissions increases;
Logically, if they did rise faster, it would point to a different source to blame.
2) global CO2 levels may not fall faster than human CO2 emissions decreases;
Logically, if they did fall faster, it would point to a different source to blame.
3) global CO2 isotope fractions may not show a “non-human” fingerprint;
Logically, if the isotopes show a different source, it would point to a different source to blame.
4) global CO2 sinks may not vary in general alignment with human CO2 emissions changes;
Logically, if global CO2 sinks track to human CO2 emissions changes (even say, with some small secular residual), it would point to a CO2 level that is moderated by a different factor.
5) historically, global CO2 levels may not adapt to perturbations in sources;
Logically, if human CO2 emissions increases cause increases, so should other historical moments of CO2 increase.
6) historically, global CO2 levels may not change at the same rate as observed from 1950 to present.
Sadly, but logically, if we have precedent anywhere in the historical record for similar CO2 level changes, we cannot exclude natural drivers for changes.
As I reckon it, we’ve already observed #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6. If you’d like to present some different set of falsification criteria, and the argument as to why the lack of those observations excludes natural changes and only leads us to believe that human CO2 emissions are to blame, you’re more than welcome to.
June 2, 2014 at 16:39
@citizenschallenge:
Looking at one of your blog cites criticizing Murray Salby:
1) Insofar as C12/C13, Salby correctly points out that the carbon cycle is complex, and that without specific study of the C12/C13 ratio of all other CO2 sources on our planet, we’re making a very, very risky assumption.
There’s a denial of complexity in the argument against Salby.
2) If a seasonal impact due to plants in the northern hemisphere can drive significant seasonal cycles, why can’t we believe that those same drivers could have an underlying secular trend?
3) Funny how the argument against Salby’s data is rebutted with a graph generated from a *model*, rather than from observation :) While arguably, Salby should be more specific in his graph citation (a valid critique, no doubt), the rebuttal is laughable :)
4) An interesting point is made about Salby’s “temperature and soil moisture” hypothesis – humans certainly do have an urban heat island effect, and certainly do make changes to the soil through agriculture, so arguably, humans may still be “guilty”, just not through the mechanism of CO2 emissions.
The rebuttal fails to consider that an underly secular trend (as demonstrated by the dynamically adaptive sinks that take up more and more CO2 every year) can exist naturally.
—-
At the end of the day, while Salby certainly doesn’t walk on water, would you agree that he’s no less flawed than Michael Mann, or Stephen Schneider?
June 3, 2014 at 14:23
Anything is falsifiable. All one has to do is give incorrect information.
June 3, 2014 at 17:52
@Mike Arienti:
In the context of science, “falsifiable” means something more specific.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism is not.
June 18, 2014 at 10:57
AGW supporters — check out the tone of your posts, the ones in which you were responding to Heathergirl1234. Her question was simple, honest, and straightforward; your responses either ignored her question OR employed the fallacy of motive — neither worked to improve your credibility. You brought up republicans, right-wingers, and Reagan; those are NOT responses that instill confidence. Nor referring to skeptics as deniers, anti-science, etc.
She kept asking her question and even gave context: no matter the climate. Rain, snow, huricanes, tornados, or the lack of them, we are always told THAT proves AGW. Now scientists would realize that CANNOT be, that there HAS to be an event (or events) that would disprove AGW.
The scientific method insists on falsifiability, and no amount of convincing arguments substitute for that. It’s no wonder those of us out there that know some science and statistics see you guys simply as hucksters. You CAN’T assert that ALL weather proves AGW — there HAS to be falsifiability.
June 18, 2014 at 16:20
You can’t seriously talk about climate by misrepresenting what climatologists are actually saying! ~~~
You can’t seriously talk about climate when you refuse to try to understand the underlying issues you’re confused about! ~~~
You can’t seriously learn about climate when you remain deft to what people are trying to explain regarding the changes we are witnessing on our climate! ~~~ Actually I did write a third response based on the krischel Says: June 2, 2014 at 16:39 – but got so disgusted at talking to a wall, that it wound up on the back burner.
~~~ it’s really irritating how denialists refuse to actually discuss what others try to share. ~ ~ ~ http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action_29.html ~~~~~~~~~~
As for railing against the Republican/Libertarian denial machine – well that’s what it is – I wish Rep/Lib’s and their faith in profits and a self-made jealous God – weren’t behind their decades long attack on science and deliberately deceiving people – but those are the facts.
Want to know about climate/weather, you need to spend time learning about it, rather than spending all your focus on fallacious debates tactics that miss the point anyways.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
June 18, 2014 at 16:26
Thank you for your concerns, Ken. They’re always appreciated.
How would you respond to Heathergirl1234?
If you show me your response, I’ll show you mine.
June 18, 2014 at 17:49
@citizenschallenge: Your Gish Gallops here are becoming legendary :)
The ask is simple – a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
A single *necessary* item is not *sufficient*.
A dozen *necessary* items may also not be *sufficient*.
Appeals to authority are *not* sufficient (unless you’re quoting their necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement).
Ad hominem attacks are *not* sufficient.
You’re looking at two bits:
1) the list of observations *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) the logical argument that the failure to observe those falsification criteria means we can rule out the null hypothesis (natural climate change), and must only believe in your favored hypothesis.
This is *fundamental* to the scientific method – but my suspicion is that the true believers like yourself are more than willing to skip that step and get right on to the sermon :)
June 18, 2014 at 20:08
> a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
Global Warming is caused by authropogenic activity.
To disprove that, you need to show that one of the three hypothesis are better explanations of what’s happening:
(1) There is warming, say because greenhouse gas theory is wrong.
(2) Even if here has been warming, it’s not global.
(3) Even if GW is true, it’s not anthropogenic.
Prove any of the three and you win. If you have any other suggestion, you’re more than welcome. If you have show (1), try this:
http://scienceofdoom.com
If you continue your Popperian claptraps, I’ll take citizenchallenge’s place and pay due diligence to the epistemology you promote.
Many thanks!
June 18, 2014 at 20:22
@willard: You’re trying to argue from ignorance (i.e., if you don’t have a better explanation, then mine is automatically right).
Your burden is this:
1) list the observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) make the logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
Shifting the burden of proof isn’t appropriate here.
June 18, 2014 at 22:22
> You’re trying to argue from ignorance.
Not at all. I’m arguing from the best explanation:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
Arguing from ignorance would be to say that AGW is a miracle:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoIgnorance
Nobody needs to maintain that AGW is true. If you think about it like a Popperian would (and perhaps also as a layman), that would be absurd. All that is needed is to claim that it is the best explanation we have.
In the words of Richard Allen:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-biggest-control-knob-co2-in-earths-climate-history
Do you have a stronger alternative than AGW, krischel? I’m sure Bart V would be interested to know. Money and fame would await both of you.
June 18, 2014 at 23:50
@willard: Your cite proves my point:
“(1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false.”
Since you don’t know that GW is natural, you assert that it is false.
“(2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true.”
Since you don’t know that AGW is false, you assert that it is true.
Blithely asserting that you need a “stronger alternative” than AGW in order to prove AGW false is the *definition* of an appeal to ignorance. It’s like asking for a “stronger alternative” to God creating the universe, and insisting that without a “stronger alternative”, God must be accepted to exist.
The problem here is that the “best explanation we have” is not sufficient for science. Science requires, at its most basic, falsifiability, which you haven’t been able to provide.
Again, your burden is this:
1) list the observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) make the logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
The null hypothesis, to remind you, is that observed climate changes during the existence of humanity are driven by the same natural factors as drove them *before* the existence of humanity.
June 18, 2014 at 23:54
@willard: Regarding abductive reasoning:
https://explorable.com/abductive-reasoning
“Abductive reasoning, or inference, is a useful tool for determining the course of scientific research.”
I fully agree with that statement. After determining the course, however, the rigor of falsifiability must apply.
Further on in the article:
“Unlike most other deductive methods, abduction is not always correct, but enhancing or exploring different hypotheses will allow a systematic approach to scientific research.”
Using abductive reasoning in science is certainly permitted, but using *only* abductive reasoning in science is *not*. It is the beginning, but not the end.
June 19, 2014 at 00:26
> Your cite proves my point
For a Popperian, that is an absurd thing to say. All science is conjectures, some refuted, some waiting to be. In other words, there is no such thing as knowledge as justified, true belief.
***
> Since you don’t know that GW is natural, you assert that it is false.
No, I actually don’t. I only need to claim that this hypothesis does not explain what is happening very well.
I could also enquire what the hell “is natural” means. There are lots of theories about that. Most of them rely on an unidentified mechanism.
Once I know the mechanism that seeks to explain “GW natural,” then I might try to falsify it.
***
> Since you don’t know that AGW is false, you assert that it is true.
Again, I do not assert that it’s true, only that this is the best explanation we have so far. That does not imply it’s true.
How could we determine that it’s true anyway? Once true, how could it ever be false? Now, that would be an unfalsifiable theory!
***
> The problem here is that the “best explanation we have” is not sufficient for science. Science requires, at its most basic, falsifiability, which you haven’t been able to provide.
In fact, I did: show that there’s no warming, that it’s not global or that it’s not anthropogenic and you have refuted AGW. Have you ever wonder why it was called AGW?
***
All that being said, falsifiability has its own set of problems:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
In the end, holism wins. There is no “end” in science, to respond to your “It is the beginning, but not the end.” All the sciences is a field of force that gets tested at the periphery.
***
> Again, your burden is this […]
I have no burden toward you except to substantiate the claim I make. This is not something you seem to uphold, if we observe your many proofs by assertion, krischel. I’m not your monkey.
If you have an itch, scratch it. Contact scientists. Ask them about your challenge. Report.
Many thanks!
June 19, 2014 at 00:42
@willard: “In other words, there is no such thing as knowledge as justified, true belief.”
This isn’t a belief, it’s an observation – your cite on appeal to ignorance exactly matched your appeal to ignorance argument.
“No, I actually don’t. I only need to claim that this hypothesis does not explain what is happening very well.”
Natural climate change is the null hypothesis – you’re confusing natural GW with “specific identified naturally driven” GW. “Natural GW” includes all of the natural factors you *haven’t* identified or qualified, not just the ones you have. If you bothered to create a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, and exclude the null hypothesis, *then* you would have made clear that the null does not explain what is happening very well. Simply *asserting* that isn’t a persuasive argument.
“I could also enquire what the hell “is natural” means. There are lots of theories about that. Most of them rely on an unidentified mechanism.”
That’s the beauty of the null hypothesis – it is the admission that we *don’t* know something. Not an appeal to ignorance to promote our own particular conceit, but an *admission* of ignorance of the limits of our knowledge. Mathematically, it’s really just a statement that there is no causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and global average temperatures – it makes no assertion as to what the actual drivers must be identified as.
“How could we determine that it’s true anyway? Once true, how could it ever be false?”
We approach the truth through the scientific method, although granted, we are always asserting *provisional* truths in the true Popperian sense. That being said, you cannot practice the scientific method without falsifiability – without falsifiability, you have no way of discerning *falsehood* from truth.
“In fact, I did: show that there’s no warming, that it’s not global or that it’s not anthropogenic and you have refuted AGW.”
1) warming is necessary, but not sufficient (it could be natural)
2) global is necessary, but not sufficient (it could be natural)
3) asking to prove the null hypothesis true is simply asking to prove a negative (and again, a classic appeal to ignorance).
Do you understand what a null hypothesis is?
“If you have an itch, scratch it. Contact scientists. Ask them about your challenge. Report.”
Here’s my personal necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis: There exists no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.
The observation this hypothesis excludes: a quoted necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from any source.
The fact that you, a true believer in AGW, cannot simply cite this basic requirement the scientific method, shows us that you’ve not only outsourced your rational thought process to unspecified “scientists”, you’ve also failed to hold them accountable to the most fundamental requirement of the scientific method.
The more AGW believers that are challenged with this, who are unable to provide the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, helps make my hypothesis more likely – motivated people, unable to find the support required to justify AGW as scientific, is an active search for the falsification criteria I put forward.
So while you may not want this as a personal burden, before addressing AGW in scientific terms, the *general* burden is this:
1) list the observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) make the logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
June 19, 2014 at 00:57
Let’s stick to this one:
> This isn’t a belief, it’s an observation – your cite on appeal to ignorance exactly matched your appeal to ignorance argument.
Do you often “observe” proofs like that, krischel?
What you call an “observation” is wrong, and I already offered an argument against it. An appeal to ignorance relies on truth while my argument circumvents truth altogether.
How an “observation” can be wrong is left as an exercise to the reader(s).
***
I can illustrate what I mean by way of that part of Allen’s quote:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-biggest-control-knob-co2-in-earths-climate-history
Perhaps I should have emphasized this bit too.
It is really that simple to refute your claim, krischel: scientists reportedly looked at the “GW is natural,” and they were underwhelmed by that hypothesis.
If you dispute that argument, go argue with Allen. I’m sure he would appreciate it. He receives lots of emails that contain about the same rehashed arguments you proffered so far in the thread.
***
Try to rope-a-dope that simple point, krischel.
June 19, 2014 at 01:29
@willard: “An appeal to ignorance relies on truth while my argument circumvents truth altogether.”
Well, I have just observed that you’ve admitted that your argument is not truthful :)
“scientists reportedly looked at the “GW is natural,” and they were underwhelmed by that hypothesis.”
That’s an appeal to unnamed authorities :)
Again, if you want to argue your belief system, you’re doing a spot on job. If you want to discuss science, the general burden is clear:
1) list the observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) make the logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
If you want to refute my assertion that AGW lacks a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, go ahead and quote one :)
June 19, 2014 at 02:44
> [Y]ou’ve admitted that your argument is not truthful :)
Now you’re using an equivocation. That my argument is valid suits me fine. That it would be correct would suit me even better.
***
> That’s an appeal to unnamed authorities :)
Since I don’t claim that what they say is true, this is again irrelevant.
I only claim that it describes what scientists seem to say. It is rather a description of what Allen did. “Allen” is a name, BTW.
Do you dispute these facts?
***
> Again, if you want to argue your belief system […]
I thought you’d rather stick to observations.
Who says that my belief system is relevant? Who told you that I have the belief system you are putting into my mind? What is my belief system, according to your mind reading?
Talk about reversing the burden of proof!
***
> If you want to refute my assertion that AGW lacks a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement […]
That’s your own job to substantiate your assertions, kerschel. I don’t mind if they remain empty. I have no idea what “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement” means. I have no idea where you got your criteria to judge these necessary conditions. For all I know, that criteria could be completely ad hoc. It could also be impossible to meet.
I already told you how you could refute AGW. Twice. Take the W, the G or the A out and you’re a hero. You can call that both necessary and sufficient if you will.
June 19, 2014 at 02:49
Perhaps this is not enough for you, krischel. So here’s how John Nielsen-Gammon argued his position a while ago:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
Notice the date, kerschel. Where have you been all these years?
My own hypothesis to NG’s last question is that people like you, krischel, pretend to look around for the answer you ask and ask and ask, and either don’t look, don’t care, or forget about them.
Do you know the story of the guy who kept doing the same things over and over again in the expectation to get different results?
Hope this helps,
w
June 19, 2014 at 02:51
> kerschel
Sorry about misspelling your nick, krischel.
June 19, 2014 at 04:12
@willard: “That my argument is valid suits me fine. That it would be correct would suit me even better.”
It’s neither. You used the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, which makes it invalid, and further, I’ll argue that you’re incorrect as well given the lack of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
“Do you dispute these facts?”
I dispute that “Allen” is representative of all scientists, and therefore is an invalid proxy. Furthermore, Allen makes the same logical fallacy as you do, appealing to ignorance.
“What is my belief system, according to your mind reading?”
You believe you’ve put forward a valid scientific argument for AGW. Your belief system thus far has been immune to correction, with your denial of the fallacy of your argument, as well as your misguided insistence that science can be done without falsifiability.
Have I misinterpreted your belief statements?
“I have no idea what “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement” means. ”
I’ll restate for you:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
Is that clear enough?
“I already told you how you could refute AGW. Twice. Take the W, the G or the A out and you’re a hero.”
Yet you’ve failed to give any set of observations that would take the A out – you’ve only insisted that your explanation is the “best”, and reversed the burden of proof, requiring us to defend the null, rather than for you to defend your assertion.
As for Neilsen-Gammon:
1) Hypothesis: the surface of the Earth is warmer than in the past.
Poorly stated since it’s arguable that the Holocene optimum was warmer than the present. He needs to include some quantifications here.
2) Hypothesis: The rate of increase of such gases is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century.
He asserts he can quantitatively attribute temperature changes to the change in these gases, but does not show what data would falsify his proposition. He makes an *assertion*, not a *prediction*. Heck, in his further statement, he says, qualifies it with “larger than that of all other known forcing agents;” – specifically ignoring forcing agents he *hasn’t thought of*, and with great hubris, assumes that nothing he hasn’t thought of cannot possibly be important :)
Here are the facts:
1) you haven’t been able to state a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW;
2) nobody you’ve quoted has been able to state a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.
These are indisputable. As to *why*, my guess is that you don’t understand falsifiability, and have decided that all you need to do is specify some *necessary* items, without having a *sufficient* set of them to exclude the null hypothesis. It’s equally probable that you also don’t understand the concept of a null hypothesis.
Let me see if I can give you an analogy you can understand: When arguing that God created the earth, someone could say that you could falsify this by showing that the earth doesn’t exist. Yes, this is a falsification criteria. However, there is no logical argument that simply because the world exists, God must have created it.
So, when you argue that human CO2 drives global warming, someone could say that you could falsify this by showing that CO2 doesn’t exist. Yes, this is a falsification criteria. However, there is no logical argument that simply because CO2 exists, that human emissions of CO2 must drive global warming.
So, from Neilsen-Gammon again, “observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.”
This is like saying “observed patterns of human behavior match chinese astrological charts better than that of all other known astrological methods”. This isn’t science, because it isn’t falsifiable. Simply finding data “consistent with” your favored hypothesis isn’t enough – it must have clear falsification criteria *and* a logical argument as to without those falsification criteria, we may exclude the null.
June 19, 2014 at 04:42
> You used the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, which makes it invalid […]
It’s the third time you repeat that line without offering any argument.
I’ve contradicted this already. This is turning into a proof by assertion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Congratulations!
June 19, 2014 at 04:43
@willard:
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Sherlock Holmes
You can imagine the scientific method much like a game of Clue – we reach the truth by excluding possibilities.
Now, it so happens that with Clue, we have a distinct advantage versus say, models of climate change, since our options are strictly limited as to the number of rooms, types of weapons, and murder suspects.
The null hypothesis of Clue is that we do not know the killer, the weapon, or the room.
Once we have excluded the candlestick, we may hypothesize that the murder weapon is the rope. This hypothesis excludes finding the rope.
We could also have hypothesized that the murder weapon is the dagger – with 5 weapons possible left, there are actually 5 as of yet unfalsified falsifiable hypotheses.
Say it turns out that we observe every weapon except the rope – at this point, our rope hypothesis is explicitly true within the scope of our rules. We have excluded the null (insofar as weapon), and now have a solid reason to believe in our hypothesis.
Placing this analogy on AGW, we’ve essentially got an unknown number of suspects, an unknown number of weapons, and an unknown number of rooms. Further complicating the picture is that suspects, weapons, and rooms can have partial culpability – or even complex interdependent relationships between each other. We can actually exclude *everything we know of* (including human CO2 emissions) as trivially unable to “explain” temperature variations in totality – there is no one factor that matches up perfectly the variation in global average temperature.
Now here’s the rub, and you may not believe this if you don’t understand computer models and simulations – we can create arbitrary models that identify *any one* of our suspects, weapons, and rooms as the primary driver, and tweak parameters such that they curve fit the historical record (when we’re not busy modifying the historical record for political purposes). It’s these tinker toy models that you seem to believe are the “best explanations”, without truly understanding the weakness of their approach – and that is in essence, the argument from ignorance.
Say for instance that instead of AGW vs. NAGW, we were talking about nurture versus nature in relation to behavior differences observed between the sexes in bowling alleys. We could theoretically model nurture effects in all sorts of ways – television exposure, single parent vs. dual parent, food, local religious institutions, school API scores, best friend height, you name it. With enough parameters, we could come up with a model that states “75% of sexual behavior differences in bowling alley behavior can be explained by religious institution”. We could also come up with a model that states “75% of sexual behavior differences in bowling alley behavior can be explained by food consumed during the ages of 4-6 years”. Given enough data, we could mine for all sorts of correlations, and find all sorts of models that could turn even the weakest of correlations into strong ones given enough fudge factors.
Would you believe those nurture/nature models to be scientific?
June 19, 2014 at 04:48
> Placing this analogy on AGW, we’ve essentially got an unknown number of suspects, an unknown number of weapons, and an unknown number of rooms.
And then krischel accuses me of arguing from ignorance.
June 19, 2014 at 04:48
@willard:
“It’s the third time you repeat that line without offering any argument.”
It’s prima facie what you said. Let’s revisit:
“(1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false.”
Since you don’t know that GW is natural, you assert that it is false.
You insist that you have a “better explanation”, but that makes no sense – the null hypothesis of natural climate change isn’t an explanation, it is the null hypothesis which must be excluded.
Put more bluntly, you haven’t proven that observed climate change from 1950-present can’t be natural.
“(2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true.”
Since you don’t know that AGW is false, you assert that it is true.
You insist that before you give up AGW, someone has to show you that it is false, effectively reversing the null. It is a clever argument, but it is *still* a fallacious one.
Do you deny that you’re trying to shift the burden of proof?
June 19, 2014 at 04:50
@willard:
Arguing that we are ignorant is not the same as arguing that we know the truth because someone else cannot fill the gaps of our ignorance :)
You cannot argue that AGW must be true simply because nobody has found a combination of natural factors that model modern observations perfectly – that’s like denying that global warming *before* humanity had natural causes simply because nobody has found a combination of natural factors that model observations from 2 million years ago :)
June 19, 2014 at 04:55
@willard:
More on argument from ignorance:
“God created the earth because you can’t prove that he didn’t.”
“Astrology is true because you can’t show a better model of human behavior.”
“Homeopathy is true because you can’t show that it isn’t effective in at least some cases.”
“AGW is true because you can’t show a better explanation of observed climate change.”
I think you need to review the concept of a null hypothesis again – I can help with that if you’d like.
June 19, 2014 at 05:03
> Since you don’t know that GW is natural, you assert that it is false.
False:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-biggest-control-knob-co2-in-earths-climate-history
In other words, Allen here says that ABC (“Anything But CO2”) does not work.
To take the Clue example, either the culprit used the rope, or we’re playing Ouija.
Krischel prefers to play Ouija.
June 19, 2014 at 05:05
@willard:
Again, appeal to ignorance – just because we don’t have a way to explain climate events in the earth’s past doesn’t mean your pet hypothesis in the present must be true :)
It’s really that simple :)
“Without God, we don’t have a way to explain tragic acts of god in the past.”
Allen is making the same flawed argument you are :)
June 19, 2014 at 05:12
@willard:
So let’s review the null hypothesis for a bit.
Q: before humanity existed, what caused global warming?
A: The most obvious answer is this – non-anthropogenic drivers. It is explicitly true, since it covers *everything*, known and unknown, applicable during that time period. I’m sure you’ll agree that if humans don’t exist, they can’t cause global warming.
Assuming a consistent and deterministic universe, where cosmological constants don’t change, it seems not only plausible, but necessary, to assume that the simple addition of humanity did not eliminate those non-anthropogenic drivers.
Now, because we don’t have all non-anthropogenic drivers modeled, or even identified for that matter, we have a significant hurdle here – how can we discern natural variation, from anthropogenic variation? Trivially, we can assume that anthropogenic variation *exists*, in the same way butterfly emitted CO2 must exist, but what we’re really trying to assert is a significant, detectable, and independent effect.
In order to do this via the scientific method, we start of with falsification criteria. Micky mouse example:
* CO2 cannot statistically significant increase without a statistically significant increase in global average temperature
Say we picked that as our falsification criteria, we next make the logical argument that if CO2 changes are always followed by temperature changes, then we should expect such behavior to continue in the future. Of course, that ship has sailed (since the ice core records show a 400-800 year lag between temp change and CO2 change), but you get the gist.
Now, it’s very well possible that it is *not* possible to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW – our lack of omniscience about all natural drivers, and the chaotic and stochastic nature of climate may indeed make this a non-computable problem. But simply because it’s *not* possible doesn’t mean we give AGW a pass and consider it scientific without due diligence and rigor.
June 19, 2014 at 05:17
@willard: some great work by Judith Curry regarding “control knobs”: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/
June 19, 2014 at 05:23
@willard: another good post on Curry’s blog: http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/29/what-is-internal-variability/
This speaks to the problems with attribution, depending on one’s initial assumptions.
June 19, 2014 at 05:24
> You cannot argue that AGW must be true simply because nobody has found a combination of natural factors that model modern observations perfectly […]
By chance I don’t, but only argue that (1) it explains the evidence we have; (2) it’s the best one so far.
Trying to undermine AGW by arguing that something we don’t know yet could better explain the evidence is arguing from ignorance.
June 19, 2014 at 05:28
> some great work by Judith Curry regarding “control knobs”: […]
Search for my name on that thread.
Beware that Judy does not endorse that Spectator piece.
June 19, 2014 at 05:29
@willard: “Trying to undermine AGW by arguing that something we don’t know yet could better explain the evidence is arguing from ignorance.”
It’s like you’re trying to say I’m undermining God by arguing that we don’t know whether or not God exists :)
You’re making an unscientific argument. Yes, it’s an argument. Yes, it’s clever. But science is not simply about explaining evidence and being the “best one so far” – we used to believe in bad humors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism), but nobody can make the argument that Humorism was scientific.
Now, perhaps you don’t care about being scientific – perhaps you’re willing to argue for the truth of AGW without following the scientific method. And if that’s true, bully for you! Great job!
On the other hand, if you’re going to talk about science, you’ve got to talk about the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement – and you haven’t been able to get past that.
June 19, 2014 at 05:33
@willard: “Beware that Judy does not endorse that Spectator piece.”
I found her comments more informative than the Spectator inspiration:
“So, how should we think about all this on decadal to century time scales, which are the timescales of most relevance for CO2 mitigation policy making? Well, the ‘pause’ should give pause to anyone who thinks that CO2 controls temperature/climate/weather on the time scale of a decade.”
Do you deny the “pause”? :)
June 19, 2014 at 06:48
krischel Says: June 18, 2014 at 23:50
“The null hypothesis, to remind you, is that observed climate changes during the existence of humanity are driven by the same natural factors as drove them *before* the existence of humanity.”
~~~~~~~~
Interesting statement and certainly true.
So what’s your point ?
Volcanoes and other geographic impacts, sun’s “insolation” on Earth, … CO2 and other greenhouse gases (together with the rest of our atmosphere) enveloping Earth in an insulating cloak, among other lesser components behave the same as always.
Only difference is that we {and our society} are main-lining greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere at a geologic speed only rivaled by massive impacts.
~ ~ ~
K why don’t you try Falsifying that humanity has injected massive quantities of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
Falsify that CO2 is a potent “greenhouse gas”
Falsify that global temperatures, (don’t forget the oceans and polar regions), are increasing.
K can you admit that the system is immense and complex and that scientists/humans can not understand every aspect of it to a 99% certainty?
Or that nothing in your life or mine or ours – ever offers ‘certainty’.
Get real and start talking about what’s really bugging you rather that your crazy-making games. ;- )
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Oh and what about the provens?
Gilbert N. Plass, July 1959
Carbon Dioxide and Climate
An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/
~ ~ ~
Then there’s this:
Mike McCracken, senior researcher at Livermore.
Sandia Lab lecture on climate change 1982.
for McCracken’s full collection: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/05/maccracken-1982-climate-change.html
June 19, 2014 at 06:55
Correction! Not MacCracken’s “full collection” !!!
MacCracken’s 1982 lecture – which is spliced into six YT segments.
June 19, 2014 at 07:18
krischel Says: June 19, 2014 at 05:33
Do you deny the “pause”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Krischel, CC asks: Do you actually believe in the “Pause”?
How do you figure that??? What evidence do you have?
~ ~ ~
You know, K., I got evidence that “Falsifies” your belief.
These videos give a good cross-section of that evidence, although it’s just an introduction. . . an invitation for the curious to learn more.
~ ~ ~
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
~ ~ ~
24 – Global warming has stopped? Again??
~ ~ ~
Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Party like it’s 1998
June 19, 2014 at 07:24
krischel Says: June 19, 2014 at 05:29
PS
Now, perhaps you don’t care about being scientific – perhaps you’re willing to argue for the truth of AGW without following the scientific method. And if that’s true, bully for you! Great job!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
krischel, what you are writing here is about hostile jerks cock fighting.
Got nothing to do with seriously trying to learn or understand what’s happening in the world around us.
June 19, 2014 at 07:40
> It’s like you’re trying to say I’m undermining God by arguing that we don’t know whether or not God exists :)
If “God” means “that God exists”, i.e. theism, then arguing for agnosticism might very well undermine the positive thesis that God exists unless we’re ready to accept the possibility that “God exists but we can’t know it” as a reasonable standpoint.
Nowadays, God does not enter into many scientific explanations. There’s little reason to suppose its existence for our scientific theories to hold, contrary to other entities we posit like electrons. That we don’t need God in our theories provide a good argument against its existence, as far as our scientific outlook it concerned. This is the actual conjecture to try to refute, not agnosticism.
Unless krischel wishes to provide a metaphysical argument against the impossibility to know if climate exists, it might be wiser to stick to examples related to science.
June 19, 2014 at 08:07
> nobody can make the argument that Humorism was scientific.
Is medecine a science, and how is this related to AGW as the best explanation we have?
I don’t need to argue that inference to the best explanation is sufficient for science. It’s only an inference that has currency in our current scientific practices. As if any kind of scientific inference had to solve the demarcation problem:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
I leave that red herring to krischel, who pushes the audacity to burden me with this question by his request of “necessary and sufficient conditions”. Speaking of which, if we could have a quote where Popper argued that falsifiability was a sufficient condition for scientificity, that would be nice.
Is there really a need to prove that climate science is a science?
June 19, 2014 at 09:19
@citizenschallenge:
1) “K why don’t you try Falsifying that humanity has injected massive quantities of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.”
Remember the missing carbon argument? No reason to believe that natural CO2 sinks are independent from sources.
2) Falsify that CO2 is a potent “greenhouse gas”
It certainly doesn’t have a triple feedback effect from water vapor :) But again, no reason to believe that it drives temperature given the complexity and interconnectedness of climate variation.
3) Falsify that global temperatures, (don’t forget the oceans and polar regions), are increasing.
Nothing says that global temperatures can’t increase naturally. They did from before 1950…why can’t they do so after 1950?
June 19, 2014 at 09:21
@citizenschallenge:
“Krischel, CC asks: Do you actually believe in the “Pause”?
How do you figure that??? What evidence do you have?”
You deny that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 16+ years, depending on the dataset you use?
Argue with the data, not me: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D
“These videos give a good cross-section of that evidence, although it’s just an introduction. . . an invitation for the curious to learn more.”
Spamming me propaganda videos? Can you quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any one of them?
/crickets :)
June 19, 2014 at 09:29
@willard: “Nowadays, God does not enter into many scientific explanations. ”
Yet it’s funny, otherwise rational atheists get conned by the church of global warming :)
“Is medecine a science, and how is this related to AGW as the best explanation we have?”
Not all medicine is science, frankly. In fact, it’s arguable that a sadly small proportion of medicine is science. Observational studies represent, as you stated earlier, abductive reasoning, but fail to move into the realm of falsifiability and science (http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/).
Frankly, I think nutritional medicine is a perfect example of the problems with pseudo-science in relation to AGW. Ancel Keys, ignoring problematic data, demonized fat with the passion of a holy crusade, and managed to get the government to advise low-fat (and therefore higher carb) diets that have caused nearly 40 years of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity, and other chronic diseases. The “best explanation” that Ancel Keys was able to drive down our throats had no falsifiability, and our authorities bought it hook, line and sinker.
I highly suggest Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for an excellent in depth expose on the shoddy science that went on there – it relates quite well to the shoddy climate science of folks like Mann.
“Is there really a need to prove that climate science is a science?”
Yes.
June 19, 2014 at 14:43
> The “best explanation” that Ancel Keys was able to drive down our throats had no falsifiability […]
Which explains why Ancel Keys’ explanation has been undermined by the Framingham Heart Study and other trials and that we have better candidates for CVD than cholesterol (emphasized below):
http://chriskresser.com/cholesterol-doesnt-cause-heart-disease
Let’s stand aside for the moment that CO2 is not exactly a “risk factor” of warming, and that medecine does not work at a planetary level.
***
Claiming that Keys’ hypothesis was unfalsifiable may not indicate a good understanding of falsifiability. Instead of arguing that some theory was wrong in the past therefore AGW is wrong, krischel should clarify his criteria of “sufficient and necessary conditions for falsifiability”. Perhaps he should give an example of sufficient and necessary condition he has in mind.
June 19, 2014 at 18:10
@willard:
I highly suggest you read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for a much more thorough analysis of the mental gymnastics Ancel Keys and his followers went through to avoid the falsification of their central conceit. To this day, even the cite that you quote, fails to link hypertension, obesity and diabetes to carbohydrate intake, and furthermore, talks about “insufficient physical activity”, a poor man’s allusion to the calories in/calories out hypothesis.
As for my criteria, I state it as a “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement”, but the *required* conditions are clear:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
So far, you’ve given a precious few of #1, and certainly not enough to argue #2.
June 19, 2014 at 19:43
> I highly suggest you read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for a much more thorough analysis of the mental gymnastics Ancel Keys and his followers went through to avoid the falsification of their central conceit.
However interesting this hand waving might be in the end, it does not substantiate krischel’s claim that Keys’ hypothesis was unfalsifiable. It clearly could not, as we have shown how Keys’ hypothesis has been falsified.
Either kirschel acknowledges this or ropes-a-dope to another meme.
***
> the *required* conditions are clear […]
They are clear as mud.
There’s no citation where these conditions come from. We have no means to determine if these are not ad hoc proxies to raise neverending concerns. We can only suspect that he’s alluding to statistical hypothesis testing, which usually leads the usual “never good enough” gambit:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/34161464472
In any case, reducing scientific inference to statistical inference is still an open problem. If kirschel has an argument to that effect, he may very well try to put it on the table (hint: that’s the “sufficient” part of his desideratum). This begs the very question that makes him reject inferences to the best explanation.
***
For now, we have seen kirschel misrepresenting both the concepts of falsifiability and appeal to ignorance, constantly moving goal posts, misreading the only example he put forward so far, and refusing to offer an example of a theory that offers the necessary and sufficient falsifiability conditions that he’s looking for.
Even if we disregard these suboptimal ClimateBall ™ tricks, we can offer this argument that reduces his quest to absurdity:
(1) kirschel requires a “logical argument” that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis, which is supposed to work deductively.
(2) kirschel himself observed that “nobody has found a combination of natural factors that model modern observations perfect”.
Since (1) implies an exhaustive list of hypotheses and (2) implies the opposite, and that (2) is an empirical fact, we should conclude that (1) has to go. This should be a checkmate.
***
Perhaps a shortcut to all this would be to see how kerschel would construct the “natural variability” hypothesis according to his own requirements instead of trying to force them upon us by his recurring proof by assertion that they amount to some kind of criterion for scientificity.
June 19, 2014 at 21:07
@willard:”It clearly could not, as we have shown how Keys’ hypothesis has been falsified.”
I think I see what you’re misunderstanding – you’re conflating Keys being eventually discredited, and the long line of defense that Keys and his followers used to respond to every predictive failure with an ad hoc special pleading (much like the AGW folks do). Keys, like the AGW crowd, excluded contrary observations, and never came up with any falsification criteria that spoke to the central conceit of his fat-heart hypothesis.
“There’s no citation where these conditions come from.”
If you disagree with the two conditions:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
Can you propose any other set of conditions that would satisfy the need for falsifiability?
“For now, we have seen kirschel misrepresenting both the concepts of falsifiability and appeal to ignorance”
Just because you’re having a hard time understanding falsifiability and logical fallacies doesn’t mean that I’m misrepresenting them :) In fact, it’s quite likely that you’re willfully misunderstanding them in order to preserve your belief system :)
“Since (1) implies an exhaustive list of hypotheses and (2) implies the opposite, and that (2) is an empirical fact, we should conclude that (1) has to go. This should be a checkmate.”
It is checkmate, but not in the way you suspect – the fact of the matter is that nobody should have the hubris to insist they’ve accurately modeled all climate factors, and it’s quite possible that this is indeed a non-computable problem. I’m asking you for two conditions, and it’s not only probable, but likely, that they’re impossible to fulfill for your belief system.
Do you believe that some problems are non-computable?
June 19, 2014 at 21:10
@willard: “Perhaps a shortcut to all this would be to see how kerschel would construct the “natural variability” hypothesis according to his own requirements”
And here’s the trick – there is no “natural variability” hypothesis – it is the null, based on the following argument:
1) climate drivers existed before humanity existed;
2) there is no argument that the arrival of humanity has eliminated any previously existing climate drivers.
Do you deny that climate change existed before humanity?
Do you have an argument that the arrival of humanity has eliminated natural climate variability?
Yes, this is an unfair system, where the burden of proof is not equally weighted – as a scientist, I don’t have to be “righter” than you, I simply need to hold your proposition to strict scrutiny.
Welcome to Science :)
June 19, 2014 at 22:14
> you’re conflating Keys being eventually discredited, and the long line of defense that Keys and his followers used […]
Not at all. Here’s what krischel claimed:
This has been proven false.
Instead of acknowledging that Keys’ hypothesis was indeed refutable, krischel switched to Keys “long line of defense”, which is irrelevant here and basically moves the goal posts.
***
Let also be noted that researchers did not passively wait for Keys to establish unspecified “necessary and sufficient falsifiability conditions” to refute the hypothesis. They did more studies, and refuted the hypothesis. Not only that, but they identified factors that explained better the data.
More importantly, those who refuted Keys’ hypothesis did not roamed the Internet aggressively demanding everyone they meet for these unspecified “necessary and sufficient falsifiability conditions” while pretending they’re scientists.
June 20, 2014 at 00:08
> I’m asking you for two conditions, and it’s not only probable, but likely, that they’re impossible to fulfill for your belief system.
The alternative is of course that they’re unsatisfiable:
Click to access Theories%20and%20Methods.%20Chapter%203.pdf
In other words, to ask for necessary and sufficient conditions that are incomplete is asking for the impossible.
***
Here’s how the hand-out continues:
Op. cit.
Inference to the best explanation is of course a way to satisfy the third principle. Readers have to decide to choose between kirschel’s unsatisfiable desiderata and more reasonable principles along the lines of [1]-[2]-[3]. Tough choice.
***
Falsificationism is not a sufficient principle to make science work. It leads to the same dead-end as skepticism did in Antiquities. In the case of kirtschel’s flavor, it also leads to the adoption of miraculous null hypotheses, ones that contain no plausible mechanism and have no explanatory power.
Arguing for an hypothesis that has no explanatory power is just a sophisticated way to argue from ignorance.
June 20, 2014 at 00:38
@willard:
“The alternative is of course that they’re unsatisfiable”
Exactly. It’s quite possible you’ve bitten off more than you can chew.
Again, do you believe that there are some problems that are non-computable?
“Falsificationism is not a sufficient principle to make science work.”
Of course it’s not sufficient – we certainly accept abductive reasoning to help us generate falsifiable hypotheses.
What falsification is is *necessary* to make science work. You can’t skip that step, regardless of how cleverly you try to argue :)
June 20, 2014 at 00:43
@willard: “Instead of acknowledging that Keys’ hypothesis was indeed refutable”
It was refuted, but Keys’ hypothesis was defended against contrary observation through ad hoc special pleading again and again and again (much like AGW). To this day, Keys’ supporters can continue to believe his hypothesis because it was never stated in a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and instead relied on creative interpretations of observational studies.
You’re again conflating the idea that something was refuted to the idea that Keys had a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Indeed, my bet is that within the next few decades, the cult of AGW will be as thoroughly refuted as Keys, but that won’t be because AGW has a falsifiable hypothesis statement – it will be because people will understand that it *doesn’t* have a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and cannot withstand strict scrutiny.
June 20, 2014 at 00:53
@willard: Here’s another example that might help illustrate your confusion: calories in/calories out.
The laws of thermodynamics lead us to the simple conclusion that weight gain is a function of calories in/calories out. Eat more calories, you gain weight. Exercise less, you gain weight. Eat less, exercise more, you lose weight.
Seems as irrefutable as the greenhouse gas of CO2 :)
But what happens if calories in/calories out aren’t independent variables that can be changed without affecting the other? What happens if when you eat less, your body slows down its metabolism to maintain weight? What happens when you exercise more, and your body is driven by hunger pangs to eat more to maintain weight?
In actuality, we do know that calories in/calories out doesn’t drive fat accumulation -> insulin does. Insulin levels can either drive fat cells to increase fat storage, or to increase the release of fatty acids for energy – completely independent of conscious effort to change caloric intake or exercise.
Now it happens that insulin is driven by blood sugar levels, and blood sugar levels are driven by one food type – carbohydrates. So surprisingly, it’s not the *amount* of calories that matter, but the *quality* of the calories -> do they promote insulin resistance and insulin production?
This added bit of complexity happens because the human body, like many other natural phenomena, are filled with complex and interconnected functions. It teaches us that the simple, chalkboard physics answer to a problem may not be very representative of the real world.
Back to AGW – you’ve got a tinker toy model of physics in your head that you’re trying to apply to a complex and interconnected system. You’re missing the holes in your argument because you aren’t willing to consider facts contrary to your beliefs.
June 20, 2014 at 02:58
> It was refuted, but Keys’ hypothesis was defended against contrary observation […] To this day, Keys’ supporters can continue to believe his hypothesis because it was never stated in a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement […]
Glad that krischel acknowledges at last that Keys’ hypothesis was falsified, thus falsifiable, contrary to what he claimed first. Since this is not a valid example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, krischel now switches to counterfactual thinking: his desiderata would prevent people from believe alternative hypothesis.
This argument, of course, relies on the possibility to establish his desiderata. But we have shown that this falters as soon as you introduce enough variables to make your problem space too complex to solve in a deductive way. How then to formulate a necessary and sufficient falsifiable statement of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis is left as an exercise to readers.
There may not be enough necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements in all the possible worlds to prevent Kurt from preferring his own rotating universes to the end.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
***
> Of course it’s not sufficient – we certainly accept abductive reasoning to help us generate falsifiable hypotheses.
Since inference to the best explanation proceeds by abduction, I’m glad we finally agree. I’m also glad krischel now agrees that falsificationism is insufficient for scientificity. Then why is krischel asking for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?
Falsificationism only suffices to pretend one is an online scientist.
June 20, 2014 at 03:05
@willard:
You again conflate “refuted” with “falsified” :)
I’m glad you now agree that falsification is *necessary* for “scientificity” :)
Now, as for why we ask for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it’s quite simple – what is *necessary* is not always *sufficient*.
For example, one could state that an observation excluded by astrology is looking up at the sky, and having no stars. No stars, no astrology. So obviously, stars are *necessary* for astrology to be true, but the simple existence of stars does not logically lead us to believe astrology is true.
Take another example, one could state that an observation excluded by AGW is the existence of CO2. No CO2, no AGW caused by CO2. So obviously, CO2 is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but the simple existence of CO2 does not logically lead us to believe AGW is true.
Do you understand the terms better now, or do I need to explain further?
June 20, 2014 at 03:07
@willard:”But we have shown that this falters as soon as you introduce enough variables to make your problem space too complex to solve in a deductive way.”
I think you’ve hit on something here – given the complex nature of climate variability and pertinent climate variables, your problem space *is* too complex to solve.
So apparently you do believe that there are non-computable problems. Care to entertain us with why you don’t believe that global climate is one of those non-computable problems? :)
June 20, 2014 at 03:21
> You again conflate “refuted” with “falsified”
How one can refute something without falsifying it is left as an exercise to the reader, I suppose.
How one can falsify something without refuting it too.
***
> I’m glad you now agree that falsification is *necessary* for “scientificity”
Not so fast. One concept at a time. First, we’d need to have an argument as to why falsifiability must be the rejection principle we alluded to earlier, i.e. [2]. There are others: the Planck quote is a quip that hides something important about research programs. There are also many ways to interpret falsification. We have barely touched Popper for now.
Also, I’m not even sure searching for scientificity is fruitful. Scientists seem to do well without such criterion. I’m only willing to play along for now, say for argument’s sake.
***
Now, let’s return to what I suggested at first. To refute AGW, you need to take down either the A, the G, or the W. Would this be sufficient? Would this be necessary?
If not, what would be a good example of a well-formulated hypothesis, kirschel?
June 20, 2014 at 03:23
> I think you’ve hit on something here – given the complex nature of climate variability and pertinent climate variables, your problem space *is* too complex to solve.
This is only relevant insofar as you buy deductivism, kirschel.
I don’t.
Neither do travelling salesmen.
June 20, 2014 at 03:50
@willard: “How one can refute something without falsifying it is left as an exercise to the reader, I suppose.”
I can refute the existence of God with all sorts of argument. I can’t falsify it because the God-hypothesis explains any possible observation :)
“Also, I’m not even sure searching for scientificity is fruitful”
Fun – but understandable give the fact that you’re trying to defend an unscientific idea :)
“To refute AGW, you need to take down either the A, the G, or the W. Would this be sufficient? Would this be necessary?”
G is necessary, but we can stipulate that we agree there – it’s a trivial point we can agree on.
W is necessary, but we can also stipulate that we agree there – it’s a trivial point we can agree on.
And then you miss the boat with A. You give us no necessary and sufficient falsification criteria for discerning whether or not A is true. You simply say “take down A”, when in fact, that is the central conceit at stake. You’ve got the following requirement:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by A;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is A (rather than the null).
As for a good example of a well formulated hypothesis, we can go back to my Clue example with the rope as the murder weapon:
1) we exclude the observation of the rope during game play;
2) our logical argument becomes stronger as we observe the other weapons during game play, until the rope is the only one not observed.
Perhaps you should review Popper directly: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
June 20, 2014 at 05:26
> I can refute the existence of God with all sorts of argument. I can’t falsify it because the God-hypothesis explains any possible observation
Refutation is more general than falsification. The latter is only an empirical matter, while the former includes logical disproofs.
Unless you’re suggesting that Keys’ hypothesis was refuted in the sense of being proven wrong by the use of a formal proof, then we are safe to say that what has been used to refute Keys’ hypothesis eo ipso falsified it.
You’re restricting your concept of falsification to observations only, kirschel. That might not be a required restriction, as inference too could be falsified.
***
> Perhaps you should review Popper directly […]
No hits for “necessary and sufficient” there.
June 20, 2014 at 06:54
@willard: “Refutation is more general than falsification.”
Exactly. Refutability is more general than falsifiability. Keys was refuted – his defenders can still hide behind the lack of falsifiability.
“No hits for “necessary and sufficient” there.”
How about we refer to his larger work: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
The tl;dr version -> it is obvious that we can create necessary falsification criteria for astrology by simply insisting on some basics:
1) humans must exist for astrology to be true;
2) stars must exist for astrology to be true.
Yes, these are falsification criteria. However, they are clearly not *sufficient* to lead to the conclusion that astrology is true.
Similarly, with AGW:
1) humans must exist for AGW to be true;
2) CO2 must exist for AGW to be true.
Yes, these are falsification criteria. However, they are clearly not *sufficient* to lead to the conclusion that AGW is true.
In order to have a falsifiable hypothesis, we must not only have the *necessary* falsification criteria, we must have an argument from the lack of those falsification observations that leads to our hypothesis and excludes the null.
June 20, 2014 at 07:15
@willard: FYI, the section in popper’s book you want is on page 50-51, where he speaks of fundamental requirements of axiomatized theoretical systems. It’s a translation, I believe, which makes it a bit wordy and odd, but you get the gist.
June 20, 2014 at 14:32
citizenschallenge responds to krischel dodging:
krischel Says:
June 19, 2014 at 09:19
@citizenschallenge:
1) “K why don’t you try Falsifying that humanity has injected massive quantities of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.”
Remember the missing carbon argument? No reason to believe that natural CO2 sinks are independent from sources.
~ ~ ~
CC responds: krischel you haven’t answered the question.
But I’m curious is you could try to explain what your sinks’n sources has to do with the amount of CO2 humanity is injecting into our atmosphere
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2) Falsify that CO2 is a potent “greenhouse gas”
It certainly doesn’t have a triple feedback effect from water vapor :) But again, no reason to believe that it drives temperature given the complexity and interconnectedness of climate variation.
~ ~ ~
CC responds: krischel, once again you have not answered the question.
I wasn’t asking about water vapor and you are ignoring that our atmosphere’s ability to hold water vapor is intimately links to its CO2 content.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3) Falsify that global temperatures, (don’t forget the oceans and polar regions), are increasing.
Nothing says that global temperatures can’t increase naturally. They did from before 1950…why can’t they do so after 1950?
~ ~ ~
CC responds: krischel yet again you have not answered the question.
I wasn’t asking about water vapor and you are ignoring that our atmosphere’s ability to hold water vapor is intimately links to its CO2 content.
Beyond that where in the world do you get the notion the temps before 1950 were “natural” mean?
I’m guessing, your trying to say that before 1950 humanity had no impact on climate. Are you actually implying that?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Disingenuous avoidance of answering questions is not way to learn about anything… what you have done is a typical example of what I label crazy-making. Would you care to give it another more sincere effort?
1) “K why don’t you try Falsifying that humanity has injected massive quantities of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.”
2) Falsify that CO2 is a potent “greenhouse gas”
3) Falsify that global temperatures, (don’t forget the oceans and polar regions), are increasing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
krischel,
Why did ‘cleanse’ question 2, which read:
“Falsify that global temperatures, (don’t forget the oceans and polar regions), are increasing.”
~ ~ ~
And ignore these questions – to would help understand where you’re coming from:
“K can you admit that the system is immense and complex and that scientists/humans can not understand every aspect of it to a 99% certainty?”
“Or that nothing in your life or mine or ours – ever offers ‘certainty’.”
June 20, 2014 at 14:35
second line in response 3 – was accidentally repeated.
Too rushed, sorry
June 20, 2014 at 15:50
> Exactly. Refutability is more general than falsifiability. Keys was refuted – his defenders can still hide behind the lack of falsifiability.
A refutation is more general because than a falsification because it comprises logical constructs. Keys’ hypothesis was empirical. To use the word “refuted” is only a verbal trick not to say that it was falsified.
Falsifiability is nothing more than the disposition to be empirically refuted. I say “disposition” because falsifiability is a dispositional concept, and there are problems with dispositional concepts:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dispositions/
More on that later, if needed. For now, krischel needs to acknowledge that Keys’ hypothesis was falsifiable, if only because it has been falsified.
***
Requiring sufficient and necessary conditions for falsification to make sure that scientists won’t cling to their favorite hypothesis is itself an hypothesis that would need to be substantiated. I have no idea how we could provide sufficient and necessary conditions of a factor analysis, which is after all the main tool in evidence-based medecine, to which belongs the Keys’ hypothesis. Even the Clue’s example is problematic — more on that later, if needed.
Popper’s epistemology never was that fine-grained: he used his common sense. All these statistical techniques were not even invented at the time he wrote most of his books. Also, Popper evolved a lot from the 30s to the 50s and even to the 80s.
Here’s a quasi random passage to his Realism and the Aim of Science:
The emphasis is SIr Karl’s.
That’ in section 22, entitled The Asymmetry Between Falsification and Verification, on p. 187 of my edition.
More on that later, if needed.
***
I hope this helps falsify krischel’s contention that falsifiability implies a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for each and every hypothesis statement. At the very least, this quote seems to indicate that his flavor of falsifiability is not Popper’s. In all honesty, the closest I can find to Krischel’s desideratum can be found in Kant’s Prolegomena to any future metaphysics. More on that later, if needed.
I don’t expect krischel to forfeit that easily. Lots of scientists before him still worked on their favorite hypotheses after it has been falsified. Humans are like that.
June 20, 2014 at 16:52
@willard: “For now, krischel needs to acknowledge that Keys’ hypothesis was falsifiable, if only because it has been falsified.”
We use language specifically. Keys’ hypothesis was refuted and discredited over time, but is defended to this day because it is not falsifiable. AGW seems to have the same kind of defenders :)
You started with the following statement: “Which explains why Ancel Keys’ explanation has been undermined by the Framingham Heart Study and other trials”
You then equated “undermined” to “falsified” to then assert that Ancel Keys’ explanation was falsifiable.
You clearly understand that “undermine” means something different, as you used it when showing your misunderstanding of the argument from ignorance, “Trying to undermine AGW by arguing that something we don’t know yet could better explain the evidence is arguing from ignorance.”
We still get back to the basic criteria:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
If you’ve got some other specification of falsifiability you’d like to assert, other than “because I said so”, I’m happy to hear it! :)
June 20, 2014 at 16:59
@citizenschallenge: Let’s focus on this one, instead of your entire gish gallop:
1) “But I’m curious is you could try to explain what your sinks’n sources has to do with the amount of CO2 humanity is injecting into our atmosphere”
If indeed CO2 sinks react to changes in CO2 sources (and even vice versa), rather than function independently, then what matters isn’t adding or removing sources, what matters is moderating influence that controls the sink’s reaction.
Take for example, calories in/calories out – plain, simple physics, inappropriately applied to the complex human body. In fact, for fat accumulation, the moderating factor is insulin. As for what that moderating factor might be for variable CO2 sources, some have suggested either our oceans or our complex biosphere – the specifics are an open question, but it’s obvious from the data that *something* is moderating, and actively adapting, to human CO2 emissions.
Can you accept the possibility that CO2 emissions by humanity, or any other source, may not be the ultimate arbiter of CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Can you accept the possibility that caloric intake by a human, may not be the ultimate arbiter of that human’s weight?
June 20, 2014 at 17:08
@citizenschallenge: Even more importantly, do you think that it important to investigate the possibility that some of the basic premises of AGW are wrong? Or are you one of those “settled science” people who believe their position is unassailable and we should no longer question our august authorities? :)
June 20, 2014 at 22:55
> You started with the following statement: […]
Going back to how that sub-game started may be more appropriate. Here’s the script so far:
[K] The “best explanation” that Ancel Keys was able to drive down our throats had no falsifiability […]
[w] Which explains why Ancel Keys’ explanation has been undermined by the Framingham Heart Study and other trials and that we have better candidates for CVD than cholesterol […]
[K] I highly suggest you read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for a much more thorough analysis of the mental gymnastics Ancel Keys and his followers went through to avoid the falsification of their central conceit.
[w] However interesting this hand waving might be in the end, it does not substantiate krischel’s claim that Keys’ hypothesis was unfalsifiable. It clearly could not, as we have shown how Keys’ hypothesis has been falsified.
[K] you’re conflating Keys being eventually discredited, and the long line of defense that Keys and his followers used […]
[w] Not at all. Here’s what krischel claimed: “The “best explanation” that Ancel Keys was able to drive down our throats had no falsifiability […]”. This has been proven false.
[K] It was refuted, but Keys’ hypothesis was defended against contrary observation […] To this day, Keys’ supporters can continue to believe his hypothesis because it was never stated in a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement […]
[w] Glad that krischel acknowledges at last that Keys’ hypothesis was falsified, thus falsifiable, contrary to what he claimed first. Since this is not a valid example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, krischel now switches to counterfactual thinking: his desiderata would prevent people from believe alternative hypothesis.
[K] You again conflate “refuted” with “falsified.”
[w] How one can refute something without falsifying it is left as an exercise to the reader, I suppose. How one can falsify something without refuting it too.
[K] Exactly. Refutability is more general than falsifiability. Keys was refuted – his defenders can still hide behind the lack of falsifiability.
[w] A refutation is more general because than a falsification because it comprises logical constructs. Keys’ hypothesis was empirical. To use the word “refuted” is only a verbal trick not to say that it was falsified.
[K] We use language specifically. Keys’ hypothesis was refuted and discredited over time, but is defended to this day because it is not falsifiable.
And here we are, krischel arguing again by assertion instead of addressing the argument that Keys’ hypothesis has been refuted, thus falsifiable.
***
My conclusion from this sub-game is the following. If Keys’ hypothesis is not falsifiable the way krischel idiosyncratically defines it, then so much the worse for his own definition of falsifiability. A conception of falsifiability that can’t even take into account empirical refutations is worthless.
June 20, 2014 at 23:15
Interestingly, instead of telling us where his idiosyncratic conception of falsifiability comes from, krischel shifts that burden on our shoulder.
> If you’ve got some other specification of falsifiability you’d like to assert, other than “because I said so” […]
I have no burden to specify falsifiability for him. Ironically, I already did offered the most basic definition there is quite recently. To me, falsifiability is nothing more than the disposition to be empirically refuted.
I don’t need to commit to that definition. My main commitment is to show that krischel’s desiderata are dubious at best. Since falsifiability (and not falsificationism, as I said earlier) is not a sufficient principle to make science work, his 1-2 mantra should be revised accordingly.
To inspire him, let us read some more Sir Karl:
Op. cit., p. 188. Our emphasis.
June 21, 2014 at 00:44
@willard:
Re-read your reconstruction on Keys – notice again where you state, “It clearly could not, as we have shown how Keys’ hypothesis has been falsified.”
The rest of the conversation is due to your own misquote of your first statement, “Ancel Keys’ explanation has been undermined”, dubiously paraphrased into “Keys’ has been falsified”.
Words mean something, and you can’t just substitute one for another willy nilly :)
“I have no burden to specify falsifiability for him.”
Not if you want to argue about your belief system without regard to “scientificity”. On the other hand, if you want to play the science game, the burden is quite clear.
We still get back to the basic criteria:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).
“To me, falsifiability is nothing more than the disposition to be empirically refuted.”
Both of my criteria support that. In order to be empirically refuted, we must have observations that are *excluded* (since we can never prove a negative). In order to differentiate one hypothesis from another, those exclusions must not allow alternate interpretation.
Again, p.50-51:
“A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if a set of statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisfies the following four fundamental requirements. (a) The system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it.1 (b) The system must be independent,i.e. it must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. (In other words, a statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the rest of the system.) These two conditions concern the axiom system as such; as regards the relation of the axiom system to the bulk of the theory, the axioms should be (c) sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatized, and (d) necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions.”
At the end of the day, all your protests aside, you’ve failed to make a scientific argument in defense of your proposition. You’ve mangled semantics, misapplied logical fallacies, and contradicted yourself again and again, in a very entertaining Gish Gallop, but still it gets down to the basics – you’ve got no falsifiability.
Now, if you simply want to insist that there is indeed a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement out there, which is so necessarily complex that it defies quoting in any length shorter than a paperback novel, I suppose that’s a clever and consistent defense. If you simply want to insist that there *could* be, hypothetically, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement out there, but don’t think we should require that kind of strict scrutiny, that’s a slightly weaker argument, but at least it’s honest and consistent. But insisting that you can claim the mantle of falsifiability by avoiding the very definition of falsifiability is considerably weaker sauce.
Or perhaps, you’re simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater and insisting that not only is falsifiability not “sufficient”, as you put it (and as I am happy to accept), but that falsifiability is not even *necessary*.
Maybe that’s a good question to leave off on – do you believe that falsifiability is necessary for the practice of science, or is it completely optional?
June 21, 2014 at 00:56
@willard: Given your confusion (intentional or otherwise) regarding semantics and terminology, this might help make clear what we mean by necessary and sufficient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
The assertion that Q is necessary for P is colloquially equivalent to “P cannot be true unless Q is true,” or “if Q is false then P is false.”
To say that P is sufficient for Q is to say that, in and of itself, knowing P to be true is adequate grounds to conclude that Q is true.
June 21, 2014 at 01:08
@willard: Primer on logical fallacies
1) Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error or fallacy of the converse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only *sufficient* condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
AGW example, failing to deal with the *sufficient* criteria:
If AGW is true, then CO2 has specific spectral properties.
CO2 has specific spectral properties.
Therefore, AGW is true.
2) Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
The argument is invalid because there could be other reasons why Q is true.
AGW example relating to the appeal to ignorance:
If you have a GCM that matches observations without relying on human CO2 influence, then global warming is natural.
You do not have a GCM that matches observations without relying on human CO2 influence.
Therefore, global warming is not natural.
June 21, 2014 at 06:04
krischel Says: June 20, 2014 at 03:50
“Fun – but understandable give the fact that you’re trying to defend an unscientific idea”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I’m curious krischel, can you explain specifically why you believe AGW is an “unscientific idea” ?
June 21, 2014 at 06:07
It may be self evident to yourself, but not to me, can you explain it beyond just using the term “falsifiable”?
June 21, 2014 at 06:20
krischel Says:
June 20, 2014 at 16:52
@willard: “For now, krischel needs to acknowledge that Keys’ hypothesis was falsifiable, if only because it has been falsified.”
We use language specifically. Keys’ hypothesis was refuted and discredited over time, but is defended to this day because it is not falsifiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or is it because some refuse to acknowledge that falsification?
just asking ;- }
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
krischel Says:
June 20, 2014 at 16:52 “… AGW seems to have the same kind of defenders :)”
~ ~ ~
What, when all projections are being realized, if a bit faster than originally suggested?
You got the nerve to call the videos I shared “spam” even though they contain rational explanations of the state of the science, some of it’s intricacies plus points you to original sources.
But for your convenience you dismiss all that information as “spam” while continuing your explorations into the possibilities of rhetoric.
June 21, 2014 at 06:46
Incidentally krischel, you made a bunch of claims up at “May 21, 2014 at 06:27”
And I gave a detailed response, with supporting evidence – yet you deftly ignored it all – http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action.html
Why put up the front of asking if you run from the answers?
Seems another indication of what I perceive to be your disingenuous nature.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says:
May 23, 2014 at 21:13
‘citizenschallenge – the trick is that trivial falsifications do not automatically add up to a falsifiable hypothesis.
You need to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. So,
{blah, blah, blah… snip}
If anything, the original list of 10 items was a Gish Gallop in the classic sense – as is the typical response of “look at all this evidence and ignore any contradictions you see!” :)” {end}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thing is you don’t show any “contradiction” that hold up under closer examination. If I’m mistaken please do share.
June 21, 2014 at 07:40
@citizenschallenge: “I’m curious krischel, can you explain specifically why you believe AGW is an “unscientific idea” ?”
You haven’t been paying too much attention, have you? :)
AGW is an unscientific idea because thus far, no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW has been created. Because it is not falsifiable, regardless of observations contrary to predictions, supporters of this idea respond with ad hoc special pleadings. Like creationism, it predicts everything and anything, and is clearly not scientific.
That being said, I could be wrong. If someone can satisfy the two criteria I’ve mentioned before, and show that AGW indeed *has* a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, I’m happy to be corrected:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by AGW;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is AGW (rather than the null).
June 21, 2014 at 07:56
@citizenschallenge: “It may be self evident to yourself, but not to me, can you explain it beyond just using the term “falsifiable”?”
Sure. Religious authorities have ideas. They’ve studied holy books, and spent years and years in prayer and contemplation. By all accounts they are experts in regards to God and the afterlife.
How can we tell if they’re telling the truth? Maybe if the predictions they make don’t come true?
So let’s say we ask them to predict the next roll of a six sided die. They claim that since God is real, it will come up a 1. It comes up a two.
They then claim that since God is real, and he doesn’t like being tested, God changed his mind at the last minute and turned it into a 2.
It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that no matter *what* came up, 3, 4, 5, 6, or even 1, the claim would be made that God did it.
Working backwards, then, we realize that their prediction wasn’t that if God is real, it will come up a 1, it was that if God is real, it will come up a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Clearly, if all possible observations are explained by God, then any specific result can hardly be used to justify God’s existence.
So at the very least, there must be a *chance* of being wrong, some possible observation that would not be consistent with our idea. In fact, if there are *lots* of chances to be wrong, and we spend a lot of time looking for those chances, and don’t find them, the stronger our idea really is.
If this still isn’t clear, check out Feynman’s lectures: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/
June 21, 2014 at 07:58
@citizenschallenge: “You got the nerve to call the videos I shared “spam” even though they contain rational explanations of the state of the science, some of it’s intricacies plus points you to original sources.”
They’re clever arguments, no doubt, but not a single one of them stated a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
Do you believe that a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is required for science, or do you think it is optional?
June 21, 2014 at 08:04
@citizenschallenge: “And I gave a detailed response, with supporting evidence”
No, you gave a Gish Gallop :)
Clearly you truly believe in your position. You’ve bent over backwards to try to defend it against a legitimate critique by dodging and ducking, playing the “look over here” game supporting it with very clever, but not very scientific arguments.
willard has also been very articulate and clever, but despite all his protestations and critiques, he still hasn’t been able to let go of his logical fallacies or accept falsifiability as a requirement for scientificity.
Both of you are obviously educated, motivated, and intelligent – how is it that in response to my fairly basic critique that neither of you has managed to quote some higher authority’s necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW?
Will you both at least admit that such a statement doesn’t exist, rather than insist it does, but be completely unable to show it?
June 21, 2014 at 16:39
> The rest of the conversation is due to your own misquote of your first statement, “Ancel Keys’ explanation has been undermined”, dubiously paraphrased into “Keys’ has been falsified”.
That hypothesis is falsified by the fact that an unfalsifiable claim provides an explanation that can’t be undermined. My own hypothesis is that the rest of the conversation is due to krischel’s misunderstanding of the concept of falsification. See below.
My first “statement” was an ironical understatement of what has been reported in the cited article. In that article, it is clearly shown that Keys’ hypothesis has been falsified. My second formulation is not even a paraphrase, as it refers to the Key’s hypothesis, not Key’s explanation.
When an hypothesis is falsified, the explanation it provides is undermined. You can’t undermine an explanation that is expressed with an hypothesis that can’t be falsified.
Let’s hope this helps settle this semantic quibble.
***
> Not if you want to argue about your belief system without regard to “scientificity”. On the other hand, if you want to play the science game, the burden is quite clear.
For krischel, playing the demarcation game is a necessary condition to play the science game. Since we have yet to solve the demarcation problem (it is suprising that krischel ignores that fact) and that scientists don’t play that game (it is not surprising that krischel “ignores” that fact), we can doubt the necessity of this condition. Playing the demarcation game is certainly not sufficient either, as krischel is not playing the science game here.
Reducing science to what satisfies krischel’s own idiosyncratic criteria for scientificity is therefore unnecessary and insufficient.
And then krischel wonders why nobody plays his game.
***
> Both of my criteria support that [falsifiability is nothing more than the disposition to be empirically refuted].
The converse does not hold, and it’s the one direction that matters if krischel wants to argue that his desiderata express necessary conditions for falsfiability. I see no reason to accept this. In fact, Popper himself might not approve of them:
That’s in the 1982 introduction of the first volume of the Postscript to krischel’s favorite reference written in 1934. We clearly see that for Popper, there’s no need to specify all the falsifiers, as krischel requests. The desiderata imposed by krischel as conditions for falsifiability are way stronger than what Popper’s own definition.
I suspect that krischel’s desiderata lead to scientific determinism, and very few philosophers nowadays accept such conception of science.
***
In retrospect (and to parry Lakatos’ criticism of Popper1-Popper2, wink wink), Popper admits that he used a second concept of “falsifiable”:
The most immediate way to see that conclusive proofs never exists in empirical sciences is that they should themselves be subject to falsification tests.
To distinguish between these two senses, Popper tries to use “falsifiable” only to refer to his logical conception of falsifiability, and falsification for practical experimental proofs.
It is in the second sense that we can say that Keys’ hypothesis has been falsified.
***
There is no evidence to indicate that krischel distinguishes (logical) falsifiability and practical falsification. This conflation may explain why he considers that Keys’ hypothesis was unfalsifiable, or else he would not have acted the way he did. In practice there is never a falsification so decisive as krischel requires.
The hypothesis krischel advances for Keys’ behavior may very well be unfalsifiable.
June 21, 2014 at 18:19
@willard: “an unfalsifiable claim provides an explanation that can’t be undermined”
And therein lies your confusion – you believe that God cannot be undermined. Atheists disagree :)
“When an hypothesis is falsified, the explanation it provides is undermined.”
A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
“For krischel, playing the demarcation game is a necessary condition to play the science game.”
Popper: “we adopt, as our criterion of demarcation, the criterion of falsifiability, i.e. of an (at least) unilateral or asymmetrical or one-sided decidability.”
The demarcation game is decided – falsifiability. Are you saying that you want to defend AGW by changing this demarcation? Are you really trying to argue metaphysics here at this point? If so, great – you’ve answered the question of the post by asserting climate science is not falsifiable, but it’s still science because we can change the demarcation criteria between “science” and “not science”.
“We clearly see that for Popper, there’s no need to specify all the falsifiers, as krischel requests.”
That’s quite a twist of his words, don’t you think? :) I’ll give you a hint, he uses the word “logically”, and for Popper, that’s a word loaded with meaning :)
Chapter 6 of Popper might be useful for you to review – he goes into some set theory, which might be challenging for you, but he clearly distinguishes between a hypothesis with different dimensions of falsifiers.
“There is no evidence to indicate that krischel distinguishes (logical) falsifiability and practical falsification.”
Certainly I do – I make no insistence that your set of excluded observations must be technically practical. You could insist on observations that require more computing power than currently possible, or even on observations that require sensor networks that don’t exist yet.
I think I understand your new direction of argument though – you’ve given up on falsifiability, and are now trying to argue demarcation, which is perfectly fine with me.
June 21, 2014 at 18:56
krischel Says:
June 21, 2014 at 07:40
“@citizenschallenge: “I’m curious krischel, can you explain specifically why you believe AGW is an “unscientific idea” ?”
You haven’t been paying too much attention, have you? :)”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh I been trying to, but your love for words and ad hoc abstractions (diversions) leaves an impression of rhetorical spaghetti rather than rational ideas that can be worked with.
I do appreciate you trying to boil it down to something more recognizable. Although your second (June 21, 2014 at 07:56) attempt seems like jumping right back into the rabbit hole.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K writes” “Sure. Religious authorities have ideas. They’ve studied holy books, and spent years and years in prayer and contemplation. By all accounts they are experts in regards to God and the afterlife.” –
But scientists are studying this planet not ancient manmade scriptures! Seems to me It’s those kinds of flight of fancy along with your misrepresentation of actual evidence is what has me distrusting you.
You still haven’t offered a rational response to
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/contemplating-contrarian-mind-in-action.html
And you calling a recitation of valid scientific information a “Gish Gallop” seem to highlight your disinteresting in learning about our real time situation instead favoring abstract talk’n over learning.
I’ve made note of your above challenges
~~~~~
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by AGW;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is AGW (rather than the null).
~~~~~
and I’ll try to come up with something more to your liking.
But I’m curious, would please get specific yourself and for the record define exactly what your “the null” is?
June 21, 2014 at 19:26
Incidentally, for the Feynman fans out there
http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-richard-feynman-primer-for-deniers.html
“Second exhibit:
“So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.” “
June 21, 2014 at 19:29
@citizenschallenge: “But scientists are studying this planet not ancient manmade scriptures! ”
You still have the demarcation problem. If theologians had no scripture, but were studying the spiritual realm, would that make it science? The key here is that the scientific method, as Feynman put it, is the belief in the ignorance of experts. More simply put, we hold our authorities to strict scrutiny in science.
“But I’m curious, would please get specific yourself and for the record define exactly what your “the null” is?”
In the case of AGW the null is unspecified natural causes. More specifically, the null is the same unspecified natural causes that existed before humanity.
We logically derive this from the indisputable fact that climate changed before humanity existed, and even if we cannot enumerate or even understand the complex interrelations of non-anthropogenic drivers, they must exist because things have causes (at least if you believe in entropy and a deterministic universe).
So our null is essentially “the same reasons of the past explain the reasons of the present” – we have no reason (until we construct our necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis and ruthlessly try to falsify it and fail) to assume that things would behave differently.
That being said, let’s be careful here and distinguish between AGW in the trivial sense (humans almost obviously have a non-zero effect the same way any biological organism does), and a specific assertion of contribution or sensitivity.
The general implication of AGW is that we have a majority of he contribution – if you’d like to argue a lesser degree, your burden obviously becomes lesser (although not significantly less unfortunately). I’ve found that a lot of so called “deniers” are actually lukewarmers who disagree on the contribution, the sensitivity, or he consequence, but are perfectly willing to stipulate to AGW in the trivial sense. Conversely I’ve found that many true believers in AGW are afraid to challenge dogma on contribution, sensitivity or consequence because their goal isn’t a better understanding of AGW, but rather a specific set of behaviors from others that cannot be justified without apocalyptic levels of AGW.
June 21, 2014 at 19:35
@citizenschallenge: “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”
If you want to go by that criteria, it is very unlikely that natural climate drivers stopped just because we started emitting lots of CO2 :)
The UFO problem isn’t scientific because it is not falsifiable, much like Russels’s teapot. We don’t have to rely on “likely” or “unlikely” (and the dangers of systemic bias in our probability calculations).
That being said, are you joining willard in the line of argument that even if AGW isn’t falsifiable it is scientific because we can choose a different demarcation?
June 21, 2014 at 19:45
krischel Says: “1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by AGW;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is AGW (rather than the null).”
To show that a hypothesis is falsifiable (in other words is scientific) all you need to do is show 1). The above post gives you 10 examples.
Your second requirement is asking for proof. Science cannot proof anything. Immutable truths only exist in mathematics and religion. If science would claim to proof something, that would be the end of trying to improve our understanding. Science has progressed because the falsification criterion forces scientists to formulate their ideas clearly, so that other can test and improve these ideas.
June 21, 2014 at 19:55
@victor: review the discussion on necessary and sufficient. The ten examples do not exclude the null, so they’re also support for the null hypothesis.
Differentiate yourself from the null, or you’re really not predicting anything that couldn’t happen for others reasons.
Also review the logical fallacy comments.
June 21, 2014 at 20:00
@victor: astrology can be falsified by showing that there are no stars. By your falsifiability criteria, astrology is now scientific, since all it needs is one observation that the hypothesis excludes.
The second criteria, of excluding the null (or getting reasonably close) and having a logical argument to that effect isn’t optional :)
June 21, 2014 at 20:27
“But I’m curious, would please get specific yourself and for the record define exactly what your “the null” is?”
krischel Says: June 21, 2014 at 19:29 : In the case of AGW the null is unspecified natural causes. More specifically, the null is the same unspecified natural causes that existed before humanity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But, this is nonsense. Greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases, they are thoroughly understood, nothing about society created greenhouse gases is different from eons of “natural” greenhouse gases. Except that we are adding massive quantities to existing levels, which in turn will continue “abnormally” disrupting our planet’s previous thousands of years worth of relatively moderate, nurturing climate. The physics demands that weather patterns radically shift to reflect the radical changes to our global heat distribution engine’s many components.
Were something else causing those CO2 injections the results would be the same – so your basic premise makes no sense.
June 21, 2014 at 20:36
@citizenschallenge: “Except that we are adding massive quantities to existing levels, which in turn will continue “abnormally” disrupting our planet’s previous thousands of years worth of relatively moderate, nurturing climate.”
You’re assuming that CO2 sinks and sources are independent, and that massive quantity additions aren’t reacted to. However, the data shows us otherwise:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go
Physics do not demand what you think it does, the same way the 2nd law doesn’t demand that calories in/calories out == fat gain.
Are you familiar with the concept of a pH buffer?
June 21, 2014 at 22:45
resilientearth.com – so those are the kinds of sights you k.
“… This has led to much gnashing of teeth and renting of garments by excitable ecological doomsayers”
“… contrary to statements by unscientific simpletons”
These guys sound like they are selling something.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beyond that you focusing on tiny uncertainties and ignore the big certainties such as the Keeling Curve. Plus you totally misrepresent the amount of understanding scientists have gathered.
Why reach for fringe elements like RE.com – why not take this seriously?
1.2.1.2. A More Detailed Analysis of the Carbon Budget and its Change during the Past 20 Years
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=19
7.3.2.2 Uptake of CO2 by Natural Reservoirs and Global Carbon Budget – 7.3.2.2.1 Ocean-atmosphere flux http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-2-2.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The way I’m understanding you, you’re demanding absolute perfection according to your expectations – all else should be ignored and written off as spam. But, the way I’m seeing you is someone misrepresenting the most basic known facts –
You even try to say studying scripture is equivalent to studying our physical planet – that’s ludicrous no matter how you want to couch it!
Oh and about your null hypothesis . . . can you explain to me what sources and sinks have to do with: “More specifically, the null is the same unspecified natural causes that existed before humanity.”
I mean what’s significant about sources and sinks being variable or the fact they are varying slightly as a result of our enhanced 400 ppm atmosphere (think steroids) – something that is directly and provably caused by the gigatons of human produced CO2 (etc.) we continue pumping into our atmosphere?
Besides scientists are obsessed with observing as much and as accurately as they can and continually make great strides in more detailed understanding.
Incidentally, I notice you ignore what’s happening to our oceans as they absorb that +50% of the atmosphere CO2 we’re putting into our atmosphere.
You might call it spam, but it seems to me it’s chalk full of Falsifiable statements and claims.
Acidifying the Ocean: Assessing Impacts on Coral Reefs
Ocean chemist Andreas Andersson – UCTV
June 22, 2014 at 00:12
@citizenschallenge: “Beyond that you focusing on tiny uncertainties and ignore the big certainties such as the Keeling Curve.”
The Keeling Curve is simply an observation. What the Keeling Curve means, and whether or not the proxy record before the 1950s can be spliced to it, is a real question.
“The way I’m understanding you, you’re demanding absolute perfection according to your expectations”
No, I’m hardly demanding perfection – feel free to suggest incorrect things and be corrected, this isn’t a quiz where you have to get the right answer the first time.
“You even try to say studying scripture is equivalent to studying our physical planet”
No, I’m saying that you haven’t shown a demarcation between the authority you claim to believe, and the authorities theists claim to believe. I’m arguing that falsifiability is the demarcation – your argument was simply that “scriptures vs. no scriptures”…not a very useful demarcation tool.
“I mean what’s significant about sources and sinks being variable or the fact they are varying slightly as a result of our enhanced 400 ppm atmosphere”
I’m sorry, did you see the CO2 source/sink data? They’re not varying slightly, they’re varying *massively*.
“Incidentally, I notice you ignore what’s happening to our oceans as they absorb that +50% of the atmosphere CO2 we’re putting into our atmosphere.”
1) isn’t it surprising that they absorb a variable amount in response to increased CO2 from *any* source?
2) be careful, oceans are getting more *neutral*, not acidic – let’s not use scary words when they’re not appropriate;
3) you do realize that ocean pH varies significantly both spatially and temporally, right? Attribution of overall pH variation to emissions is an order of magnitude smaller than natural variation.
“You might call it spam, but it seems to me it’s chalk full of Falsifiable statements and claims.”
Quote them. There’s nothing in that presentation where they explain what observations they exclude, and why those observations would exclude the null hypothesis.
June 22, 2014 at 00:43
krischel Says:” astrology can be falsified by showing that there are no stars. … I’m arguing that falsifiability is the demarcation”
So you see astrology as a science?
And why were you arguing against my statement that falsifiability of a hypothesis is the demarcation between science and non-science, only to make the same claim a few comments later?
June 22, 2014 at 01:15
@victor: “So you see astrology as a science?”
No, your criteria is what allows astrology to be a science.
My criteria:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by AGW;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is AGW (rather than the null).”
Your criteria:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by AGW;
Astrology can fit your criteria, but cannot fit mine.
June 22, 2014 at 01:18
@victor: For example, we can parody your first falsification criteria to fit astrology:
1. A change in behavior of Cancers for some period of time to that of Leos, without a clear cause.
Can you explain why you feel your original falsification criteria should count, but the parody shouldn’t?
June 22, 2014 at 01:48
Krischel, okay, so your last comment where you wrote: “I’m arguing that falsifiability is the demarcation” was an error. That is fine. Comments are not scientific papers.
I would personally not see astrology as a science. I do not see your falsification attempt by claiming that there are no stars as a falsification. Astrology seems to presuppose that there are stars. If they had a scientific hypothesis, a clear well-defined rule how the stars influence what happens on Earth, it could very well be that that rule also makes a prediction for the case without stars. My guess would be that your love life is no longer that important the coming week and your life will end soon.
I hope that with that answer, we no longer need to discus your beautifully crafted parody.
In statistics we have a null-hypothesis to chose between an old or simple theory and a new or more complicated one. This is thus clearly a case where we have to select between two or more scientific hypotheses. The question which scientific hypothesis is to be preferred is a difficult one, but that is a fully different question as the one whether a hypothesis is scientific or not.
June 22, 2014 at 01:57
@victor: To be clear, I’m arguing that in order to be falsifiable both criteria 1 and 2 need to be satisfied. The “I have at least one trivial falsification criteria” is *not* sufficient to be considered a falsifiable hypothesis.
“In statistics we have a null-hypothesis to chose between an old or simple theory and a new or more complicated one”
No, you’ve stated it wrong. The null hypothesis in statistics is the assertion that there is no causal relationship between two factors (i.e., they can vary independently). It’s not about “old” versus “new”, it’s literally about “is there a relationship, or not”.
“This is thus clearly a case where we have to select between two or more scientific hypotheses.”
No, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion because you started with the wrong premise. We are not suggesting that there is some competing hypothesis – we’re suggesting that the null hypothesis of no causal relation is in play.
So again:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by AGW;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is AGW (rather than the null).”
You’ve come up with a small list for #1, but have failed to link them together, as required with #2, for the purpose of excluding the null.
Now, you may complain that it is unfair that you have to “compete” against a null hypothesis that really isn’t scientific in the strict sense of falsifiability, but perhaps it will make sense if you imagine that our first admission must be to ignorance, and any competing hypothesis with our own ignorance must not simply prove that some other hypothesis is “worse”, but must be able to exclude the possibility that we just don’t know.
I’m not sure if that’s as clear as I’d like to make it, but it’s a first try to help you understand.
Maybe this is an easier way for you to understand – should we assume western astrology is true simply because you haven’t shown that chinese astrology is a better hypothesis? Or should we assume that western astrology *isn’t* true unless it can exclude the natural variation and distribution of personality traits and destiny?
June 22, 2014 at 02:42
> astrology can be falsified by showing that there are no stars.
No:
That’s on p. 48 of a book krischel may be interested to read again.
***
Stricly existential statements like “Stars exist” or “God exists” can’t be falsified because they don’t proscribe or prohibit anything. They are called non-empirical or metaphysical.
On the other hand, “Stars do not exist” or “God does not exist” could be falsifiable. All there needs to be done would be to observe a star or a God.
The statement “there are no Gods of falsifiability” is also falsifiable. Not only that, krischel himself suffices to falsify it.
June 22, 2014 at 03:08
@willard: you misquoted the example hypothesis. The trivial falsification was for astrology, not the existence of stars.
But pay close attention to your popper cite – note the importance of prohibition and how the hypothesis you defend does not accomplish what is required :)
June 22, 2014 at 03:15
There are two alternative explanations as to why “there are no stars” can’t falsify anything. The first goes back to Aristotle:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/#FreRusExiNotProInd
The second one is due to Russell:
Op. Cit.
TL;DR — Existence is not a predicate.
The only known alternative is Meinong’s idea there exists non-existent objects. If krischel wants to develop a falsificationnist variant of Meinongianism, he’s welcome to do so.
***
Let’s see krischel will keep flexing his logical biceps.
June 22, 2014 at 03:18
Let’s give you a simple example of a statistical test. You may want to test the hypothesis that your data has a trend. You do so by testing whether the simpler hypothesis (null hypothesis) that there is no trend is statistically tenable. You seem to acknowledge this yourself using the term “competing hypothesis”.
It is fine for the AGW theory to compete with others. In fact that is exactly what is done in attribution studies. These attribution studies clearly show that we cannot understand the observed changes in the climate system without the causal relationship with the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. However, that has nothing to do with the question whether a hypothesis is scientific. And that was the topic of this post.
Just to be clear, also a false hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis (for example, classical mechanics). We know it was possible to falsify it, because it was found to be wrong. The kind of blogs you normally comment at, frequently claim that the AGW hypothesis is wrong. I surely did no read ally your comments, but have not seen you make the claim that this is impossible because the AGW hypothesis is not falsifiable. I admit that I have no hope that you will admit having been wrong about demarcation, but I hope that you will at least be so consistent, to tell the people at WUWT and Co. that they are wrong.
June 22, 2014 at 03:21
> The trivial falsification was for astrology, not the existence of stars.
You can’t falsify that there are stars, krischel, for the simple reason that you can’t show that there are no stars. Your only relevant falsifiable hypothesis is that there are no stars, which is not something you want to falsify to falsify astrology.
Astrology is infalsifiable for another reasons. Look for auxiliary or ad hoc hypotheses in the book you’re supposed to have read.
Keep editorializing. I like it.
June 22, 2014 at 04:37
@victor: “You do so by testing whether the simpler hypothesis (null hypothesis) that there is no trend is statistically tenable.”
Nobody has shown that current observations of climate can’t be caused by non-anthropogenic causes because the universe of non-anthropogenic causes is not 100% known. At best, they have excluded a straw-man hypothesis of known non-anthropogenic causes.
The null you try to compete against is a straw man, not the actual null.
“It is fine for the AGW theory to compete with others. In fact that is exactly what is done in attribution studies. These attribution studies clearly show that we cannot understand the observed changes in the climate system without the causal relationship with the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”
You again misunderstand the null – it is perfectly okay for us *not* to understand something. We don’t need to establish perfect knowledge, or even any knowledge, of natural climate change in order to exclude AGW -> the burden of proof goes in the *other* direction.
“I admit that I have no hope that you will admit having been wrong about demarcation”
You misunderstood my statement. Let me explain more clearly:
Me: “I’m arguing that falsifiability is the demarcation”
Me: “I’m arguing that trivial falsifiability isn’t sufficient.”
You: “You said that trivial falsifiability is the demarcation”
“Just to be clear, also a false hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis (for example, classical mechanics).”
Just to be clear, it’s only a scientific hypothesis if it’s admitted to be false :) Arguably, God is a false hypothesis, and a non-scientific hypothesis :)
In plainer terms, I’ll agree that if you come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, and you find the falsification and admit AGW is false, then your construction of AGW was indeed scientific :)
June 22, 2014 at 04:48
@willard: “Stricly existential statements like “Stars exist” or “God exists” can’t be falsified because they don’t proscribe or prohibit anything.”
I think you bring up a really important point there, let’s dive a bit deeper.
Going back to the logic primer for you:
1) Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error or fallacy of the converse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only *sufficient* condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
Let’s work backwards on the list in the post:
“10. CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory”
Are you really trying to say that it is the hypothesis of AGW that prohibits CO2 molecules from behaving differently in the lab and in the wild?
If AGW, then CO2 molecules behave consistently in the lab and the wild.
CO2 molecules behave consistently in the lab and in the wild.
Therefore, AGW.
“9. A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics”
Are you really trying to say that it is the hypothesis of AGW that prohibits fundamental flaws in radiation physics and thermodynamics?
If AGW, then we understand radiation physics and thermodynamics.
We understand radiation physics and thermodynamics.
Therefore, AGW.
June 22, 2014 at 05:45
I was reviewing this thread and came across this one:
krischel Says: May 30, 2014 at 17:34: “(CC)You talk about challenging “skeptics”, but you haven’t mentioned a single instance where you’ve actually made a challenge to your own “experts”.”
~ ~ ~
You asked: Friday, October 25, 2013
“Colorado Floods – statistical certainty vs geophysical realities”
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html
;)
June 22, 2014 at 05:51
@citizenschallenge: The expert you challenged didn’t agree with you – he wasn’t “your own expert”.
“In fact I did write Professor Hoerling and asked why he seemed to rejected all the studies that have shown evidence for global warming driven Arctic Amplification influencing the Jet Stream”
Find an example where you held some expert you use in *support* of your beliefs to strict scrutiny – like when they report something you *agree* with, but you look closer, and find that even though it was confirming your prior belief, they made some sort of error that invalidated their assertions.
June 22, 2014 at 23:53
> Are you really trying to say that it is the hypothesis of AGW that prohibits CO2 molecules from behaving differently in the lab and in the wild?
If by “you,” krischel refers to Hans Custers, then he would have to ask Hans. Hans’ #10 was more of a “tribute” to a fellow contrarian. Reading back what Hans wrote might be useful:
So this idea has been mentioned not because it was a clear falsifier of AGW, but because Hans find it “creative”. Hans has not made explicit why he thinks this could falsify AGW.
***
We could still try to formulate something. Here could be a very good example how not to do:
> If AGW, then CO2 molecules behave consistently in the lab and the wild. CO2 molecules behave consistently in the lab and in the wild. Therefore, AGW.
This can only be a caricature. There’s no reason to believe that CO2 behaves the way it does because of AGW. After all, CO2 was there first, CO2 creates warming, not the other way around. There seems to be a confusion between inference (i.e. the relationship between the premises and the conclusion) and implication (i.e. the relationship between the two parts of the major premise).
Also, that CO2 absorbs longwaves the way we observed under natural conditions looks like a background assumption of physics and chemistry. See for instance:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
The falsifier to that assumption could be “Under natural conditions, this bit of CO2 absorb longwaves differently the way we expected”. What would this imply? I suppose that depends upon what experimental tests that falsifier represents.
***
This underlines an important limitation of the demarcation framework. Even if you have logically well constructed falsifiers, you still needs to connect them to empirical tests. Test results need to be interpreted before we can make any judgement about these falsifiers.
The logical level falsifiability offers little practical help. This is why there may not be that many scientists who specialize in them. The demarcation problem is not a scientific problem anyway.
I’ll return later, and will let this comment sink in.
June 23, 2014 at 03:26
@willard: “There’s no reason to believe that CO2 behaves the way it does because of AGW. After all, CO2 was there first, CO2 creates warming, not the other way around. ”
But that’s the supposed falsification criteria (which, by victor’s proposition, should be sufficient by itself).
“Also, that CO2 absorbs longwaves the way we observed under natural conditions looks like a background assumption of physics and chemistry.”
Again, affirming the consequent. Longwave radiation absorption spectrum can be as observed and AGW can *still* be wrong.
“Even if you have logically well constructed falsifiers, you still needs to connect them to empirical tests.”
More than that, you need to connect them in a logical framework that excludes the null.
“The demarcation problem is not a scientific problem anyway.”
That’s true, it’s a metaphysical problem :)
That being said, if you’re going to argue that falsifiability isn’t required for something to be scientific, do you have a metaphysical argument as to where we should draw the line?
June 23, 2014 at 04:53
> [T]hat [CO2 behaves the way it does because of AGW]’s the supposed falsification criteria […]
That’s incorrect. The falsifier we’re supposed to entertain is if longwave radiation of CO2 is not absorbed the way we imagine. From that, we need to infer what it implies regarding AGW.
***
> Longwave radiation absorption spectrum can be as observed and AGW can *still* be wrong.
That’s irrelevant. The falsifier we’re supposed to entertain is if longwave radiation of CO2 is not absorbed the way we imagine. While we can have a good idea of what happens when “Ravens are black” is falsified, I don’t think we can have that expediency with “CO2 absorbs quantity Q on spectrum S”. Being black is not a quantity.
This falsification depends upon what we positively find by our falsifier. And since we never know in advance that question, there is no way to specify krischel’s desiderata. This applies to any kind of situation that are not settled by predicates alone. In other words, science should be a contingent, numerical, and indeterministic process even for falsificationists.
The only direct way to falsify AGW is by showing not-A, not-G, or not-W. If that falsifier is true, chances are that W would be false. Thus AGW would be falsified. But suppose we find a quantity that leads to no warming. Then AGW is falsified immediately, just like krischel asked.
As far as we can see, this satisfies Popper’s own requirements. I don’t think there’s any need to satisfy krischel’s. In fact, we have shown reasons to believe they are unsatisfiable.
***
> More than that, you need to connect them in a logical framework that excludes the null.
That’s unsubstantiated. Find a quote in LSD and report.
June 23, 2014 at 06:29
@willard: “The falsifier we’re supposed to entertain is if longwave radiation of CO2 is not absorbed the way we imagine. From that, we need to infer what it implies regarding AGW.”
No, you’ve got it backwards again.
Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
The argument is invalid because there could be other reasons why Q is true.
Your version ->
If CO2 is not absorbed the way we imagine, then climate change is non-anthropogenic.
CO2 *is* absorbed in the way we imagine.
Therefore, climate change is anthropogenic.
“The only direct way to falsify AGW is by showing not-A, not-G, or not-W.”
But you don’t have any falsification criteria for not-A. That’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
“That’s unsubstantiated. Find a quote in LSD and report.”
Asked and answered previously, but frankly, it’s fairly obvious that if your falsifiers apply for both AGW and NAGW, then you’ve still failed to distinguish between the two. Here’s popper explaining the necessary and sufficient requirements for an axiomatized theoretical system, which uses “necessary” and “sufficient” in the manner required:
p.50-51:
“A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if a set of statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisfies the following four fundamental requirements. (a) The system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it.1 (b) The system must be independent,i.e. it must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. (In other words, a statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the rest of the system.) These two conditions concern the axiom system as such; as regards the relation of the axiom system to the bulk of the theory, the axioms should be (c) sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatized, and (d) necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions.”
June 23, 2014 at 14:57
> Your version […]
Nonsense. I’ve never said that CO2’s behavior alone would imply AGW.
I’m not sure what krischel tries to prove, but: (1) falsifiability works by modus ponens; a modus tollens with a “positive” major premise leads to a negative conclusion; all his reconstructions offered so far contradict (2).
For a falsificationnist, there is no way to prove an hypothesis. AGW can’t be the result of a deduction. Even if one presents it that way, a falsificationnist would only consider that it’s a conjecture.
If krischel wanted to prove his inability to construct hypothesis the falsifiabilist way, he succeeded. There is no reason to believe he even knows how to explain how “All crows are black” works. No wonder he never offered us any example of a scientific theory constructed his way.
***
> But you don’t have any falsification criteria for not-A.
I have no idea what “criteria” does in that sentence. A falsifier is not a criteria, but a basic statement. Not-A is the falsifier of A. There can’t be any other logical one. Here how it would work:
(1) AGW -> A or G or W
(2) Not-A
(3) Not-AGW
The only problem with these is that these are not basic statements. There’s a gap in Popper’s model between basic statements and theories. Popper finally admitted that one could only falsify a theory as a whole, but only use falsifiers that are basic statements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological_model
Unless krischel wishes to argue that Boyle’s law is unscientific, I’d suggest we stop bother about the DN model. This is an interesting model, but it only ever was a reconstruction and is now a thing of the past.
***
> Asked and answered previously […]
Hand waving to LSD is not the same as quoting and citing a specific passage of LSD. I might as well respond to his request to look in the Internet.
***
There is only three moves available to krischel. Zugzwang is near.
June 23, 2014 at 17:14
Let’s rewrite that sentence:
> (1) falsifiability works by modus
ponenstollens; (2) a modus tollens with a “positive” major premise leads to a negative conclusion; all his reconstructions offered so far contradict (2).***
Let’s also enumerate krischel’s candidate moves left to him:
[M1] Caricaturing the AGW argument in speedo-logic;
[M2] Repeating his desiderata of a falsification that would confirm AGW;
[M3] Handwaving to LSD without reading it.
We still hope that krischel will soon get the absurdity of M2: the whole idea of falsificationism was to reject confirmationism. This may be the first time we see someone ask for a confirmation of AGW in falsificationist talk.
Come what may, that should soon be the only move he has left. By that I don’t mean krischel can’t disclose the two Queens hidden in his sleeves. I only mean that’s the only moves he has played that he can play again. Moving back and forth like that is not the best way to control more and more squares.
***
There are good moves available to krischel.
1. He could try to justify why he believes solving the demarcation problem is necessary.
2. He could refer to another epistemological source where we could find an argument that would make more sense than what we can read here.
3. He could provide an example of a scientific theory that satisfies his desiderata.
4. He could provide a reconstruction of what he calls his “null hypothesis” in a way that would make it falsifiable.
In that list, only moves 2-3-4 would help him prevent the zugzwang that is looming.
June 23, 2014 at 18:46
@willard: “Nonsense. I’ve never said that CO2′s behavior alone would imply AGW.”
Yes, you have.
You quoted John Nielsen-Gammon to that effect:
“Results: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); ”
Although arguably, I’ve lumped you in with Victor’s statement: “To show that a hypothesis is falsifiable (in other words is scientific) all you need to do is show [an excluded observation]. The above post gives you 10 examples.”
Apologies if you don’t hold Victor’s opinion on this.
“I have no idea what “criteria” does in that sentence. A falsifier is not a criteria, but a basic statement. Not-A is the falsifier of A.”
We’re looking for *observations*. A is a *conclusion* not an observation. In your construction, A excludes nothing that Not-A doesn’t also exclude.
“Unless krischel wishes to argue that Boyle’s law is unscientific, I’d suggest we stop bother about the DN model. ”
Boyle’s law is strictly falsifiable – it specifically excludes observations of pressure, temperature and volume that don’t fit the formula.
“[M1] Caricaturing the AGW argument in speedo-logic;”
Since you can’t come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, I’m left to build straw men :) If you’d like to be more specific about what you intend to mean by AGW (either the trivial sense, or some non trivial quantification), please feel free.
“[M2] Repeating his desiderata of a falsification that would confirm AGW;’
No, you’ve misunderstood – falsifiability would make AGW scientific. It wouldn’t confirm it, or make it right, but at least we’d be playing the science game instead of the clever argument game :)
“[M3] Handwaving to LSD without reading it.”
I read it, I cited it, and you don’t seem to understand it’s applicability. I can try to help you understand, but my bet is that your protests of inapplicability are simply a rhetorical device, not based on a true misunderstanding.
“1. He could try to justify why he believes solving the demarcation problem is necessary.”
Wait, are you trying to say solving demarcation *isn’t* necessary to discern “science” from “not-science”? Really?
“2. He could refer to another epistemological source where we could find an argument that would make more sense than what we can read here.”
Ah, the metaphysical argument – if you’re willing to admit that AGW is non-falsifiable, and want to argue that this is because falsifiability is unnecessary, I’m happy to entertain that possibility.
“3. He could provide an example of a scientific theory that satisfies his desiderata.”
You did it for me – Boyle’s law :)
“4. He could provide a reconstruction of what he calls his “null hypothesis” in a way that would make it falsifiable.”
And there you miss the boat again – the null hypothesis, the acceptance of not having knowledge, is the tricky part in this game. It’s asymmetric in regards to the burden of proof, and is not strictly required to be falsifiable. You’re trying to shift the burden of proof improperly here, but I think you already know that :)
June 23, 2014 at 18:56
@willard: Thanks again for the Boyle’s law example – that’s a really good one!
Boyle’s law excludes *great swaths* of observations – and by Popper’s description has a high degree of falsifiability. If AGW had a similar formula, and had tiny uncertainty bars like Boyle’s law (which, of course, at extreme scales, requires adjustment), I’d be more than happy to accept it as scientific.
But we both know that the observations of climate, on any scale, even in the modern era, suffer from measurement and resolutions problems that create pretty big error bars – it would be like trying to apply Boyle’s law in the stone age, where we didn’t have air tight containers, thermometers, or ways of measuring volume. It would’ve been a very, very, very, very clever neanderthal scientist who could’ve contemplated Boyle’s law, much less come up with falsifiable criteria, simply based on the technology available during his lifetime.
Of course with climate, even if we had perfect knowledge down to the atomic level of the planet, the uncertainties of solar and other cosmic influences could still leave us with a sticky wicket. And even if we had perfect knowledge down to the atomic level of the solar system, or even the cosmos, the stochastic and chaotic nature of climate might make it still a non-computable problem.
That being said, will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
June 23, 2014 at 21:12
> You quoted John Nielsen-Gammon to that effect [CO2′s behavior alone would imply AGW.]: […]
So krischel plays [M1] again.
Here’s how I presented NG’s position, with my emphasis:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-25270
NG’s position clearly distinguishes the testable prediction, the test results, and the conclusion.
NG’s position offers a group of tests with different kinds of observations.
NG’s position does not assume that the conclusion comes from a falsification.
NG’s position does not assume that the conclusion comes from an implication. It may not even be a deductive inference. (Again, I urge krischel to distinguish implication and inference.)
***
Here’s what krischel hears:
My emphasis.
Perhaps it’s just a vocabulary thing.
June 23, 2014 at 21:26
@willard: “NG’s position clearly distinguishes the testable prediction, the test results, and the conclusion.”
And he fails on the conclusion, appealing to both ignorance, as well as denying the antecedent.
“Perhaps it’s just a vocabulary thing.”
It definitely is – look at what he calls “results”:
“Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing);”
CO2’s behavior alone.
“magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents;”
Appeal to ignorance (assumes unknown forcing agents either don’t exist, or aren’t important)
“observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity);”
Denying the antecedent.
“observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.”
Again, appeal to ignorance.
Having dispensed with that, I’ll ask again, will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
June 23, 2014 at 22:46
> CO2′s behavior alone.
… confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing, not AGW, contrary to what krischel said.
The question asked above (i.e. #10) is: what happens if our ability to calculate radiative forcing is falsified?
It may not prevent the possibility to reconstruct another way to get to infer AGW, but it would impact we actually do infer AGW, this
***
> Appeal to ignorance (assumes unknown forcing agents either don’t exist, or aren’t important)
Proves by assertion while appealing to ignorance, i.e. some unknown (combination of) forcing agent disproves what we know.
This certainly wins the Internet, krischel.
***
> Denying the antecedent.
Try to find the antecedent in “observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity)”, then try to find what’s denied.
#GoodLuckWithThat.
***
Nothing krischel claimed so far worked. The best is yet to come. Here’s krischel’s argument in a nutshell:
> If AGW had a similar formula, and had tiny uncertainty bars like Boyle’s law (which, of course, at extreme scales, requires adjustment), I’d be more than happy to accept it as scientific.
So AGW is not the natural law I want it to be, therefore I reject AGW.
No wonder krischel invokes falsificationism.
***
Let’s see if krischel can do the homework he imposes on others:
> Boyle’s law excludes *great swaths* of observations – and by Popper’s description has a high degree of falsifiability.
Spell them out, krischel. Show us how the God of falsificationism operates. Teach us real science.
***
Also beware that you have introduced a new concept here: a high degree of falsifiability.
What’s that, krischel?
June 24, 2014 at 00:55
@willard: “The question asked above (i.e. #10) is: what happens if our ability to calculate radiative forcing is falsified?”
That is not unique to AGW – NAGW also depends on our calculations of radiative forcing. Denying the antecedent.
“Proves by assertion while appealing to ignorance, i.e. some unknown (combination of) forcing agent disproves what we know.”
I’m not giving an alternative, I’m not saying I know of something you don’t – I’m simply insisting on your lack of knowledge :)
If an astrologist says they know that Fred is trustworthy because he’s a Cancer, I can deny that by saying that there are other possible reasons for Fred to be trustworthy *besides* the fact that he’s a Cancer. I don’t have to actually specify some known agent that makes Fred trustworthy to deny the astrologist’s certainty.
I deny your certainty :)
“observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity)”
The antecedent is that observed temperature changes can be similar in magnitude to a whole different set of estimates of forcings.
“So AGW is not the natural law I want it to be, therefore I reject AGW.”
No, I’m saying Boyle’s law is a good example of a falsifiable hypothesis that rules out *lots* of observations, while your thus unspecified AGW hypothesis, with error bars you’re not even willing to cop to, rules out practically nothing short of the physical properties of CO2 being drastically different :)
“Spell them out, krischel.”
PV = nRT
There are entire *universes* of observations excluded by that hypothesis. An infinite # of pressures that cannot exist at certain volumes, temperatures and number of molecules. An infinite # of volumes that cannot exist at certain pressures, temperatures and number of molecules.
“Also beware that you have introduced a new concept here: a high degree of falsifiability.”
You didn’t read LSD, did you? :)
p99, “DEGREES OF FALSIFIABILITY COMPARED BY MEANS OF THE SUBCLASS RELATION”
Now, having once again responded in detail to your Gish Gallop, I’ll ask again, will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
It’s been asked several times now, and I can only assume the more you decline to answer, the more likely it is that you depend on the ambiguity of your position to allow you to make more ad hoc special pleadings :)
June 24, 2014 at 01:00
@willard: An example of a falsifiable hypothesis (sadly falsified though):
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html
“The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life – animal, plant, human – will be threatened.”
So, when you prophesize doom, and it doesn’t show up, either you can admit you were wrong, or do what the seventh day adventists do and just say the end is “soon” :)
Which one do you think these “big-league climatologists” chose? :)
June 24, 2014 at 01:24
> Denying the antecedent.
In a question. Imagine that.
June 24, 2014 at 01:33
@willard: Actually, that’s a good catch:
“Try to find the antecedent in “observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity)”, then try to find what’s denied.”
It’s easier to understand that fallacy as affirming the consequent
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
If our ballpark estimates from forcings are correct, then we’ll observe temperature changes of similar magnitude
We observe temperature changes of similar magnitude
Therefore, our ballpark estimates from forcings are correct.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only *sufficient* condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
June 24, 2014 at 01:33
> I’m not giving an alternative, I’m not saying I know of something you don’t – I’m simply insisting on your lack of knowledge
Appealing to ignorance is using what is unknown against what is known in argument:
(Douglas Walton. 1999. The Appeal to Ignorance, or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. Argumentation, p. 368.)
This is exactly what krischel does when he says: “assumes unknown forcing agents either don’t exist, or aren’t important [therefore is false or wrong or else]”.
The usual reply is “Sure, you don’t know everything, therefore you know nothing”.
June 24, 2014 at 02:52
@willard: “proposition A is not known (proved) to be true (false), therefore A is false (true).”
Exactly.
Natural global warming is not known to be true, therefore natural global warming is false.
Or, if you prefer:
AGW is not proved to be false, therefore AGW is true.
Now, having once again responded in detail, I’ll ask again, will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
It’s been asked several times + 1 now, and I can only assume the more you decline to answer, the more likely it is that you depend on the ambiguity of your position to allow you to make more ad hoc special pleadings :)
June 24, 2014 at 03:58
> Natural global warming is not known to be true, therefore natural global warming is false.
That’s not what NG said, nor is it what NG implied. We have yet to find one scientist who says what krischel puts in NG’s mouth.
There is no need to say anything about what is unknown. All we can say about what is unknown is that it’s unknown. With his desiderata, krischel exploits this unknown in a transparent manner: they help him reject any hypothesis for which there is some unknown that could falsify it. This is why I’m saying he’s appealing to ignorance: he’s blatantly handwaving unknowns about which we nobody knows anything!
Now, think about it: why did Popper write a book called Conjectures and Refutations? Conjectures could be refuted by some unknown that becomes known: The horror! The God of falsificationnism promotes desiderata that reject just about any kind of conjectures. No wonder he keeps insisting that we can deduce with absolute certainty the correct hypothesis.
But think about this logically: his desiderata may only work in a complete theory. It would be interesting to see how krischel can apply his (2) on theories powerful enough to incorporate Peano arithmetics. For krischel, science does not incorporate physics!
***
The expression “not known to be true” should not make sense for a falsificationnist. For a falsificationnist, there is no true knowledge. Science contains only conjecture. There is no way to know if what we know is true. All we can expect is that, by applying rational criticism (or so goes the Popperian bedtime story) does science converges toward the truth.
The alternative to all this is simply to say that AGW is the best explanation we have of the data we have. All the other explanations we have are more problematic. That does not mean they’re false. That just means AGW is so far the best bet. In that context, the expression “not known to be true” does not make more sense either.
The best is yet to come, as krischel fails to distinguish a natural law with an hypothesis.
See you later,
w
June 24, 2014 at 04:53
> If our ballpark estimates from forcings are correct, then we’ll observe temperature changes of similar magnitude. We observe temperature changes of similar magnitude. Therefore, our ballpark estimates from forcings are correct.
Another instance of the M1 move: speedo-logic.
Here’s again NG:
First, let’s note the emphasized bit, which shows that NG says nothing about what is unknown.
Second, see how krischel destroys NG’s argument. NG’s argument is this:
(1) We can calculate radiative forcing fairly well.
(2) Estimates of temperature changes match our observations fairly well.
(3) Observed temperature changes match Tyndall gas patterns fairly well.
(4) Our prediction, according to which a substantial portion of temperature changes so far should be quantitatively attributable to Tyndall gases, has been validated.
Only (4) could be considered as an antecedent. I’d rather call it a predictor. It could also be a conclusion, but that’s just a reconstruction. Science works from hypothesis to prediction, then to results, which are then discussed and pondered.
Eventually we reach an overall conclusion, but this has very little to do with any kind of speedo-logic.
June 24, 2014 at 05:18
@willard: “Only (4) could be considered as an antecedent.”
The assertion that the Tyndall model is the only possible explanation simply because we can exclude other *knowns*, assumes that we have no significant *unknowns*.
Also note the peculiar conclusion: “Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming is real and significant.”
This jump from “tyndall gas concentration has an effect on temperature” to “anthropogenic global warming is real and significant” is simply a bridge too far.
“There is no need to say anything about what is unknown. All we can say about what is unknown is that it’s unknown.”
It’s important to understand that there *are* unknowns, and not assume that simply because we don’t know them, we can affirm the consequent.
“they help him reject any hypothesis for which there is some unknown that could falsify it.”
So you assert that simply because we have unknowns, we can ignore the level of our ignorance, and demand that our pet hypothesis is true simply because we haven’t thought of a specification of an alternative? :)
“The alternative to all this is simply to say that AGW is the best explanation we have of the data we have”
Again, argument from ignorance:
Natural global warming is not known to be true, therefore natural global warming is false.
Or, if you prefer:
AGW is not proved to be false, therefore AGW is true.
“The best is yet to come, as krischel fails to distinguish a natural law with an hypothesis.”
Because of course natural laws never start out as hypotheses :)
“All the other explanations we have are more problematic. That does not mean they’re false. That just means AGW is so far the best bet.”
Actually, given the failure of AGW models, the best bet is that we simply don’t know, and possibly can’t know because the problem is non-computable :)
Your assertion of certainty is unfounded, just because one of your hypotheses is better than all of the strawmen you can think up :)
Now, having once again responded in detail, I’ll ask again, will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
It’s been asked several times + 2 now, and I can only assume the more you decline to answer, the more likely it is that you depend on the ambiguity of your position to allow you to make more ad hoc special pleadings :)
June 24, 2014 at 06:52
Gotta give you credit krischel, you sure can overwhelm with words.
Sad part, {besides using philosophical ideals and conjectures to set up impossible real world expectations}, is that you make up what the science does and does not say, or know, or not know, according to the needs of your debate strategy, not according to a good faith reading of the state of climatology and what scientists themselves have to explain.
As for learning about what’s happen on this planet, that doesn’t seem to interest you one bit – it’s the words you seem to be in love with.
I doubt this will interest you, too down to Earth I imagine,
but at least it’s a more accurate description of what climatologists are struggling with than your lofty cartoon imagination.
“Gavin Schmidt: The emergent patterns of climate change”
June 24, 2014 at 07:07
@citizenschallenge: “Gotta give you credit krischel, you sure can overwhelm with words.”
Not my intention, but thank you for the compliment :)
“you make up what the science does and does not say, or know, or not know, according to the needs of your debate strategy, not according to a good faith reading of the state of climatology and what scientists themselves have to explain.”
Unfortunately, I don’t believe in the good faith of many warmist scientists. Climategate in particular made clear that there are many “team” players there who are dedicated to the dogma, not the scientific exploration.
Because I doubt the integrity of folk like Mann and Hansen, I have extra motivation for holding them accountable. That being said, I think it’s incredibly important in science to hold *everyone* accountable.
I suppose you can divide the world up like this:
1) honest warmists (who I believe are sincerely mistaken)
2) dishonest warmists (who I believe are actively protecting dogma)
3) honest “skeptics” (of which I would count myself)
4) dishonest “skeptics” (who I believe could be right, but for the wrong reasons)
Sadly, I’ve noticed mostly #2 and #3. I don’t doubt the existence of #1, or #4, but I figure they’re as rare as a democrat who opposes affirmative action or a republican who supports gay marriage.
“As for learning about what’s happen on this planet, that doesn’t seem to interest you one bit ”
Actually, I’m incredibly interested – it’s a grand mystery, and incredibly fascinating. The fact that climate may be forever completely unpredictable doesn’t bother me though – in fact, having the science *not* being settled, and forever open to surprise is actually a good thing for the growth of the science. Think about it – the cosmic radiation affecting cloud formation hypothesis wasn’t even *imagined* until just a few years ago!
Unfortunately, Schmidt seems more intent on protecting dogma than actually doing science. His very definition of “skill” (better predictions than a simpler alternative) seems to be tailored to that protection, because he cannot admit that a simpler alternative might be that it is unpredictable :)
Frankly, the scariest part of this is that it very well may be that these things are true:
1) a warmer world is a better one for humanity and the biosphere in general;
2) the proposed changes in energy production to reduce CO2 emissions will hurt the poorest of the poor.
Given that possibility, one could argue that in order to save the planet from doom we need to emit *more* CO2!
That’s a philosophical aside, of course, from the question of falsifiability, but hopefully it explains a bit more clearly my point of view.
June 24, 2014 at 08:43
June 18, 2014 at 23:50 krischel Says:
“… Since you don’t know that AGW is false, you assert that it is true.
Blithely asserting that you need a “stronger alternative” than AGW in order to prove AGW false is the *definition* of an appeal to ignorance. It’s like asking for a “stronger alternative” to God creating the universe, and insisting that without a “stronger alternative”, God must be accepted to exist.
The problem here is that the “best explanation we have” is not sufficient for science. Science requires, at its most basic, falsifiability, which you haven’t been able to provide.”
~ ~ ~
Science does not operate by philosophical ideals
Who says we don’t know if AGW is false!?
We dang well know it’s true!
K, you exploit the convenience of ignoring the evidence.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/
We know the thermo properties of GHG.
.…. this could be falsified, but no one has.
We also know we are injecting geologically massive amounts into our atmosphere.
.…. this could be falsified, but no one has.
We also that human activities are super imposed upon natural cycles, resulting in a range of variability in geophysical manifestations as the warming accumulates.
.…. this could be falsified, but no one has.
We also know that this extra atmospheric insulation initiations cascading consequences such as a speed up in Arctic ice melt which will led to radical changes in the albedo of our planet, turning massive areas of Arctic ocean into heat absorption plates.
Not to mention what’s happening in Antarctica and Greenland.
.…. this could be falsified, but no one has.
We also know that this extra atmospheric insulation will increase our planet’s hydrological cycle.
.…. this could be falsified, but no one has.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Demanding that all the numbers add up perfectly is disingenuous claptrap.
You’re demands pretend that studying our planet should be as straight forward as a lab bench experiment. Worse you’re talking about known unknowns that add up to tiny fractions of human’s input. That’s why I find your’s a maliciously dishonest stance, (in my humble opinion.).
================
krischel Says: “The null hypothesis, to remind you, is that observed climate changes during the existence of humanity are driven by the same natural factors as drove them *before* the existence of humanity.”
~ ~ ~
K, your null hypothesis is a joke, crazy-making even.
Of course “observed climate changes during the existence of humanity are driven by the same natural factors as drove them *before* the existence of humanity” – who claims otherwise?
Why do you keep ignoring the reality that nothing has changed about GHG’s roll in insulating our planet, nor the cascading impacts of increasing or decreasing its concentration !
What has changed is humanity’s artificial injection of huge quantities of this natural climate driver into our atmosphere.
Just have a look at a graph of the CO2 record to see how radically humanity’s burning of fossil fuels has supercharged this fundamentally important drivers of Earth’s climate.
No new process, same old stuff, but with twice as much octane in the global heat distribution engine, than before, that’s all.
What do you find so difficult to grasp about that?
PS
June 24, 2014 at 08:47
krischel Says:
June 24, 2014 at 07:07″Unfortunately, I don’t believe in the good faith of many warmist scientists. Climategate in particular made clear that there are many “team” players there who are dedicated to the dogma, not the scientific exploration.”
~ ~ ~
That right there exposes you for someone who put agenda before a rational examination of the evidence at hand.
What part of those emails convinced you that the science global warming was a hoax?
June 24, 2014 at 09:09
@citizenschallenge: “Who says we don’t know if AGW is false!?
We dang well know it’s true!”
No, you don’t. It’s a non falsifiable hypothesis that does not exclude any observations that aren’t consistent with natural climate variation.
“Science does not operate by philosophical ideals”
Actually, science is an amazing philosophical idea, that we can get closer and closer to the truth of reality through the careful application of falsifiable hypotheses.
Karl Popper was a *philosopher*.
“We know the thermo properties of GHG.”
Affirming the consequent.
“We also know we are injecting geologically massive amounts into our atmosphere.”
Poor choice of words – “geologically” is ambiguous in your usage.
“We also that human activities are super imposed upon natural cycles, resulting in a range of variability in geophysical manifestations as the warming accumulates.”
That’s an assertion, without any falsification criteria – and your real problem.
“We also know that this extra atmospheric insulation initiations cascading consequences such as a speed up in Arctic ice melt which will led to radical changes in the albedo of our planet, turning massive areas of Arctic ocean into heat absorption plates.
Not to mention what’s happening in Antarctica and Greenland.”
Again, that’s an *assertion*, moreover, it doesn’t exclude natural warming.
“We also know that this extra atmospheric insulation will increase our planet’s hydrological cycle.”
What does that even mean? By what metric do you measure a hydrological cycle?
“Worse you’re talking about known unknowns that add up to tiny fractions of human’s input. ”
First, I’m talking about unknown unknowns. The stuff you don’t know you don’t know. Second, you’ve got no reason to believe that it’s a tiny fraction of human input, or even if human input (or any CO2 input) is what truly drives global CO2 levels (see the earlier buffer discussions).
“That’s why I find your’s a maliciously dishonest stance, (in my humble opinion.).”
I intend no malice, and I am not being dishonest.
“Of course “observed climate changes during the existence of humanity are driven by the same natural factors as drove them *before* the existence of humanity” – who claims otherwise?”
You do. You’re asserting that we can attribute climate variation to the emissions of a gas measured in parts per million in the atmosphere, to overwhelm all other natural variation or natural buffering adaptations.
“Why do you keep ignoring the reality that nothing has changed about GHG’s roll in insulating our planet, nor the cascading impacts of increasing or decreasing its concentration !”
Why do you ignore that GHG changes could be driven by things other than human CO2 emissions? Why do you ignore the “missing CO2” issue where somehow, CO2 sinks are *adapting* to the magnitude of our CO2 sourcing?
“Just have a look at a graph of the CO2 record to see how radically humanity’s burning of fossil fuels has supercharged this fundamentally important drivers of Earth’s climate.”
You’re splicing data there – 1958 to present we have real data. The rest of your data is inappropriately spliced proxy data.
“What part of those emails convinced you that the science global warming was a hoax?”
Let’s be specific – those emails convinced me that the data was shoddy, that peer review was subverted to exclude opinions contrary to the “team”, and that doubts within the “team” were suppressed to provide a politically unified front, subverting the honesty required by scientists to report negative results they find or arguments that might poke holes in their hypothesis.
Have you read any of the climategate emails? Be honest.
June 24, 2014 at 09:23
@citizenschallenge: For a more thorough discussion of the splicing problem in general: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/08/data-splices.html
For a more thorough discussion of the splicing problem specific to CO2 levels: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
Part of the problem here, I think, is that neither you nor willard have actually specified *exactly* what you mean by AGW (which is part of the reason I ask for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis).
So will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
June 24, 2014 at 09:33
Here we go, krischel Says: June 24, 2014 at 07:07:
“1) a warmer world is a better one for humanity and the biosphere in general”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1) and you really do believe you are rational – why would a warmer planet be better for us? Do you appreciate what a warmer planet brings with it? Here are some of the most basics.
* Warming will intensify hydrological cycles, drive increased droughts and increased torrential rains, and extreme wind events.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-the-Hydrologic-Cycle.html#b
http://www.climate.org/topics/water.html
* Huge populations and landscapes depend on glaciers to anchor their hydrologic cycles – losing those glaciers means desiccation of regional hydrologic cycles.
http://www.lafrenierre.net/chimborazo-research.html
Click to access PNADU628.pdf
* Warming climate is impacting biological partners in different ways, species that have always relied on one another are having their life cycles altered at different rates, not to mention habitat destruction.
http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/swift/mainpage.htm
* Melting tundra will create nightmares in northern latitudes and it’ll be many decades, if not centuries before it could be made suitable for farming.
http://www.ciel.org/Climate_Change/Climate_Arctic.html
* Warming has initiated and drives various species of endemic bark beetle populations to explode and attack the great forest of the northern hemisphere
http://www.climate.org/topics/ecosystems/beetle-battle.html
* Warming world mean more extreme weather events for a socio-economic system that has not been engineer for it.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/06/19/world-bank-flash-turn-down-the-heat-ii-climate-extremes-regional-impacts-and-the-case-for-resilience
* Sea level rise will be making things miserable to impossible in pretty near all our coast cities.
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: June 24, 2014 at 07:07:
“2) the proposed changes in energy production to reduce CO2 emissions will hurt the poorest of the poor.”
~ ~ ~
Where has energy production and exploitation helped “the poor” third world folks who have consistently been trampled by energy conglomerates and their various wars??
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175523/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_welcome_to_the_new_third_world_of_energy%2C_the_u.s./
June 24, 2014 at 09:37
krischel Says: June 24, 2014 at 09:23
“Part of the problem here, I think, is that neither you nor willard have actually specified *exactly* what you mean by AGW”
~ ~ ~
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Global warming driven by humanity’s insatiable burning of fossil fuels.
What’s not to understand?
June 24, 2014 at 09:38
@citizenschallenge: “1) and you really do believe you are rational – why would a warmer planet be better for us?”
1914 was cooler than 2014. Please explain why 1914 was better – you’ve got 100 years of doom to mine, but it’ll have to be pretty significant to contradict the increased food production, population, and quality of life :)
Furthermore, if you believe that global warming is differential (that is, poles warm more than the tropics), and that cyclonic activity is driven by differential temperature between air masses, then arguably, severe weather will *lessen* as global average temperature rises.
Frankly, the data supports this: http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php
“Where has energy production and exploitation helped “the poor” third world folks who have consistently been trampled by energy conglomerates and their various wars??”
Cheaper energy has driven China’s amazing growth for the past few decades, and they’ve created an arguably larger middle class than *any* other country has.
When has more expensive energy ever helped poor people adapt?
June 24, 2014 at 09:40
@citizenschallenge: “Anthropogenic Global Warming
Global warming driven by humanity’s insatiable burning of fossil fuels.”
How much? All of it? More than all of it? Half of it? 1% of it?
“Butterfly Global Warming – Global warming driven by butterfly’s constant emissions of CO2 while exhaling.”
Do you *really* believe that’s specific enough?
What if I believe in 1% AGW, and you believe in 100% AGW? Do we both believe in AGW? Or do you only get your AGW belief card if you believe over 50%? :)
June 24, 2014 at 09:47
krischel Says: June 24, 2014 at 09:09
“What part of those emails convinced you that the science global warming was a hoax?”
“Let’s be specific – those emails convinced me that the data was shoddy, that peer review was subverted to exclude opinions contrary to the “team”, and that doubts within the “team” were suppressed to provide a politically unified front, subverting the honesty required by scientists to report negative results they find or arguments that might poke holes in their hypothesis.
Have you read any of the climategate emails? Be honest.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yes I have and they were private emails.
Not sure where you found shoddy data –
doubts, scientist doubt everything and argue constantly.
Remember private emails – their studies are where you should try to point out what exactly you find “shoddy”
Where was the “subverting honesty” ?
Getting pissed off at a bunch of bullies. Got nothing to do with there scientific output.
Jeez what’s wrong with scientists being allowed to have private human conversations?
NO, they were not upset because anyone was poking holes in their hypothesis – they were pissed off because someone(s) were deliberately lying and deliberately trying to foist garbage work into publications.
June 24, 2014 at 09:52
@citizenschallenge: “Not sure where you found shoddy data –”
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
This is about basic version control over both code and data. They were *abysmal*.
“Where was the “subverting honesty” ?”
Trenberth, who spoke of a travesty in private, but didn’t air his doubts in public because he was on “the team”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/kevin-trenberth-struggles-mightily-to-explain-the-lack-of-global-warming/
“Jeez what’s wrong with scientists being allowed to have private human conversations?”
Nothing. But there is something wrong when they see a paper they don’t like on the basis of it’s contradiction of their own personal beliefs, and then threaten to redefine peer review (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subverted-peer-review)
“they were pissed off because someone(s) were deliberately lying and deliberately trying to foist garbage work into publications.”
That’s a fascinating defense of the indefensible :)
Do you believe Michael Mann’s upsidedown proxy work was garbage? :)
June 24, 2014 at 15:24
> PV = nRT There are entire *universes* of observations excluded by that hypothesis. An infinite # of pressures that cannot exist at certain volumes, temperatures and number of molecules. An infinite # of volumes that cannot exist at certain pressures, temperatures and number of molecules.
Good. Now let’s revise krischel’s desiderata:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
How does krischel’s answer satisfy his desiderata? It can’t satisfy 1, as he can’t provide an infinite list. It does not satisfy 2, there’s no logical argument that deduces Boyle’s law.
How krischel can deduce anything from an “infinite list” is left as an exercise to readers.
Perhaps krischel would still like to try again, to show us he can play the game with which he burdens others.
***
It may also be worth recalling the quote where Boyle’s law appeared here first, with the emphasized bit:
So even if krischel could satisfy his own desiderata, he’d only have a necessary condition for predictivity. He’d have no sufficient condition: the law would be what it is without any reason why. This prediction has no explanatory force without being connected to the network of theories to which it belongs.
What would imply the falsification of this law can’t even be worked out deductively with the conditions krischel requests. So while krischel asks for necessary and sufficient conditions to reject an hypothesis, he has yet to tell us how he accepts them.
***
Also, bear in mind that the DN model was intended for laws, not other kinds of hypothesis. There’s no reason to consider that AGW is a natural law. Imagine what sense this would make in the Holocene. It’s as if the only thing that populates scientific theories was law-like. Do we say “the law of tectonic plates”?
Scientific theories are not determined the way krischel requires:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
To require that AGW is the only hypothesis that could explain the data is asking for the impossible. What we can say, though, is that AGW is the best explanation we have. As NG showed, it has showed its worth.
If krischel has a better hypothesis to put on the table, he should go for it. Money and fame await him. Science is a race, not a bozing match.
***
How krischel chose his null hypothesis regarding GW has yet to be revealed. How krischel formulates it in a way that satisfies his desiderata is also unknown. Having a complete list of predictors for natural variability would certainly be nice.
I’ll return in three days. We’ll see if krischel can show us he can play what he thinks is necessary to do science.
See you later,
w
PS: To those who wonder why I write all this, I am writing this to clarify my ideas on falsifiability. All I wrote is consistent with that objective. I’m not sure krischel could say the say, as all he does is to repeat in a knee-jerk reaction (while accusing me of Gish galloping, no less!) the same mantra over and over again. I hope repeating his mantra brings him peace.
June 24, 2014 at 17:21
Since I have a minute, let’s point out this straw man:
> The assertion that the Tyndall model is the only possible explanation simply because we can exclude other *knowns*, assumes that we have no significant *unknowns*.
NG does not assume that AGW is the only explanation and krischel projects his own desiderata in NG’s mind, begging the question along the way.
NG does not need to assume anything about what he does not know, since he provided positive evidence for his hypothesis by testing it.
On the other hand, it is quite clear that krischel reverses the burden of proof by requiring that NG not only substantiate evidence for his hypothesis, but also provide evidence for every other possible hypothesis, including those we cannot yet possibly know. This requirement is preposterous.
To repeat the obvious, krischel has yet to provide one single example of how he himself could meet his desiderata.
And if krischel could provide a complete list of predictors for natural variability, I’m sure NG would appreciate. I’ll even forward it to him.
June 24, 2014 at 17:27
krischel Says:
June 24, 2014 at 09:52
@citizenschallenge: “Not sure where you found shoddy data –”
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
This is about basic version control over both code and data. They were *abysmal*.
~ ~ ~
So what was I supposed to see there? What you think models and the oodles of data collected should all be simple and everything falls into place right away? Your expectation of perfection is dishonest. I though your link does a good job of showing how seriously and self-skeptically this scientist was going about his duties.
When you listen to the scientists that actually work with models they are very open about the challenges, errors, limitations, etc. Yet, climate models remain extremely valuable tools for learning -> no scientist ever claimed they could be the crystal ball denialist types keep telling us we should be expecting.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: CC: “Where was the “subverting honesty” ?”
Trenberth, who spoke of a travesty in private, but didn’t air his doubts in public because he was on “the team”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/kevin-trenberth-struggles-mightily-to-explain-the-lack-of-global-warming/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What was I supposed to find in that WUWT article, besides that bogus CFact.org billboard?
This is another one of those red flag warnings that you really are utterly disingenuous. Do you even understand what Trenberth’s Travesty was all about? Here’s some background information:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm … do you even care?
Your trick seems to be the setting up of impossible expectations, the when they are not met, you use that as an excuse to ignore the credible information professional climatologists do have to offer. Very slippery.
June 24, 2014 at 17:38
PS. This is how serious scientists talk about their models, I trust them more than your disingenuous expectations.
~ ~ ~
Understanding uncertainty in climate models
as for real world implications:
P-SPAN #336 — “Berkeley City College: Climate Change Lecture by Professor Inez Fung” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUWj5Mtv3k
June 24, 2014 at 18:12
@willard: “How does krischel’s answer satisfy his desiderata? It can’t satisfy 1, as he can’t provide an infinite list.”
Here, I’ll provide you an infinite list in one line:
All integers A where A > 1000
Here’s an even better infinite list in one line, that excludes more:
All integers A where A > 1000 and A < -1000
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to understand that even though both exclude infinite values, one excludes more :)
"Boyle’s law permits prediction of an unknown variable—volume, pressure, or temperature—but does not explain why to expect that unless one adds, perhaps, the kinetic theory of gases."
They're asking a metaphysical "why" there – and then we're given the answer anyway :)
"He’d have no sufficient condition: the law would be what it is without any reason why."
Interesting – it sounds like you're asking for an infnitite regress of "why", like children learn to do as toddlers.
Can't you state it "why is the pressure X at this fixed volume Y" with the answer as "because PV = nRT"?
What do you count as a "reason"?
"Also, bear in mind that the DN model was intended for laws, not other kinds of hypothesis."
And you don't believe that laws start off as hypotheses, then proceed to theories, and then are accepted as laws? :)
"To require that AGW is the only hypothesis that could explain the data is asking for the impossible"
Let me restate – I'm not looking for certainty, I'm asking for the argument as to why we should *favor* your hypothesis over others. There is always room for error. The problem I have is that you're not eveng etting close to excluding the null. You put your hypothesis up against straw men, beat them, and declare victory. Your burden is greater than that.
"How krischel chose his null hypothesis regarding GW has yet to be revealed."
Asked and answered – from earlier in the thread:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-25283
So let’s review the null hypothesis for a bit.
Q: before humanity existed, what caused global warming?
A: The most obvious answer is this – non-anthropogenic drivers. It is explicitly true, since it covers *everything*, known and unknown, applicable during that time period. I’m sure you’ll agree that if humans don’t exist, they can’t cause global warming.
Assuming a consistent and deterministic universe, where cosmological constants don’t change, it seems not only plausible, but necessary, to assume that the simple addition of humanity did not eliminate those non-anthropogenic drivers.
"PS: To those who wonder why I write all this, I am writing this to clarify my ideas on falsifiability."
I hope we're able to help you clear up your misunderstandings :)
"NG does not assume that AGW is the only explanation "
Of course not, he puts up his straw men of "known factors", and neatly excludes them :)
"NG does not need to assume anything about what he does not know"
But he must admit the possible consequences of what he does not know – simply attacking straw men isn't sufficient.
Now, having once again responded in detail, I’ll ask again, will you answer the question as to exactly what “AGW” means to you? Is it simply a trivial “it is non-zero, even if it is many, many, many orders of magnitude less than natural variation without it”, or do you have a specific quantity (with or without error bars) you’d like to defend as falsifiable and scientific?
"provide evidence for every other possible hypothesis, including those we cannot yet possibly know."
I'll admit, he has a tricky null here – it is quite possible climate is a non computable problem. But if you can't exclude other hypotheses, especially the null, you're not doing science. He cleverly redefines the null into a strawman to make his point, and it just isn't very convincing.
"if krischel could provide a complete list of predictors for natural variability, I’m sure NG would appreciate. "
Again, asymmetric warfare here :) The null hypothesis doesn't require a complete list of predictors, it logically is true because of the reasons mentioned before :)
It’s been asked several times + 3 now, and I can only assume the more you decline to answer, the more likely it is that you depend on the ambiguity of your position to allow you to make more ad hoc special pleadings :)
June 24, 2014 at 18:26
@citizenschallenge: “PS. This is how serious scientists talk about their models, I trust them more than your disingenuous expectations.”
Interesting cites, but I think Judith Curry does a better job on uncertainty, and McIntyre does a better job on math :)
“So what was I supposed to see there? What you think models and the oodles of data collected should all be simple and everything falls into place right away? ”
You version control your data. You version control your code. You document the adjustments you make. This isn’t perfection, it’s just basic programming process, and has been for *decades*. “The dog ate my data” just isn’t professional.
“Do you even understand what Trenberth’s Travesty was all about?”
Yes, I do. It was about hiding uncertainty from the public, rather than being openly honest about it.
Of course Trenberth followed up with a fairly inconclusive paper, that truly stretches the imagination, but science done in the dark is shameful.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/29/has-trenberth-found-the-missing-heat/
Frankly, all public funded research should have code, data, and paper open to the public.
As for SS, it’s hard to take them seriously anymore –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
I can imagine you making the defense that perhaps most of the folks working in climate science are good, honest folk, like Judith Curry, and that the Michael Manns, Hansens, Phil Joneses and Trenberths are exceptions rather than the rule. But trying to defend the indefensible only weakens your case, really.
It’s like trying to defend Republican principles about limited government, and then deciding to go to the mat defending Dick Cheney shooting someone while hunting. Or trying to defend Democrat principles about dealing with sexual harassment, and then deciding to go to the mat defending Clinton and Lewinsky.
June 24, 2014 at 18:35
@citizenschallenge: Trenberth detail –
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
That’s the paper he talked about in the “travesty” email. A few observations:
1) He should give error bars, but declines to – “It is not possible to give very useful error bars to the estimates. ”
2) He glosses over the “travesty” he mentioned in private – “Thus, while the spread of the various values provides some measure of agreement, it generally greatly overestimates the uncertainty we
can assign to our best estimates. Therefore, we have
a lot more confidence in the values we have assigned
than indicated by the spread within the tables”
He *didn’t* have a lot more confidence, and he was willing to say that in private, but not public. That’s just not right.
June 24, 2014 at 18:55
krischel Says: June 24, 2014 at 18:26:
“Frankly, all public funded research should have code, data, and paper open to the public.”
~ ~ ~
There you go. Let a bunch of know-nothings argue (… debate) about computer codes when they don’t even understand what climate models are actually about… folks who have shown they couldn’t careless about becoming acquainted with the science.
That’s the way for science to move forward. And when you find that weird lump in your chest where it don’t belong, go down to the bar and get your medical advice from talking with the crowd.
Nothing like the denialist penchant for over estimating their own competence and loving the endless resolution less dog-chasing-tail debate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“As for SS, it’s hard to take them seriously anymore –”
And it’s getting impossible to take you seriously, Heil Hitler.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Now I understand why climate science ‘skeptics’ hate SkepticalScience.com (+ climategate)
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/now-i-understand-why-climate-science.html
~ ~ ~
Thursday, December 6, 2012
WUWT: ‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again…
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/12/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet.html
{a little sloppy around the edges, but then I’m no journalist or professional writer, just another spectator to humanity’s ultimate Greek Tragedy.}
June 24, 2014 at 18:59
@citizenschallenge: “There you go. Let a bunch of know-nothings argue (… debate) about computer codes when they don’t even understand what climate models are actually about…”
You sound like old catholic priests insisting that the bible shouldn’t be read by laypeople :)
The fact of the matter is this – it’s quite obvious from HARRY_READ_ME that the climate scientists doing their work didn’t have proper expertise in software development. It’s also quite obvious from McIntyre that they didn’t have proper expertise in statistics.
Now, if you want to talk about a whole bunch of know-nothings doing a poor job on software and statistics, “the team” sounds like the place to go :)
June 24, 2014 at 19:01
@citizenschallenge: “I’m no journalist or professional writer, just another spectator to humanity’s ultimate Greek Tragedy.}”
Got it – you believe you’re Cassandra, doomed to know the future but unable to convince anyone of it. That explains your point of view quite neatly!
June 24, 2014 at 21:25
@citizenschallenge: I’m not sure if you actually watched the Inez Fung presentation – she explicitly avoids talking about GCMs, but only talks about sensor networks for local CO2 emissions. That her regression models that go from weather to regional CO2 flux doesn’t seem to be all that much of a stretch (especially if you believe that CO2 is determined by weather, rather than the other way around).
That being said, I was very interested in some of her local CO2 data showing weekly cycles.
Apparently Mauna Loa has that too: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide
The south pole *doesn’t* show that, and it could be because the weekly cycle is due to local factors in Hawaii, but the south pole also isn’t a daily measurement, so its resolution may not be sufficient.
They reported 0.022 parts per million by volume difference between weekend/weekday, over the past 25 years, with little change.
However, this raises some important questions:
– from 2004-2013, 2.07ppm/year increase
– assume for 10 years, we’ll be responsible for weekday emissions
+ 52 weeks a year * 5 days a week * 0.022ppm = 5.72ppm/year
Q: Why is it that our emissions, even if we count weekends at *zero*, are more than double the observed concentrations?
Q: Why do weekends *recover* from weekday increases? doesn’t that imply that CO2 survival time is less than a day?
Q: Why has that weekly cycle not changed for 25 years even as we’ve reported more human emissions over that same period?
June 25, 2014 at 05:47
@citizenschallenge: Hey, I really need to thank you for that youtube cite with the weekly cycle observations from Salt Lake City – it really got me thinking!
I did some math here, and back of the napkin calculation yields one of two options – humanity responsible for 11.38% of the rise in CO2, or humanity responsible for only 0.52% of the rise in CO2.
Givens/Assumptions:
1) Weekly cycles are anthropogenic – there is no natural distinction between weekdays and weekends
2) Mauna Loa CO2 show a weekly cycle
– http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide
– weekends lower by 0.022 ppmv
3) South Pole CO2 does not show a weekly cycle
– any weekly cycle would have to be less than 0.001 ppmv
– they seemed to measure down to at least 3 digits of precision, so to be hidden let’s assume it would have to be an undetectable change in the 4th significant digit
Alternatives:
– Weekly cycle at mauna loa is due to local traffic factors
– Therefore, South Pole is a more accurate measure
– Weekly cycle at mauna loa is due to global CO2 factors that the South Pole is isolated from
– Need a mechanism to explain how we could smooth out weekly variations at the South Pole
Questions:
– What is the expected weekday/weekend differential expected to be observed in global CO2 levels?
* http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html
* 28% US emissions from transportation
* 84% transportation emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles (which should show a weekly cycle)
* Calculated: 23.52% US emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles
* weekly variation for transportation from Salt Lake City
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUWj5Mtv3k (34:56)
– looks like weekend coefficient might peak around .040 (estimated)
– looks like weekday coefficient might peak around .063 (estimated)
– weekdays seem to be 57.5% greater than weekends (calculated)
– weekends seem to be 36.5% less than weekdays (calculated)
– total for week == .040*2 + .063*5 = 0.395 (calculated)
– average per day == .056 (calculated)
– weekdays 12.5% greater than average (calculated)
– weekends 28.6% less than average (calculated)
* Assume global transportation distributions similar to US distribution, so 23.52% of global emissions should be subject to weekly cycle.
* Weekdays should be 26.46% (calculated)
* Weekends should be 16.79% (calculated)
* We’re looking for a swing of 9.67% on a weekly basis. (calculated)
* Annual mean growth rate: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
* Close to 2.0ppm/year for 2000-2010 (estimated)
* Assume we’re responsible 100%
* We’d see a .1934 ppm swing (calculated)
* Assume mauna loa data isn’t contaminated locally
* We see a 0.022 ppm swing (observed)
* That’s approximately 11.38% responsibility (calculated)
* Assume mauna loa data is contaminated locally
* We see a 0.001 ppm swing (estimated)
* That’s approximately 0.52% responsibility (calculated)
June 25, 2014 at 05:53
@willard: citizenschallenge pointed out a neat video with a clear anthropogenic signal definition – weekday vs. weekend variation. This is probably the best start for a falsifiable hypothesis statement on AGW, and more specifically, the magnitude of any global average CO2 change that can be blamed on humanity.
The other way we could do this (but I couldn’t really find good data on), would be to look for swings based on global GDP (a fair proxy for CO2 emissions) on a yearly basis. At that point you could come up with a falsifiable hypothesis based on whether or not the predicted variation was observed…the main problem being that there are yearly natural cycles, though.
So, given all that, would you accept the presence or absence of a measurable weekend/weekday signal in global average CO2 levels as a falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW?
Or, if you would prefer to avoid the metaphysical question of demarcation and falsifiability, would you accept the restriction of humanity’s contribution to global average CO2 levels based on some measured swing in weekend/weekday emissions, and place boundary conditions on the maximum possible contribution based on observations?
June 25, 2014 at 06:24
krischel Says:
June 24, 2014 at 19:01
“@citizenschallenge: “I’m no journalist or professional writer, just another spectator to humanity’s ultimate Greek Tragedy.}”
Got it – you believe you’re Cassandra, doomed to know the future but unable to convince anyone of it. That explains your point of view quite neatly!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you’re a cynical joker who thinks if you don’t understand it, it can’t be true, as you fabricate one specious argument from ignorance after another, ignoring all the contrary evidence that’s laid down at your feet… and you’re just fine with it.
I happen to have my eyes on the planet whereas your eyes are totally focused on the game going down within the landscape of your mind. How else could you be so certain about your convictions and so comfortable misrepresenting and denigrating others.
When is the last time you surveyed the real time situation on this physical planet?
June 25, 2014 at 06:30
@citizenschallenge: “And you’re a cynical joker”
Yes. :)
“How else could you be so certain about your convictions and so comfortable misrepresenting and denigrating others.”
I’m certain of my convictions because the scientific method, and its requisite falsifiability, is the most solid method of approaching the truth.
While you may believe I’m misrepresenting others, you should be aware of your own peculiar filter there – I think you’re afraid to hear uncomfortable truths about others you agree with.
As for denigrating, I try in general to avoid that, but frankly, some of the warmist frauds deserve some denigration (I’m looking at you Michael Mann).
“I happen to have my eyes on the planet”
Hate to say this, bud, but you’ve got to learn something about perspective. Your eye on the planet does nothing. It won’t stop the tide from coming in, or the sun from rising. Believing that you’re some world saving crusader is dangerous sauce, the origin of all kinds of violent and reprehensible zealotry.
That being said, I happen to have my eyes on the people who have suffered horribly from the misguided elitist white-people-problem prescriptions to stave off the apocalypse. :)
June 25, 2014 at 08:01
Falsifiability. A self-refuting theory?
Jens Enzo Nyby Christensen
Uploaded on May 22, 2009
Is it reasonable to criticise the principle of falsifiability because this principle itself is NOT falsifiable? This video explores the response people might have come across if mentioning the principle of falsifiability to a Christian in attempt to criticise his/her theory.
June 25, 2014 at 17:38
@citizenschallenge: Thanks for the cite!
Of course creationists, astrologists, and homeopathy practitioners would like to avoid falsifiability – it allows them to hold on to their precious beliefs :)
The metaphysical argument over falsifiability is one that has been fairly well trod – and much like Bastiat, who defended his advice on the role of government against other utopian ideas in a qualitative manner, regardless of the metaphysical argument, leaving falsifiability to the side opens the door to pseudo-science.
June 25, 2014 at 18:24
@citizenschallenge: Not saying anything about overall frequency here, but distribution of tornadoes and hail storms are affected by the anthropogenic weekly cycle:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/new-paper-why-do-tornados-and-hail-storms-rest-on-weekends-by-rosenfeld-and-bell-2011/
This of course is related to aerosols apparently, but shows that we can in fact use the weekly cycle to detect (or exclude) anthropogenic influence.
June 27, 2014 at 20:34
> I’ll provide you an infinite list in one line: […]
Good, now to that for Boyle’s law in a way that satisfy your own (2). Then show how it works with (2) and then report. Some background reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-infinitary/
My emphasis. Also note that Boyle’s law only applies to an “ideal gas”. We’d need the proper list for real gasses.
June 27, 2014 at 20:37
@willard: “Also note that Boyle’s law only applies to an “ideal gas”. We’d need the proper list for real gasses.”
And thankfully, ideal gasses are incredibly close models for vast ranges, with very small error bars.
GCMs, not so much, I’m sure you’d agree :)
I’m hoping you’ve gotten to the line of falsifiability citizenschallenge helped generate – the weekend/weekday anthropogenic cycle. I think that’s the best chance for you to actually come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for the “A” part, since if humans aren’t driving global CO2 levels with their emissions, then your mechanism for “A” is falsified.
June 27, 2014 at 22:07
> [I]deal gasses are incredibly close models for vast ranges, with very small error bars.
Good! Then I’m sure it will be easier to provide the two formal deductions your (2) require, right ? Please recall that you need to derive the Boyle’s law from the observations and exclude all the other alternatives… :-P
Sooner or later, you’ll have to own your logical blunders, krischel.
I’m in no hurry.
June 27, 2014 at 22:11
@willard: “Please recall that you need to derive the Boyle’s law from the observations and exclude all the other alternatives”
Derive? I don’t believe you’re reading very clearly – here are the two criteria, again for your education:
1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by a hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).”
Nobody says the hypothesis must be *derived* by exclusions, simply that it must specify exclusions. As far as Boyle’s law goes, it clearly has large exclusions, even if you’re willing to caveat the hypothesis with small error bars and ideal gas caveats.
We’ve shown Boyle’s law fulfills the requirements of falsifiability – are you ready to look closer at the weekend/weekday signature of global CO2 levels as evidence for a specific contribution from human activity to global CO2 levels?
Or does the prospect of actually coming to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis scare you because it ends your gish gallops? :)
June 27, 2014 at 23:01
> Nobody says the hypothesis must be *derived* by exclusions, simply that it must specify exclusions.
Well, I thought that “specifying” exclusions was your (1). If all you want is that we specify exclusions, then why not ditch the (2) altogether? :-P
But if you still cling to your (2), please note that it requires a logical argument and that falsificationnism usually rejects anything put formal deductions. Also note that you speak of only remaining possibility. And also note that you’re supposed to have accepted the relax your sufficiency condition a while ago. This has an impact on your desiderata. No, I’m not telling you which one :-P
So, if you don’t ask for a derivation, what kind of logical argument do you have in mind, krischel?
***
> Or does the prospect of actually coming to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis scare you because it ends your gish gallops?
Indeed, I’m so afraid that I’m asking you to scratch your own itch, kritschel, and provide us of one example of how your desiderata work. I’m not even asking you to show that this is how the scientists themselves worked. Showing the possibility that science could be reconstructed the way you require should be enough for now. So you may consider yourself lucky :-P
Also note, dear krischel, that you should beware using words like “Gish gallop” against me, for I know what they mean. They might very well be used against you in two ways. First, to show that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Second, that this is exactly what you do with your comments void of paragraphs :-P
June 27, 2014 at 23:04
@willard: “Well, I thought that “specifying” exclusions was your (1). If all you want is that we specify exclusions, then why not ditch the (2) altogether? :-P”
2 is necessary for avoiding the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.
“Also note that you speak of only remaining possibility.”
Yes, see Popper’s notes on axiomatic systems. If we have falsification criteria that cannot differentiate between two hypotheses, then our falsification criteria obviously isn’t sufficient.
“Also note, dear krischel, that you should beware using words like “Gish gallop” against me, for I know what they mean.”
I use the words purposefully, and intentionally, because you are behaving as Duane Gish has.
That all being said, are you ready to look at the weekend/weekday anthropogenic CO2 impact on global CO2 levels?
June 27, 2014 at 23:27
> 2 is necessary for avoiding the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.
So a formal deduction is necessary unless we affirm the consequent, right? Wait. I thought you just said that no one asked for a formal derivation.
Which is it, krischel?
:-P
***
> Yes, see Popper’s notes on axiomatic systems. If we have falsification criteria that cannot differentiate between two hypotheses, then our falsification criteria obviously isn’t sufficient.
We already ditched the sufficiency, krischel. You don’t recall? Search for “June 20, 2014 at 00:38”.
But you got me interested: are you suggesting that falsifiability could be sufficient at last? If we could axiomatize theories in a way to get our hypotheses out of necessity (but not by way of a derivation, no, that’s not what you said), we’d get sufficiency, right? Here are some issues with the axiomatization project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system#Issues
Your desiderata may have the power to solve many interesting problems, krischel, including in logic! What are you waiting for to specify them in a publishable way?
I tell you: fame and money is awaiting!
:-P
***
> That all being said […]
A Gish Gallop starts with such a connective, krischel :-P
June 27, 2014 at 23:33
@willard: “So a formal deduction is necessary unless we affirm the consequent, right? ”
What are you trying to argue here? That affirming the consequent is proper?
You’re making Duane Gish proud :)
“Search for “June 20, 2014 at 00:38″.”
Search for some context :) We’re talking about whether falsifiability is *sufficient* for the entire scientific method – and obviously, in the hypothesis generating stage, it’s not sufficient. On the other hand, falsifiability is *necessary* for the scientific method, and cannot be considered optional just because you’re Duane Gish :)
Speaking of Mr. Gish and your gallop, why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established? I asked you for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and thanks to citizenschallenge and his reference to Inez Fung, I can now provide you the beginnings of a legitimate necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for your belief system.
I suppose at first I thought you were arguing because you had no possible answer…but now that I’ve pretty much handed you a possible answer on a silver platter, and you’re still arguing, it sounds like you’re arguing because the sight of your own words pleases you :)
June 28, 2014 at 00:19
> What are you trying to argue here? That affirming the consequent is proper?
Are you trying to show me how “affirming the consequent” works by doing it yourself, krischel? In a rhetorical context, that’s “begging the question.” What I’m trying to argue is that your desiderata have not been shown necessary in a way that only them would prevent anyone from “affirming the consequent,” krischel.
In other words, you’re committing a non sequitur. You know what a a non sequitur is, right, krischel? In case you don’t, here’s the missing gap:
[K1] [Something’s missing here]
[K2] [Something’s missing here too]
[K3] In my desiderata, (2) is necessary for avoiding the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.
As you can see, there are some premises missing. Where’s the logical connection?
***
> We’re talking about whether falsifiability is *sufficient* for the entire scientific method – and obviously, in the hypothesis generating stage, it’s not sufficient.
Then why require desiderata that would generate hypotheses out of necessity from observations? I hope you realize that this is what your (2) is asking for, krischel. If we adopt your desiderata, we could literally program scientists :-P
So, please tell us more about theories built like axiomatic systems with modus tollens as the inference rule, and logical arguments according to which we can “guess” (certainly not “derive”, for you never said that!) which hypothesis necessary follows from the evidence basis, krischel…
:-P
***
> why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution
For the same reason that I beat my wife, no doubt!
I’m not avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution: I want you to show me how that works! I’m not in your mind, and in case I was not explicit enough, I think your desiderata are completely arbitrary, ad hoc, idiosyncratic, and perhaps also a little absurd, if you take them at face value! Not only that, but I have provided lots of reasons why I think so.
What I do avoid is the burden you are putting on me to abide by your own desiderata. The onus is on you, dear krischel, to show us how they work. I have no commitment to make them work. I see no reason why scientists should abide by them. Nor have I seen anyone use them.
But I’m still intrigued. Surprise me, krischel. Show the way. Lead by example. Be the first scientist to do science the way you think we all should.
***
> On the other hand, falsifiability is *necessary* for the scientific method,
Yes, the possibility to find an observation that would help falsify a theory could very well be a requirement. Even astrologers have that. Or psychanalysts. Or (shock and horror!) biologists, with their evolution theory, a theory Popper considered metaphysical at one point.
Scientists may not care that much about such a principle. Scientists do what they do best, and it’s usually not to think about the demarcation problem. It usually has something to do with doing science.
June 28, 2014 at 00:26
@willard: “What I’m trying to argue is that your desiderata have not been shown necessary in a way that only them would prevent anyone from “affirming the consequent”
Then show what other way would prevent it :) You’re arguing, but not very effectively :)
“Then why require desiderata that would generate hypotheses out of necessity from observations?”
You’re misunderstanding. #2 is a logical argument supporting the hypothesis, not the hypothesis itself.
“I’m not avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution”
The lady doth protest too much, methinks :)
“biologists, with their evolution theory, a theory Popper considered metaphysical at one point.”
And yet, even Popper was finally convinced that evolution theory met the criteria of falsifiability. Not only did Popper have the wisdom to define the answer to the demarcation problem, but he had the wisdom to change his mind when his own personal hypothesis was falsified :)
“Scientists do what they do best, and it’s usually not to think about the demarcation problem.”
What’s to think about – Popper solved it, we demarcate with falsifiability.
So accepting the demarcation of falsifiability, why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established? I asked you for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and thanks to citizenschallenge and his reference to Inez Fung, I can now provide you the beginnings of a legitimate necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for your belief system.
Do you wish to Gish Gallop away again about desiderata, or are you ready to engage in answering the bare question of the article we’re commenting on, “is climate science falsifiable”? :)
Or maybe, you could ask the admin to rename it “should climate science be falsifiable”, and we can argue metaphysics more :)
June 28, 2014 at 00:47
> You’re misunderstanding. #2 is a logical argument supporting the hypothesis, not the hypothesis itself.
Quote where I said or implied that (2) was the hypothesis itself, dear krischel. If you can’t, you might need to retract those words. What I’m sure to have said is that (2) is asking for a derivation, something that follows immediately from how you worded (2).
How can a logical argument “support” an hypothesis, by the way?
***
> Do you wish to Gish Gallop away again about desiderata […]
Since your main point in this thread is about these desiderata, and that I addressed this point since my first comment, you have a strange way to conceive how a Gish Gallop works, dear krischel :-P
June 28, 2014 at 00:54
@willard: “Quote where I said or implied that (2) was the hypothesis itself,”
Sure:
“Then why require desiderata that would generate hypotheses out of necessity from observations? I hope you realize that this is what your (2) is asking for”
#2 is not asking for a hypothesis generation, it’s asking for a logical argument for why we can exclude the null, and other alternative hypotheses.
When you say that #2 requires generating hypotheses from observations, you’re mistaking #2 as some sort of hypothesis, rather than an argument for a hypothesis generated from whatever inspiration you please.
“What I’m sure to have said is that (2) is asking for a derivation,”
No, it’s not. Read it again:
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).
It’s not asking for a derivation of the hypothesis, but simply a logical argument showing that the falsification criteria in 1) exclude the null and other competitors.
“Since your main point in this thread is about these desiderata”
The post is “is climate science falsifiable”, and the content of the post fails to meet the criteria of falsifiability, namely, that of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that meets the following:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).
That falsifiability was not a proper demarcation criteria between science and non-science was something Gishy you decided to inject without being able to sufficiently argue :)
The reason you went all Gishy is because you couldn’t actually respond to those two necessary criteria. And arguably, I had a hard time imagining taking your side and arguing your point for those criteria…until citizenschallenge introduced me to Inez Fung.
At that point, I began to see a way out for you, and an improvement to the logical fallacies the post is filled with (affirming the consequent), if only you’d grab hold and try :)
So now that you have a way out, a method for approaching the question of the post, which presumed that falsifiability was the proper demarcation, why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established? I asked you for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and thanks to citizenschallenge and his reference to Inez Fung, I can now provide you the beginnings of a legitimate necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for your belief system.
Care to hop on that horse and gallop some more Duane? :)
June 28, 2014 at 01:06
> When you say that #2 requires generating hypotheses from observations, you’re mistaking #2 as some sort of hypothesis, […]
Nonsense. Here are your desiderata, again:
If we take your list of observations as specificed in (1) and feed it into a logical argument as required by (2), then what obtains, in effect, is a derivation of an hypothesis. Since the logical argument in (2) excludes all possibilities except that hypothesis, then it has the power to generate it.
Such requirement is obviously absurd.
June 28, 2014 at 01:16
@willard: “If we take your list of observations as specificed in (1) and feed it into a logical argument as required by (2), then what obtains, in effect, is a derivation of an hypothesis.”
No, you’re doing it backwards.
Start with your hypothesis. Generate it through whatever create inspiration you wish – no limits here.
Then, generate your list of falsification criteria.
Then, generate your argument as to why those falsification criteria exclude the null and others, while preserving your hypothesis. Add additional falsification criteria if necessary.
So having dispensed with your metaphysical argument perpendicular to the topic, why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established? I asked you for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and thanks to citizenschallenge and his reference to Inez Fung, I can now provide you the beginnings of a legitimate necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for your belief system.
Or, we could twist logic in the wind a little more, like Intelligent Designers talking about pocket watches :)
June 28, 2014 at 02:05
> So having dispensed with your metaphysical argument perpendicular to the topic […]
My argument is certainly on topic, since it challenges krischel’s main claim that
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-25601
Also, I have two main claims, both philosophical and logical: my first claim is that krischel’s desiderata are not entailed by Popper’s notion of falsifiability; my second one is that they are prima faciae absurd. I leave metaphysics to krischel, with his assumption that we need to solve the demarcation problem to do science.
My challenge is that krischel scratches his own itch. Let him provide an example of a list of falsifiers and of a “logical” argument that is not a derivation.
***
> Start with your hypothesis. Generate it through whatever create inspiration you wish – no limits here. Then, generate your list of falsification criteria. Then, generate your argument as to why those falsification criteria exclude the null and others, while preserving your hypothesis. Add additional falsification criteria if necessary.
Compare and contrast with Popper:
[LSD, p. 66]
There’s no requirement to list any possible falsifiers: all that is needed is that we can make observations that are incompatible with the theory. This shows how krischel’s (1) is way too stringent. There’s no requirement of a logical argument, so (2) is completely ad hoc.
***
When comes the time to speak of falsification instead of falsifiability, (v. LSD, §22 ), Popper becomes a bit more practical. But it is quite clear that Popper would never say something like krischel said in his very first comment where he inserted his desiderata:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-23897
The very idea that we can found conjectural knowledge is alien to Popper. My own diagnostic is that krischel’s desiderata pad falsificationism with confirmationism. His Clue example provided another hint: the main reason we’d require such exclusive theories or hypotheses is that we can find a way to deduce them from observations, be they positive ones or falsifiers.
June 28, 2014 at 03:12
@willard:”my first claim is that krischel’s desiderata are not entailed by Popper’s notion of falsifiability;”
Asked and answered. Necessity and sufficiency are required, and not optional.
“my second one is that they are prima faciae absurd.”
And you say that with a straight face :)
“There’s no requirement to list any possible falsifiers: all that is needed is that we can make observations that are incompatible with the theory.”
We can make observations that are incompatible with astrology – yet clearly that isn’t falsifiable, because it doesn’t meet the clearly stated requirements 1 and 2.
LSDp73: “Statements which do not satisfy the condition of falsifiability fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible empirical basic statements.”
LSDp316:”A contradictory system fails to single out, from the set of all possible statements, a proper sub-set; similarly, a non-falsifiable system fails to single out, from the set of all possible ‘empirical’ statements (of all singular synthetic statements), a proper sub-set.”
If you cannot make the logical argument that your falsifiers can differentiate between your pet hypothesis, and the null and other competing hypotheses, *do not satisfy the condition of falsifiability*.
So having once again entertained your jolly gallop against the idea of falsifiability, why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established? I asked you for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and thanks to citizenschallenge and his reference to Inez Fung, I can now provide you the beginnings of a legitimate necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for your belief system.
Will you continue to argue that something is falsifiable, and therefore properly demarcated, if it simply has one observation incompatible with the theory? Or will you quote mine Popper and see if you can pick out something else in the translation that would make Duane proud? :)
June 28, 2014 at 03:59
> Statements which do not satisfy the condition of falsifiability fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible empirical basic statements.
This negative definition implies neither (1) or (2): the possibility to differentiate basic statements into two sets (one for falsifying and the other for corroborating ones) is weaker than providing such list. There is no need to provide any list to satisfy falsifiability. All we need to know to determine if a statement is falsifiable is to make sure that the set of falsifiers is not empty.
The notion the empirical basic statements is also problematic. And krischel has yet to introduce the notion of corroboration. But let’s not digress, as krischel still can’t even accept Popper’s own definition of falsifiability.
***
> A contradictory system fails to single out, from the set of all possible statements, a proper sub-set; similarly, a non-falsifiable system fails to single out, from the set of all possible ‘empirical’ statements (of all singular synthetic statements), a proper sub-set.
This negative definition implies neither (1) or (2). And as Popper continues in §24, consistency is the most general requirement of systems, be they empirical or not. It is only analogous to falsifiability, which is some kind of empirical satisfiability.
In that section, there’s an interesting note about Nerst’s approximation for the equilibrium equation of gases. Popper uses that example to show that
There’s a citation to the Postcript, which I don’t have with me right now.
***
> Necessity and sufficiency are required, and not optional.
This is false:
[DSL, §22, p. 66]
This is in section Falsifiability in Falsification. Popper clearly recognizes that his logical condition of falsifiability provides very little. To deal with real theories, we need to add another kind of requirement than logical ones, for instance methodological rules for the acceptance of basic statements.
June 28, 2014 at 04:08
@willard: “This negative definition implies neither (1) or (2): the possibility to differentiate basic statements into two sets (one for falsifying and the other for corroborating ones) is weaker than providing such list.”
We’re talking about differentiating hypotheses. Or do you think that it’s okay to have a falsification criteria that can work for a number of hypotheses, including the null? :)
“This condition is necessary, but not sufficient;”
EXACTLY MY POINT. Having a set of excluded observations is *necessary* but not *sufficient*.
Necessity and sufficiency are required, and not optional.
You must have what is necessary.
Something that is necessary may not be sufficient on its own.
You therefore must have not only things that are necessary, but *sufficient* things that are necessary.
If you don’t have a counter to the two conditions other than simple contradiction, why are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established? I asked you for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and thanks to citizenschallenge and his reference to Inez Fung, I can now provide you the beginnings of a legitimate necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for your belief system.
I think I feel another Gish Gallop coming along :)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
“This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order.”
I keep refuting your gallops piece by piece, but it seems you want to keep avoiding the actual question at hand :)
June 28, 2014 at 04:25
@willard: You know, I think I just had a revelation – you really do believe that a single falsification criteria, regardless of its inability to exclude the null or any other hypothesis, is *sufficient* for the label “falsifiability”. *That’s* why you see the list given in the article as sufficing, because you honestly believe that “falsifiability” is simply a check mark you have to put on your belief system.
So for your point of view, actually getting into the weeds of putting forth a falsifiable hypothesis that could potentially disparage your belief system, you’ve decided to preserve that belief system by doing your best to corrupt the demarcation criteria of falsifiability so that it will let in any pseudo-science.
So for you, astrology is scientific because we can come up with a single excluded observation (say, the motion of the stars triples in speed). As well, by your belief system, creationism is scientific because we can come up with a single excluded observation (say, God coming down and admitting to everyone that he didn’t create the universe).
I was actually working under the mistaken impression that you accepted that demarcation was important at all – in fact, for your belief system, demarcation must be kept ambiguous and fluid, to give you every rhetorical escape route possible!
Got it! :)
So of course my strict criteria of falsifiability, of necessity and sufficiency, cannot possibly be tolerated by your faith – as soon as you open the door to strict scrutiny, and the absence of ambiguity, you’ve lost the game. So shaky is your conviction in the scientificity of your argument that you’ll do anything you can to avoid moving on to the next step of necessity and sufficiency! Your faith, indeed, is predicated on making sure the rules of the game are corrupt, because you know in your heart of hearts your faith cannot stand the light of day :)
Well, color me disappointed. I had thought that between you and citizenschallenge that you were the more intellectual one, willing to argue in good faith, not from unshakeable faith. But indeed, I was wrong – it was one of citizenschallenge’s videos that I had once disparaged as spam that actually drove me to learn something critical and new, opening my eyes to the possibility of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for human impact on global CO2, that could be used as a stepping stone to a more complete falsifiable hypothesis of AGW. Heck, citizenschallenge even posted a very clear defense of falsifiability video!
On the other hand, I suppose I have learned something from your Gish Galloping – it took me a while to clue into the real motivation you had, and I suppose I could’ve been more suspicious from the start, but I’ll do better at recognizing it in the future :)
That being said, Gish Gallop away! I look forward to your next installment of failed argument to preserve your faith at all costs!
June 28, 2014 at 04:34
> Having a set of excluded observations is *necessary* but not *sufficient*.
Is this supposed to be a paraphrase to
as said below? This:
is pure gold. It sure means something. But what?
***
The argument is quite simple:
(1) We have textual evidence that Popper states that falsifiability is merely the possibility in principle to have a falsifier.
(2) We have textual evidence that Popper considers that this logical condition is insufficient and that we need to explore more methodological rules and the notion of falsification.
(3) Any kind of desiderata that presents itself as sufficient and necessary conditions for falsifiability goes against what Popper himself says.
This argument refutes krischel’s claim that his desiderata are conditions of falsifiability, since he claims that they are necessary and sufficient for God knows what.
This is the first of my arguments. If Popper says that falsifiability is insufficient, krischel can’t propose an interpretation of falsifiability that leads to a necessary condition that does not add to what Popper himself promoted.
This is not “mere contradiction”.
***
> [W]hy are you avoiding discussion regarding a possible solution to the two required criteria we’ve established?
First, I welcome its discussion, since I challenge krischel to go first and give us an example of how science should work according to his model. But I won’t play krischel’s monkey. Let him scratch his own itch.
Second, I dispute these criteria. They misrepresent Popperian falsificationism, and we surmise that they are confirmationism in disguise. The two required criteria are far from being established.
June 28, 2014 at 04:47
@willard:”They misrepresent Popperian falsificationism, and we surmise that they are confirmationism in disguise.”
Oh you clever monkey! Your faith depends on the positivist argument of verifiability (aka confirmationism), and you want to lay that albatross around my neck!
You and Duane Gish are certainly birds of a feather! It’s like a creationist asserting evolution isn’t falsifiable! Precious! :)
Moving on to the more interesting discussion – weekday versus weekend variation. Clearly anthropogenic.
Do the math as shown in my earlier comment and you get the following possibilities:
* Assume we’re responsible 100%
* We’d see a .1934 ppm swing
* Assume mauna loa data isn’t contaminated locally
* We see a 0.022 ppm swing
* That’s approximately 11.38% responsibility
* Assume mauna loa data is contaminated locally
* We see a 0.001 ppm swing
* That’s approximately 0.52% responsibility
I’ll argue (as do the authors of the paper that detected the 0.022ppm swing) that mauna loa data is clearly contaminated by local influences, but I’m willing to entertain other ideas for explaining the difference between mauna loa and the south pole.
So, at least from the quantification perspective, I’d be more than willing to stipulate to 0.52% anthropogenic influence, just from the back of the napkin calculation. I’d be a little more skeptical of 11.38% responsibility, but it seems much, much less likely.
So from that perspective, if you’re trying to falsify the hypothesis that “humans are responsible for 50% of observed warming from 1950 on”, clearly, we’ve falsified that (and it’s also falsifiable).
If you’re trying to falsify the hypothesis that “humans are responsible for less than 1% of observed warming from 1950”, I think we have both excluded observations (in terms of the data used to derive the calculated percentage), as well as a clearly logical argument that excludes the null (since weekday/weekend cycles are clearly anthropogenic). So in this case, we have a hypothesis that is falsifiable and not yet falsified. We might adjust this to say, “less than 15%” depending on improvements to data used in the calculations, or other competing hypotheses of course.
June 28, 2014 at 04:57
Oh this is hilarious: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/27/a-trifecta-of-uncertainty-study-finds-global-precipitation-is-increasing-decreasing-not-changing/
““Decadal trends of global precipitation are examined using the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP), Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP), and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reanalysis data. The decadal trends of global precipitation average diverge a decreasing trend for the CMAP data, a flat trend for the GPCP data, and an increasing trend for the reanalysis data.””
So I suppose that if AGW predicts less rain, more rain, and the same rain, all simultaneously, it’s just been verified :)
June 28, 2014 at 04:58
> So of course my strict criteria of falsifiability, of necessity and sufficiency, cannot possibly be tolerated by your faith – as soon as you open the door to strict scrutiny, and the absence of ambiguity, you’ve lost the game.
A mind-reading falsificationist, I like that. I’m also glad krischel finally admits that this is his strict criteria. That’s his own invention.
There’s no need to read my mind about krischel’s desiderata: I’ve never seen anything like it. I’ve never seen a philosopher maintain such a science reconstruction. I’ve never seen a scientist operate according to such a model.
It needs completeness to work properly. It’s based on an absurd mix of falsificationism and confirmationism. The axiomatization it assumes is completely impractical and may lead to more logical problems than it can chew, when you think about how theories are all interconnected. Sooner or later, indetermination of theories will hit krischel like a ten tons truck.
I’ve yet to see krischel show us how it works. He can’t even get an example of a falsifiable claim properly. He can’t even admit it.
What a magnificent mind-reader, that krischel.
June 28, 2014 at 05:01
> Moving on to the more interesting discussion […]
Gallop, gallop away, brave, brave krischel!
June 28, 2014 at 05:11
@willard: “I’ve yet to see krischel show us how it works. He can’t even get an example of a falsifiable claim properly. ”
Really? Let me repaste the earlier example of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for anthropogenic contribution to global CO2 levels (the first step in your pet hypothesis, to be sure, but at least it’s a step):
Givens/Assumptions:
1) Weekly cycles are anthropogenic – there is no natural distinction between weekdays and weekends
2) Mauna Loa CO2 show a weekly cycle
– http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061722_A_weekly_cycle_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide
– weekends lower by 0.022 ppmv
3) South Pole CO2 does not show a weekly cycle
– any weekly cycle would have to be less than 0.001 ppmv
– they seemed to measure down to at least 3 digits of precision, so to be hidden let’s assume it would have to be an undetectable change in the 4th significant digit
Alternatives:
– Weekly cycle at mauna loa is due to local traffic factors
– Therefore, South Pole is a more accurate measure
– Weekly cycle at mauna loa is due to global CO2 factors that the South Pole is isolated from
– Need a mechanism to explain how we could smooth out weekly variations at the South Pole
Questions:
– What is the expected weekday/weekend differential expected to be observed in global CO2 levels?
* http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html
* 28% US emissions from transportation
* 84% transportation emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles (which should show a weekly cycle)
* Calculated: 23.52% US emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles
* weekly variation for transportation from Salt Lake City
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUWj5Mtv3k (34:56)
– looks like weekend coefficient might peak around .040 (estimated)
– looks like weekday coefficient might peak around .063 (estimated)
– weekdays seem to be 57.5% greater than weekends (calculated)
– weekends seem to be 36.5% less than weekdays (calculated)
– total for week == .040*2 + .063*5 = 0.395 (calculated)
– average per day == .056 (calculated)
– weekdays 12.5% greater than average (calculated)
– weekends 28.6% less than average (calculated)
* Assume global transportation distributions similar to US distribution, so 23.52% of global emissions should be subject to weekly cycle.
* Weekdays should be 26.46% (calculated)
* Weekends should be 16.79% (calculated)
* We’re looking for a swing of 9.67% on a weekly basis. (calculated)
* Annual mean growth rate: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
* Close to 2.0ppm/year for 2000-2010 (estimated)
* Assume we’re responsible 100%
* We’d see a .1934 ppm swing (calculated)
* Assume mauna loa data isn’t contaminated locally
* We see a 0.022 ppm swing (observed)
* That’s approximately 11.38% responsibility (calculated)
* Assume mauna loa data is contaminated locally
* We see a 0.001 ppm swing (estimated)
* That’s approximately 0.52% responsibility (calculated)
So, to be specific, for any arbitrary percentage you want to assert, you exclude the observation of weekend/weekday cycles that would mean you have less impact.
This neatly avoids the “does CO2 drive weather” question, but still focuses on the “not-A” part you’re so keen on :)
So, exclusionary criteria, logical argument excluding the null. Your welcome willard!
June 28, 2014 at 05:40
> So, exclusionary criteria, logical argument excluding the null.
Which exclusionary criteria as required in (1)?
What logical argument as required in (2)?
This exercise in curve-fitting at least shows how silly it is to try to transform scientific research into basic statements to fit it in some kind of axiomatization :-P
Keep your eyes on the prize, krischel! You’re working at last! Don’t quit your day job yet, though :-P
June 28, 2014 at 05:45
@willard: We calculate exclusions based on the expected rate of weekend/weekday variance. This is, in Popper’s nomenclature, “risky” :)
The logical argument is that we can exclude non-anthropogenic sources from this observed weekend/weekday cycle because there is no non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycle – that is *purely* a human invention.
“This exercise in curve-fitting”
Oh, another Duane Gish trophy for you! Defending GCM models tweaked to curve fit, and then complaining someone else might dare put forth an equation that could fit a curve :)
That being said, tweak the numbers, adjust the model how ever you want – do you agree at least in principle that a weekend/weekday variation in global CO2 levels should be observed?
June 28, 2014 at 15:24
@krischel,
Why would a natural 7 day cycle in weather be impossible? Could be the answer to the question why a week has 7 days: maybe our forefathers noticed that cycle long ago. Or could just be a coincindence that a week has 7 days.
You may or may not find this hypothesis plausible, but that’s your subjective opinion. That’s not science. To prove your hypothesis, you’ll have to exclude the natural 7 day cycle with 100% certainty.
Just because you can’t come up with an other plausible hypothesis, doesn’t mean nobody can. The number of possible hypotheses for any phenomenon is infinite, I would say. That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘proof’ in science. And that’s the idea behind the concept of falsifiablility.
June 28, 2014 at 16:46
> The logical argument is that we can exclude non-anthropogenic sources from this observed weekend/weekday cycle because there is no non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycle – that is *purely* a human invention.
Good. So the argument goes:
[P1] Non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycle is *purely* a human invention.
[…]
[C] [W]e can exclude non-anthropogenic sources from this observed weekend/weekday cycle
[…]
[AGW] AGW is false.
According to krischel’s desiderata, this is supposed to be “a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null)”.
So we have: no complete list of falsifiers, no clear hypothesis to falsify, one test that ends up with a “speculation”, a statistical speculation that lacks explanatory power (i.e. curve fitting), no logical argument that excludes all the arguments except the hypothesis, no clear null, no explicit connection with AGW.
If krischel was Richard Tol, I’d blame Gremlins [1].
Keep the good work!
[1] http://andrewgelman.com/2014/05/27/whole-fleet-gremlins-looking-carefully-richard-tols-twice-corrected-paper-economic-effects-climate-change/
June 28, 2014 at 17:44
@Hans Custers: “Why would a natural 7 day cycle in weather be impossible?”
Let’s be specific – a 5 day on then 2 day off non-anthropogenic cycle is impossible. You could take a 28 day lunar cycle, and divide it into fourths, for a weekly cycle, but the peculiar nature of weekends and weekdays is a purely human invention.
That being said, I’m happy to be falsified, if someone in fact does find say, a 5 day then 2 day cycle in sunspots, or ocean currents, or earthquakes, or some other natural cycle of that sort.
“To prove your hypothesis, you’ll have to exclude the natural 7 day cycle with 100% certainty.”
Again, let’s be specific – we’re talking about 5 days on 2 days off.
That being said, do you agree that if we cannot find any 5/2 natural cycles, even after looking for them ruthlessly, that the hypothesis of “there are no weekend/weekday natural cycles” becomes stronger and stronger?
I mean, what you seem to be asking for with the 100% certainty demand is something like, “to prove alien abductions don’t happen, you’ll have to exclude the existence of aliens with 100% certainty”.
“The number of possible hypotheses for any phenomenon is infinite, I would say.”
And science is about excluding large swaths of that infinite set, until you get down to a much smaller infinity :)
AAGW (ambiguous anthropogenic global warming), that has no quantifer on anthropogenic contribution, seems to have very low utility insofar as excluding very large swaths.
WWAEOGC (weekday/weekend anthropogenic effect on global CO2), on the other hand, seems to exclude large swaths of possibilities…it’s not quite AGW, but certainly AGW depends on humans having an actual effect on global CO2 levels with their emissions, so it’s a good first step for the AGW hypothesis.
Next steps:
* show that CO2 levels drive temperature (doubtful given the 400 year lag in the ice core record)
Extra credit:
* show that temperature increases are overall harmful to get things “catastrophic” (also doubtful given the benefits of a warmer world)
June 28, 2014 at 17:48
@willard: “Non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycle is *purely* a human invention.”
um, no, that’s just putting your quotes in the wrong place :)
The weekend/weekday cycle is *purely* a human invention. Your grammar detector is faulty again :)
There is no non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycle.
You can falsify this, of course, by showing some sunspot cycle that is high for 5 days, the low for 2 days – or any other natural cycle the exhibits this very distinct cycle.
Perhaps the 5-day work week 2-day weekend was actually inspired by a harmonic oscillation between incredibly distant quasars? Maybe you’ll claim astrology is true now? :)
June 28, 2014 at 18:31
> There is no non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycle.
Agreed. Unless krischel cites someone who claims this, he has constructed a strawman.
What’s also missing is how this has been established (i.e. his 1 and 2), and what is to be inferred from this, i.e. how this relates to AGW.
Gremlins are everywhere.
***
> show that CO2 levels drive temperature
Spoken like a true falsificationist :-P
***
> show that temperature increases are overall harmful to get things “catastrophic”
Spoken like a true falsificationist, yet again :-P
Also note the equivocation between AGW and CAGW.
All this to return to the usual memes.
***
Doing science “the krischel way” may be too tough for krischel, after all.
June 28, 2014 at 18:35
“Let’s be specific – a 5 day on then 2 day off non-anthropogenic cycle is impossible.”
That, krischel, is an opinion, not science. And it’s nonsense. A natural 7 day cycle might be highly unlikely, but it’s not impossible in any way. Why would it be impossible?
As long as you don’t realize that your personal opinion is not science, that unlikely is not the same as impossible, and that the topic of this posting is scientific evidence, and not scientific proof; you just won’t get it.
June 28, 2014 at 18:41
@willard: follow along a bit more carefully :)
1) there are no non-anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycles
2) there are anthropogenic weekend/weekday cycles in CO2 emissions (Fung, et.al.)
3) detection of a weekend/weekday CO2 cycle at Mauna Loa is attributed to local contamination – any actual magnitude of a weekend/weekday cycle must be smaller than could have been detected at the South Pole.
4) the maximum possible undetected weekend/weekday cycle at the South Pole puts constraints on the actual impact human CO2 emissions can have on global CO2 levels.
As it stands, the math works out to 0.52% anthropogenic contribution to final global CO2 levels.
But please, feel free to posit a natural weekend/weekday cycle that could magically be the exact inverse of ours, or adjust the calculations with better data – maybe we can put some error bars around the back of the napkin result you can agree to! :)
June 28, 2014 at 18:47
@Hans Custers: “That, krischel, is an opinion, not science. And it’s nonsense. A natural 7 day cycle might be highly unlikely, but it’s not impossible in any way. Why would it be impossible?”
Again, let’s be specific – weekend/weekday cycle of five days to two.
For our purposes perhaps we can agree that the likelihood of such a natural cycle is less than .00001%, subject of course to the novel discovery of some funky quasar harmonic. We don’t rule it impossible, but we have clear falsification criteria on that (observe a five day to two day natural cycle), so we can consider it provisionally true.
The evidence clearly shows us that the weekend/weekday cycle we expect to observe is constrained in magnitude, leading to a fair guess of around 0.52% anthropogenic contribution to global CO2 levels.
Do you dispute the evidence plainly before us? Do you have any likely rebuttals to the magnitudes or calculations?
June 28, 2014 at 19:01
Hans,
You should also note that the paper krischel cites contains this gem in their abstract:
This “speculation” seems to indicate that krischel’s own test corroborates (in a Popperian sense) AGW, don’t you think?
June 28, 2014 at 19:07
@willard: if you’re reading, you’ll note I address that – if the observed weekend/weekday cycles at Mauna Loa aren’t due to local contamination, we’d calculate around 11% anthropogenic contribution. If their speculation is correct, and the Mauna Loa data is locally contaminated, then we can rule out any weekend/weekday cycle greater then their measurement resolution at the South Pole. That leads to the 0.52% anthropogenic contribution figure.
I’m happy for you to refute The claim that Mauna Loa was contaminated, but it’ll be hard for you to find a mechanism that would cause the cycle to disappear from the South Pole :)
June 28, 2014 at 19:14
“ Do you have any likely rebuttals to the magnitudes or calculations?”
This discussion is not about details on the carbon cycle. So I’ll keep it simple: there’s not a lot of evidence for your hypothesis that processes that affect CO2 concentrations on small geographical and time scales are also the dominant factors on a much larger scale.
It’s good to see you’re learing. You’re willing to accept your own 7 day anthropogenic weater cycle as a scientific explanation, even though your own null hypothesis (“some natural that we don’t know about”) cannot be refuted with absolute certainty. So I suppose you agree we’re talking about evidence, instead of proof.
June 28, 2014 at 19:31
@hans Custers: “there’s not a lot of evidence for your hypothesis that processes that affect CO2 concentrations on small geographical and time scales are also the dominant factors on a much larger scale.”
Good job, you’ve finally got it! The fact that there is not a lot of evidence that CO2 emissions are dominant in determining global CO2 levels is *exactly* the point I needed you to internalize!
Now, it seems fairly reasonable if our CO2 emissions aren’t dominant on the larger scale, then our possible contribution to any temperature change (stipulating for now that CO2 drives temperature rather than the other way around) is strictly constrained to 0.52% or less! :)
June 28, 2014 at 19:41
@willard,
Well, to be honest, it’s pretty hard for me to follow krischel’s “logic”. So, I don’t really know what would either corroborate or falsify AGW in his own test…
And let me add this: I have a lot of respect for your patience, and citizenschallenge’s as well, to keep trying to explain things to krischel. I’m not that patient at all. I’m afraid it will be up to you again from here.
June 28, 2014 at 19:45
“The fact that there is not a lot of evidence that CO2 emissions are dominant in determining global CO2 levels is *exactly* the point I needed you to internalize!”
I didn’t say anything like that in any way at all. I rest my case.
June 28, 2014 at 19:46
@hans Custers: exactly what logic are you confused on?
1) we’ve measured the weekend/weekday anthropogenic CO2 cycle
2) from that we get a risky prediction for an expected weekend/weekday variation in global CO2 levels
3) we compare that prediction to observations to constrain the magnitude of human contribution to the global CO2 level (versus the local ones already observed)
So what we have here is logic to falsify specific magnitudes of AGW.
Maybe you don’t believe that we can constraint the allowable magnitudes of AGW?
June 28, 2014 at 19:52
@hans Custers: if the buffers in the system that determine global CO2 levels can mask a high frequency signal like the weekday/weekend cycle, what is to stop them from masking any human CO2 emissions?
Here’s your problem – it seems you want to assert AAGW and keep the magnitude ambiguous. I’m trying to help you be more specific.
June 28, 2014 at 19:52
> But please, feel free to posit a natural weekend/weekday cycle […]
And thus krischel shifts the burden of proof instead of playing his own Science game and provide a list of falsifiers with a logical argument that would exclude all hypotheses (including the null, no less!) except his own.
If krischel could try to falsify an hypothesis that would not be a strawman, that would be nice.
June 28, 2014 at 20:13
@willard: “If krischel could try to falsify an hypothesis that would not be a strawman, that would be nice.”
Sadly, you refuse to present any hypothesis that isn’t sufficiently ambiguous for you to defend it with that argument :)
Again, clever rhetoric, but unconvincing :)
Re-reading the original article, the laughable hypothesis being defended seems to be “human impact on climate”. No magnitude specified, no mechanism specified, just a spate of falsification criteria that affirm the consequent regardless of other causes for climate change.
Now, I suppose you can assert that my strawman is incorrect because CO2 is not the mechanism…
I suppose you can also assert that my strawman is incorrect because there are weekend/weekday cycles that are non-anthropogenic…
Since I’m open to various percentages of contribution, I’m more than happy for you to specify what percentage of contribution you’d like to affirm…
But it seems that those questions on details are like kryptonite to you guys…odd.
June 28, 2014 at 22:32
@krischel,
OK, one last comment (at least for today) to explain to you what is so confusing in your logic. The most confusing thing is that instead of discussing one topic at a time, you’re mixing up several different subjects. If you keep changing the topic, it’s very hard to find out what you’re actually talking about.
You were mixing up at least three different things today:
1. Whether or not your anthropogenic 7 day cylcle hypothesis can be proven beyond any doubt and whether or not it is, in that respect, fundamentally different from the science on human impacts on climate.
2. Whether or not your anthropogenic 7 day cycle hypothesis actually has been proven or corroborated.
3. Whether or not your anthropogenic 7 day cycle hypothesis falsifies widely accepted knowledge on the global carbon cycle.
June 29, 2014 at 01:05
@Hans Custers: My apologies for any confusion I might have given – the discussion has been fairly wide ranging, so sometimes it’s difficult to recall a capsule summary before making a point. I’ll work on being more clear for you.
“1. Whether or not your anthropogenic 7 day cylcle hypothesis can be proven beyond any doubt and whether or not it is, in that respect, fundamentally different from the science on human impacts on climate.”
Please understand that I’m not asking for anything “proven beyond any doubt”. My assertion is that we need a set of excluded observations, and an argument that shows that those exclusions logically make a case that excludes the null, and other hypotheses, to the favor of the one being presented. There can certainly be mistakes in that argument, or uncertainties in that argument, but there should be an argument to that effect.
“2. Whether or not your anthropogenic 7 day cycle hypothesis actually has been proven or corroborated.”
Let’s take that one apart a bit. First, we have the study from Salt Lake City and Inez Fung that shows a detectable weekday/weekend cycle in CO2 levels on the local level.
Second, we have the Mauna Loa/South Pole study that shows a detectable weekday/weekend cycle in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, but not at the South Pole.
Now, as to the question whether or not there are *natural* weekend/weekday cycles, I think it’s fair to stipulate to that for the purposes of our analysis. You’ve already agreed that it is highly unlikely that there are any natural weekend/weekday cycles, just as say I might agree that it is highly unlikely that the surface temperature records are completely mistaken and the world has in fact been cooling. We can move forward with our analysis without arguing over the unlikely, if you’d like – but it seems to me that if you were to apply that standard to your own beliefs, you wouldn’t get past the “is the surface temperature record accurate”.
So, let’s take for granted that it is highly unlikely that any observed weekend/weekday cycles are natural.
“3. Whether or not your anthropogenic 7 day cycle hypothesis falsifies widely accepted knowledge on the global carbon cycle.”
Let’s use a better terminology – we’ve stipulated that weekday/weekend cycles are anthropogenic. The falsifiable hypothesis of AGW I’ve put forth is a model which constrains the human contribution to global CO2 levels by *leveraging* that stipulation.
So if you’re going to speak to the hypothesis at hand which seems to contradict your “widely accepted knowledge”, let’s call it the “Global CO2 Contribution Constraints Based On Weekend/Weekday Differences In Human CO2 Emissions.” It’s wordy, but specific.
I’ve put forth a fairly specific model, based on rough data as cited, and I’m open to any adjustments to that model you’d like to make. Or, if you’d like to make some sort of *likely* argument against an assumption I’ve made, I’m happy to hear that as well.
However, simply that the result of this logical argument and set of exclusionary criteria, gives constraints that are otherwise not “widely accepted” isn’t a very good argument. Either I’ve made some glaring error in the data I’ve chosen (which I’m open to), or I’ve made some glaring error in the logical steps used to calculate the constraint (which I’m open to), but at least in principle, do you accept that the absence of a weekend/weekday cycle of some specific magnitude constrains the actual effective contribution of human CO2 emissions to global CO2 levels?
June 29, 2014 at 09:17
@krischel
The argument about weekly cycles at Mauna Loa is a neat combination of interesting and ignorant. The history of Mauna Loa started with CD Keeling’s measurements in California where he concluded that the CO2 concentrations were strongly dependent on the movement of air masses, reflecting the direction the wind was blowing from, and biological cycles. Keeling’s work strongly implied that there were huge problems with many earlier measurements and theories about the atmospheric distribution of CO2 (lumpy), not only because of bad analysis methods (see just about any claim made by the late Ernst Beck and invert).
This lead to the choice of Mauna Loa for spectrophotometric measurements. Winds blow from the west of the island, and there is literally nothing but ocean between the ML site and Asia. The surroundings of the site are bare lava with no vegetation. There is a well characterized diurnal air flow up and down slope. When the wind is blowing up slope there is a possibility of local contamination because of vegetation and human activity below. THIS IS WELL KNOWN and has been well known since the site was started. It is this that Cervany and Coakley spotted.
The data analysis takes this effect into consideration
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
but there is a considerable literature which can be found through light googling and the characterization of the flow at the time of measurement can be found in the on line data files of the MLO observatory (here)
Never mind
June 29, 2014 at 09:32
@Eli Rabbett: I think that the fact that local impacts at Mauna Loa are, as you put it, “WELL KNOWN”, is part of what lead the researchers to believe that the weekend/weekday cycle there was spurious due to local effects.
Given that, it seems clear that rather than around 11% contribution to global CO2 levels (as would be the case if Mauna Loa data was *not* local but rather global variation), it is likely that we can constrain human impact on global CO2 levels to around 0.52%.
I think the more interesting thing on the Keeling Curve that we could analyze next would be the annual variation, compared to the maximum magnitude of anthropogenic impacts – both Mauna Loa and the South Pole reflect an annual cycle that could be compared in magnitude to any proposed anthropogenic impact in weekend/weekday cycles.
Back of the napkin, it looks like the annual cycle is about 5ppm, the maximum anthropogenic swing is .01ppm, so natural cycles look about 500 times stronger than any anthropogenic cycles we can detect.
June 29, 2014 at 10:34
@kirschel
If you read (and Eli has his doubts that you did) Cervany and Coakley’s conclusion, they say
——————-
[14] A local influence is advocated given the area’s climatology. A strong radiatively-driven mountain wind occurs at Mauna Loa and is the primary mechanism for air transport to the Observatory [Ryan, 1997]. During the day, this wind is particularly effective at advecting air from the marine boundary layer to the Observatory. Indeed, localized CO2 advection has been documented between coastal populated cities and a central Japanese monitoring station [Kondo et al., 2001]. We suggest that atmospheric CO2 emitted by traffic to and from the Observatory, and from Hilo, along with emissions from other islands, could be drawn up to the Observatory by such a diurnal wind.
——————
However, as Eli has shown, local contamination had been taken into consideration, by the analysis which omits times at which this happened and it did/does not affect the results, a point that Cervany and Coakley did not mention. So no, this is NOT an error or omission in the MLO CO2 series. It is a small variation in the data which has been accounted for.
We can put that part of kirschel’s gallop to rest. Let us move on
June 29, 2014 at 10:45
@Eli Rabett:”So no, this is NOT an error or omission in the MLO CO2 series. It is a small variation in the data which has been accounted for.”
I never said there was an error or omission in the Mauna Loa CO2 series.
Here’s my proposal:
1) we’ve measured the weekend/weekday anthropogenic CO2 emissions cycle
2) from that we get a risky prediction for an expected weekend/weekday variation in global CO2 levels
3) we compare that prediction to observations to constrain the magnitude of human contribution to the global CO2 level (versus the local ones already observed)
The details from Cervany and Coakley give us a boundary on the magnitude of any weekend/weekday cycle in the global CO2 levels.
We can, in order to give the AGW proponents the benefit of the doubt, run the model with Cervany and Coakley assumed *mistaken* about their Mauna Loa conclusions, and get an approximately 11% human contribution to observed global CO2 levels.
On the other hand, if you believe Cervany and Coakley are correct, and that in fact, the weekend/weekday cycle at Mauna Loa is due to local contamination, then we get closer to 0.52% human contribution to observed global CO2 levels.
Eli seems to be arguing a point that isn’t being debated, and missing the point that is.
June 29, 2014 at 10:51
@ kirschel continues his trot with
————————
I think the more interesting thing on the Keeling Curve that we could analyze next would be the annual variation, compared to the maximum magnitude of anthropogenic impacts – both Mauna Loa and the South Pole reflect an annual cycle that could be compared in magnitude to any proposed anthropogenic impact in weekend/weekday cycles.
————————
Kirschel is about forty years late with this little mal mot. The emergence of the annual cycle in the Keeling curve was one of the points that established it’s validity and has been the subject of many studies since 1970. Clearly related to the spring greening of the northern hemisphere it resulted in the establishment of the Scripps Air Sampling Network, spanning the globe from north to south combining instrumental and grab sampling and other networks and sites As anybunny would expect the annual variation is strongest the further north one goes and almost nothing at the South Pole.
Indeed, this variation is one of the key things that have been used to analyze the carbon cycle. It is a feature, an important one for maintaining CO2 monitoring networks.
June 29, 2014 at 10:58
@Eli Rabett: My proposal *depends* on the annual cycle in the Keeling curve.
The fact that spring greening in the northern hemisphere shows a natural swing of up to 5ppm, and we cannot detect any weekend/weekday anthropogenic cycle anywhere *near* that level, puts strict constraints on actual human impact on global CO2 levels.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m challenging the Mauna Loa CO2 data – but I’m not. Perhaps English isn’t your first language?
Let me be very clear with what I fully accept:
1) the annual variation of 5ppm of the keeling curve;
2) the Cervany and Coakley observation of a weekend/weekday cycle of 0.022 ppmv in the Mauna Loa data;
3) the Cervany and Coakley conclusion that such a cycle was due to local contamination, and did not show up in the South Pole data.
I’m not chasing the skydragons you seem to think I am :)
What I am saying is that from those fully accepted data and conclusions, we can constrain the actual impact human CO2 emissions have on global CO2 levels by comparing the magnitudes of change between the weekend/weekday cycle, and our observations.
June 29, 2014 at 11:08
Ah, I made a mistake – I thought Eli Rabett was actually a person trying to make a rational argument, rather than an imaginary bunny persona used for comic relief :)
/krischel leaves out a carrot for the nice bunny to eat, and pets the bunny reassuringly
Well, color me sheepish for not catching onto the joke sooner :)
June 29, 2014 at 15:08
> What I am saying is that from those fully accepted data and conclusions, we can constrain the actual impact human CO2 emissions have on global CO2 levels by comparing the magnitudes of change between the weekend/weekday cycle, and our observations.
Please do, then report.
Don’t forget to formulate a null hypothesis, your own hypothesis, a list of falsifiers, and of course a logical argument that would exclude any other hypothesis than your own, if you want to consider your constraining as a real scientific contribution.
Best of luck!
June 29, 2014 at 15:22
> My assertion is that we need a set of excluded observations, and an argument that shows that those exclusions logically make a case that excludes the null, and other hypotheses, to the favor of the one being presented.
It certainly is an assertion. This assertion has yet to be justified. It’s not in LSD. It does not follow from falsifiability. If we consider that it should be a deductive inference, as Popper argued, then it peters out as soon as we don’t have a fully axiomatized theory (say, like most parts of physics!) or a theory that is too complex to be determined that way.
The “logically make a case” makes the argument a bit fuzzier. Mistakes and uncertainties are now being accepted. The inference required is now so moot that inference to the best explanation may perhaps meet that criteria. Would it be the case?
ClimateBall ™ may contain violent agreement.
June 29, 2014 at 18:38
@willard: “Don’t forget to formulate a null hypothesis, your own hypothesis, a list of falsifiers, and of course a logical argument that would exclude any other hypothesis than your own”
Sure, we’ll start with a super simple null hypothesis – human CO2 emissions should be strictly addtitive to global CO2 levels. Arguably already excluded since we have the “missing CO2” problem, but it’s a fairly naive hypothesis – pour water into a tub, and the level of the tub should rise as much as the water you put in.
For our hypothesis, in order to avoid confusion, we’ll call it “Global CO2 Contribution Constraints Based On Weekend/Weekday Differences In Human CO2 Emissions.”
We are falsified (quantitatively) at any given proposed human emissions assertion if the weekend/weekday cycle is of a specific magnitude.
The logical argument here is that a 5 day/2 day cycle is explicitly anthropogenic – as already agreed earlier, it is incredibly unlikely that there are any possible confounding cycles of the same style that would contaminate our predicted results.
The calculations shown in previous comments yields a constraint of approximately 0.52% anthropogenic contribution.
Weak points – data points used may be disputed (as the surface temperature record is), calculations made (perhaps the estimates of the US being representative of global emissions weekend/weekday variation are off), natural 5day/2day cycles may exist (highly unlikely).
Strong points – generally corroborated with analysis of the annual variation of the Keeling curve which shows fast natural changes in global CO2 levels.
June 29, 2014 at 18:43
@willard: “Mistakes and uncertainties are now being accepted.”
Of course they’re accepted – falsifiability is not an ask for 100% certainty, and potential areas for mistakes give us opportunity to focus on areas for improvement.
What is not accepted is a hypothesis that is not necessary and sufficient, to wit, one that excludes observations, and has a logical argument that from those exclusions, we exclude the null and other competing hypotheses. Affirming the consequent is not allowed, and you’ll notice that it doesn’t happen in “Global CO2 Contribution Constraints Based On Weekend/Weekday Differences In Human CO2 Emissions” :)
June 30, 2014 at 02:18
Well, krischel, your logic is pretty hard to follow, again.
You say your null hypothesis is simple and naive. That doesn’t have to be a problem, I would say. The problem here is that your null hypothesis is very well known to be false. As far as I known, is very uncommon in scientific hypothesis testing, to start off with a null hypothesis that has been falsified long ago. I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here. Maybe you should explain a little more.
Than we have the known and unknown natural factors. You think AGW can only be properly tested, if we can exlude all unknown (natural) factors. In other words: we have to exlude everything that we don’t know anything about. But when it comes to testing your “Global CO2 Contribution Constraints … ” hypothesis, you start off by ignoring very well known (natural) factors: atmospheric mixing; dispersiof of emissions in the atmosphere. It seems somewhat inconsistent to me, that science has to exclude everyting that probably doesn’t even exist, while they can happily ignore known factors that play an important role in the phenomenon they study.
June 30, 2014 at 02:28
@Hans Custers: “The problem here is that your null hypothesis is very well known to be false.”
Why is that a problem? We start off with the simplest explanation, and exclude it.
“You think AGW can only be properly tested, if we can exlude all unknown (natural) factors.”
And I believe that we can exclude a 5 day week/2 day weekend cycle from natural factors, known and unknown. As you said, it’s highly unlikely that any such pattern naturally exists, much less is synchronized with our own cycle :)
“you start off by ignoring very well known (natural) factors: atmospheric mixing; dispersiof of emissions in the atmosphere.”
Here’s your real conundrum – say you argue against “Global CO2 Contribution Constraints Based On Weekend/Weekday Differences In Human CO2 Emissions.” You assert that we cannot expect to see any sort of anthropogenic signal because of atmospheric mixing, or dispersion, or some other natural buffering process -> say we accept that. Now, show how that same mechanism can’t be at work on *all* anthropogenic emissions.
Put another way, if you have a system that can filter out a weekly anthropogenic signal, why can’t it filter out a yearly one? Decadal one? Multi-decadal one? If you posit some set of unknowns that can mask a strong anthropogenic signal, that same set of unknowns could mask *any* anthropogenic signal we’re capable of making.
The weekly anthropogenic 5 day/2day cycle is particularly interesting, but you could also say, choose GDP to CO2, and get fairly close to the same answer – whatever GDP signal there is (as a proxy for CO2 emissions), it doesn’t show up in the CO2 record.
On the other hand, the natural greening cycle shows up very clearly in the keeling curve, which gives us at least some sort of comparison of magnitude between unspecified natural drivers and anthropogenic ones – and that magnitude, back of the napkin, looks like it’s less than 1%.
June 30, 2014 at 02:49
@ krischel,
“Why is that a problem? We start off with the simplest explanation, and exclude it.”
The explanation you want to test is supposed to be in your hypothesis, not in the null.
“You assert that we cannot expect to see any sort of anthropogenic signal because of atmospheric mixing, or dispersion, or some other natural buffering process”
I didn’t say that at all, because it would be nonsense.
“Put another way, if you have a system that can filter out a weekly anthropogenic signal, why can’t it filter out a yearly one? Decadal one? Multi-decadal one?”
Those question could make (some) sense, if there wouldn’t be any scientific understanding of the carbon cycle. But there’s lots of knowledge. I don’t see any reason why you would ignore that.
June 30, 2014 at 03:02
@hans custers: “The explanation you want to test is supposed to be in your hypothesis, not in the null.
Sure, and we test it by searching for the magnitude of the 5 day vs. 2 day variation in the global CO2 record.
“Those question could make (some) sense, if there wouldn’t be any scientific understanding of the carbon cycle.”
Show me what part of the scientific understanding excludes the observation of a 5 day/2 day cycle, but allows an annual one. If there’s some part of the carbon cycle you think I’m ignoring, please, specify it.
June 30, 2014 at 03:14
“Sure, and we test it by searching for the magnitude of the 5 day vs. 2 day variation in the global CO2 record.”
And still, it’s utter nonsense to come up with a null hypothesis that we know is false.
“Show me what part of the scientific understanding excludes the observation of a 5 day/2 day cycle, but allows an annual one.”
Strawman.
June 30, 2014 at 03:29
@hans custers: “And still, it’s utter nonsense to come up with a null hypothesis that we know is false.”
So, after we decide a null hypothesis is false, does our hypothesis fail because it showed that the null hypothesis was false?
You’ve got an infinite series of mirrors there :)
Here, how about this – there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels. We’ll start off with a null hypothesis of ignorance (always a safe bet). We’ll show from our hypothesis that we can exclude this by finding a 5 day/2 day cycle in the global CO2 levels, and further constrain our contribution factor by looking at whatever level of cycle we do find :)
“Strawman.”
Fair enough, you mentioned atmospheric mixing and dispersion of emissions in the atmosphere – we’ll talk about that.
5ppm seasonal swing in mauna loa data. Let’s take that as accurate. That’s motion of approximately 0.10ppm/week, so we know that mixing and dispersion can certainly allow for natural swings of at least that magnitude.
If natural cycles can perturb by 0.10ppm/week, and we can’t detect our weekly cycle of 0.001ppm/week, we at least have to admit that natural forces are 100 times more impactful than anthropogenic ones. The change in the final global CO2 level can be characterized as an natural factor, rather than a primarily anthropogenic one.
June 30, 2014 at 04:50
krischel: “We’ll start off with a null hypothesis of ignorance (always a safe bet).”
~ ~ ~
Maybe in the airy fairy world of philosophy where endless talk is all you gotta produce, it sounds good.
But, in real life – where you need to accommodate immediate physical constraints – approaching challenges from a “null hypothesis of ignorance” is a sure road to failure!
June 30, 2014 at 04:55
@citizenschallenge: You’re making an argument that we need to react without knowledge.
And I get that, sometimes you need to do *something*…but the problem with this particular precautionary principle is that you all so often tend to underestimate the negative effects of your proposed fix.
We’ve already suffered this phenomenon with Ancel Keys and his fat-heart hypothesis that led to nearly 4 decades of low-fat/high-carb diet advice, which has been the root cause for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other chronic diseases.
In real life, destroying the economy and the lives of millions if not billions of people shouldn’t be considered our first resort :)
June 30, 2014 at 15:00
“there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels.”
False as well
“We’ll start off with a null hypothesis of ignorance (always a safe bet)”
You mean starting off by ignoring all the scientific knowledge we have on the subjest? Yeah, that’s what you did. But why would you want to do that? And why would that be a null hypothesis?
Oh, and by the way, if you think you have to use a null hypothesis (not sure if that’s really necessary), the idea would be that your hypothesis and the null are mutually exclusive: if one is true, the other one has to be false.
“Fair enough, you mentioned atmospheric mixing and dispersion of emissions in the atmosphere – we’ll talk about that.”
I mentioned this as an important factor, not as the one and only explanation for everything. What you write about this is, again, a strawman.
June 30, 2014 at 18:30
@hans custers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
“In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.”
It very well may be true that there *is* a statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels, but it’s a fair null hypothesis.
That being said, if we can constrain the statistical relationship, based say on anthropogenic cycles like weekend/weekday variation, it seems we get to a 0.52% contribution rate.
“the idea would be that your hypothesis and the null are mutually exclusive: if one is true, the other one has to be false.”
That is correct – if there is a weekend/weekday variation in global CO2 levels, obviously there *is* a statistical relationship, and so the null is excluded.
“I mentioned this as an important factor, not as the one and only explanation for everything.”
Which is my point exactly. You point to unknown unknowns as a reason for rejecting any expectation of observing a weekend/weekday cycle, but you don’t hold the entire AAGW (ambiguous anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis to the same scrutiny :)
Can you see the hypocrisy there?
If you want to say that the weekend/weekday cycle is excluded by our knowledge of the carbon cycle, then *cite* it. Appeal to unnamed authorities doesn’t apply :)
June 30, 2014 at 19:55
> In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment […]
My emphasis.
As I said on June 19, 2014 at 19:43, reducing scientific inferences to statistical inference is still an open problem.
***
> You point to unknown unknowns as a reason for rejecting any expectation of observing a weekend/weekday cycle […]
Not exactly. Hans is simply reminding krischel of his absurd desiderata.
Pointing to unknown unknowns would rather be like stipulating that ignorance is a valid null:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing
The emphasized sentence should respond to krischel’s “Why is that [starting with a null we already know is false and offer a trivial test] a problem?”
We can only hope that krischel is not a working econometrist.
June 30, 2014 at 20:03
@willard: “reducing scientific inferences to statistical inference is still an open problem.”
What’s the problem?
“Pointing to unknown unknowns would rather be like stipulating that ignorance is a valid null”
As you quoted, ‘the terminology is prevalent throughout statistics, where its meaning is well understood.’ But more importantly, ignorance *is* a valid null. If the hypothesis put forth is, “we know the personality traits of Cancers due to the astrological observations during the date of their birth”, the null is perfectly stated, “we do *not* know the personality traits of Cancers due to the astrological observations during the date of their birth”.
Nobody is asserting that the null is true simply because we haven’t excluded it, but only that we must exclude it in order to justify our pet hypothesis. Remember, there is an asymmetry here.
June 30, 2014 at 23:25
“It very well may be true that there *is* a statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels, but it’s a fair null hypothesis.”
No, starting off with a null hypothesis that is known to be false is nonsense.
“That is correct – if there is a weekend/weekday variation in global CO2 levels, obviously there *is* a statistical relationship, and so the null is excluded.”
But if there is no weekend/weekday variation there can stiil be a satistical relationship. Ergo: hypothesis and null are not mutually exclusive, so something has to be wrong in your reasoning.
“You point to unknown unknowns”
No, I don’t. I point to a a key factor for your anthropogenic 7 day cycle, based on widely accepted science.
“Nobody is asserting that the null is true simply because we haven’t excluded it, but only that we must exclude it in order to justify our pet hypothesis. Remember, there is an asymmetry here.”
No, you still don’t seem to get Popper’s philosophy. Popper says it is impossible to exclude the null, because that would be proof your hypothesis is true without any doubt. And in Popper’s philosophy, such proof doesn’t exist.
June 30, 2014 at 23:29
@Hans Custers: “No, starting off with a null hypothesis that is known to be false is nonsense.”
See the cite again about the null hypothesis. Just because we know it to be false, doesn’t mean we don’t start with that. The fact that we know it is false means it should be fairly easy to exclude.
“But if there is no weekend/weekday variation there can stiil be a satistical relationship. ”
Fair enough, but we can at least constrain the force of that statistical relationship knowing the actual weekend/weekday variation magnitude, and knowing that it is undetectable to a specific magnitude.
“I point to a a key factor for your anthropogenic 7 day cycle, based on widely accepted science.”
No you don’t. You didn’t point to anything – you simply claimed “science!” If you’re going to critique, be specific.
“Popper says it is impossible to exclude the null,”
We’ll need a cite on that :)
July 1, 2014 at 02:05
> What’s the problem?
The problem is that we can’t reduce scientific inference to statistical inference. I thought this was obvious. We need other kinds of inference, like inference to the best explanation, or Popper’s favorite, the modus tollens.
***
> But more importantly, ignorance *is* a valid null.
“Ignorance” is not a well-formed hypothesis. We’d need a statement, i.e. something that could be true or false.
A statement like “we don’t know if p” (where p is some other proposition) would not work for a Popperian. First, this is not a basic statement. Second, it is a trivial null: for a Popperian, there is no true, justified belief; all knowledge are mere conjectures waiting to be refuted by the most stringent tests possible. Therefore that null is unfalsifiable
Try again, this time with more feeling.
July 1, 2014 at 02:15
@willard: “The problem is that we can’t reduce scientific inference to statistical inference.”
Isn’t that the whole assertion of GCMs that predict a high CO2 sensitivity? :)
“We’d need a statement, i.e. something that could be true or false.”
Here, how about this – there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels.
That could be true, or that could be false.
P.S.: I find it so amusing that my proposal of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement has inspired so much skepticism that apparently isn’t applied with equal fervor to AGW :) This simply goes to show that you folks do understand falsifiability, and can be skeptical, but must choose not to when dealing with your personal beliefs :)
July 1, 2014 at 03:48
> there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels.
Better!
Now we need a list of falsifiers, an argument according to which this these falsifiers would exclude that hypothesis, and the null.
Wait. Where’s the null?
:-P
July 1, 2014 at 04:57
@willard: “Now we need a list of falsifiers, an argument according to which this these falsifiers would exclude that hypothesis, and the null.”
Asked and answered.
Falsifiers: detectable work week cycles in global CO2 levels (depending on what magnitude of AGW you’re trying to assert)
Argument: Work week cycles are clearly anthropogenic, so any signal found indicates human influence.
Null: there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels
Results: Back of the napkin, humans are responsible for about 0.52% of global CO2 changes. Probably get close to the same magnitude comparing GDP fluctuations to CO2 levels (multiple lines of evidence).
I still think it’s funny in the end you guys are only able to defend ambiguous AGW, rather than actually putting a number on it :)
July 1, 2014 at 14:15
> Null: there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels
Splendid!
Now, we need another hypothesis, the only one that the falsifiers do not exclude, as per krischel’s desiderata.
Speaking of which, how are “detectable work week cycles in global CO2 levels” supposed to falsify that there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels?
That list of falsifiers is rather thin: what if we don’t find any week cycles?
***
> Argument: Work week cycles are clearly anthropogenic, so any signal found indicates human influence.
There’s something missing in that argument. Something about “statistical relationship”. More importantly, something about “it is likely that we can constrain human impact on global CO2 levels to around 0.52%.”
Wait. But what does this last bit have to do with the falsifiers, the argument, and null hypothesis, and that other hypothesis yet to be mentioned?
***
Funny that krischel can’t even play properly his own Science game. It’s as if he never really played it before. The only game he considers scientific. Imagine that.
July 1, 2014 at 17:29
@willard: “how are “detectable work week cycles in global CO2 levels” supposed to falsify that there is no statistical relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 levels?”
Really? Finding a work week cycle is finding a statistical relationship.
“More importantly, something about “it is likely that we can constrain human impact on global CO2 levels to around 0.52%.”
I see your confusion – my 0.52% is just back of the napkin calculation there, based on the observations regarding the work week cycle – it’s clearly open to revision, although likely results will be of the same general magnitude. Care to go back through any of the estimates or equations and dispute either a figure or a calculation?
Do you even accept, in principle, that contribution to global CO2 levels could be constrained to a percentage less than might be indicated by the naive hypothesis of a linear relationship from human CO2 emissions?
July 1, 2014 at 17:55
> Really? Finding a work week cycle is finding a statistical relationship.
Great!
Now, are “There’s a statistical relationship” or “We can find a statistical relationship” falsifiable hypotheses?
:-P
Here’s a hint:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-25422
Funny that krischel has problems with falsifiability.
July 1, 2014 at 17:57
@willard: and here we see the difference between ambiguous AGW, which you seem to represent and defend, and specific magnitudes of human contribution, which you seem to avoid :)
What statistical relationship do you assert? :) Back of the napkin, our calculations show about 0.52% – care to poke holes in that spreadsheet? :)
July 1, 2014 at 17:59
Willard, thank you for your efforts,
you are producing a sort of study guide for dissecting k’s type of contrarian ‘ratchet-jawing’ – something others can digest and build on. ~ ~ ~
Krischel, you toss up all sorts of interesting intellectual hurdles and curve balls and it’s obvious you are a master in the art of “logic” and philosophy.
But can you explain the practical value
of what I’d classify as airy fairy philosophy, {or perhaps to steal from David Sarna, ‘luft gescheft’}. K, can you explain the practical application of your ideas when it comes to evaluating the stream of incoming scientific data about what’s happening on this planet? What is the practical value of endless intellectual hair splitting?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
More importantly in various places you have shown contempt for recognized experts who are actually in good standing within the scientific community – you have used that political contempt as justification for disregarding scientific evidence when produced –
Thus when your stipulations actually are met, you got your easy out, “I don’t trust that…” – even though the actual experts in the field DO trust said data/information.
How do you justify believing you are smarter than the community of active experts? It’s like on the one hand you have this lofty notion of perfection of evidence and on the other you show yourself to be as prejudiced as a teenager.
July 1, 2014 at 18:08
~ ~ ~
Beyond that…
Do you even think about what’s really happening on this planet and to it’s people and it’s biosphere???
K, your so good at blocking out the ugly reality four decades of doing nothing has achieved – although we-the-people and our business leaders plus their political puppets have known and understood the basic incontestable* problem –
It’s really simple and comes down to “falsifiable” math:
A) Compounding interest the strongest force in the universe.
B)
finite planet…
too many people…
consuming too much…
polluting too much…
= absolutely unsustainable situation
~ ~ ~
“The Lesson of The Sun”
The bigger it is, the hotter it burns, the faster it burns-out.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PS.
Here’s but one collection Stephen Faris’ book “Forecast” gives an incomplete review
and there are thousands of other reporters and reports detailing other aspects of the problems, real time and all over our global.
But the rich folks want to continue their party and just aren’t worried about leaving anything behind for their offspring. But, that’s a different discussion from K’s hand waving and smoke’n mirrors manipulation.
July 1, 2014 at 18:17
@citizenschallenge: “K, can you explain the practical application of your ideas when it comes to evaluating the stream of incoming scientific data about what’s happening on this planet?”
Sure. If we can in principle agree that through signals analysis of human CO2 emissions impact on global CO2 levels, we can constrain any responsibility from humans on global temperature changes (assuming for the moment that CO2 drives temperature and the other way around), we can, as a practical matter, avoid hazardous and expensive policies that drive people in poverty into worse poverty, and destroy economic health.
“you have used that political contempt as justification for disregarding scientific evidence when produced”
I’ve been very clear about where my political contempt is, and I’ve given good reason, for example, on why we should disregard data that has been tampered with by Michael Mann.
“How do you justify believing you are smarter than the community of active experts?”
I’m a really smart guy, who understands the requirements of the scientific method :) Frankly, though, it doesn’t require a lot of smarts to be correct on something – and in fact, very smart people are often incredibly good at avoiding any skepticism of their own deeply held beliefs.
That being said, would you consider Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Steve McIntyre, and Richard Lindzen as a community of active experts? :) Any reason why you wouldn’t accept their clearly valid critiques of the “team”? :)
“K, your so good at blocking out the ugly reality four decades of doing nothing has achieved ”
Tell me, what has happened with would population, GDP, crop production and quality of life over the past four decades?
Remember ehrlich’s population bomb? Malthusian logic has been around with us for a long time, arguably back to the days of the original apocalyptic religions :)
July 1, 2014 at 18:19
> Back of the napkin, our calculations show about 0.52%
Fantastic!
Now, what’s the hypothesis of this? What’s the null? What would be the falsifiers? What would be the argument?
Funny that krischel would construct an hypothesis, a null, falsifiers (that would falsify a claim whose inverse is unfalsifiable, no less), and arguments that have little to do with his calculations.
:-P
July 1, 2014 at 18:22
@willard: Asked and answered :) I present to you the 0.52% as a general order of magnitude from the actual preliminary calculations – it’s simply an instantiation of the hypothesis revealed into a number. I’m happy to have your help in refining it :)
Have you got any instantiations of quantification for your preferred hypothesis, or do you still depend on ambiguity? :)
July 1, 2014 at 18:49
“ Just because we know it to be false, doesn’t mean we don’t start with that.”
But it’s nonsense to start off with a null that’s known to be false. Because the hypothesis we are testing and the null are mutually exclusive, a null that’s known to be false, implies a hypothesis that’s known to be true, right? So if we already know it is true, what are we actually testing?
“Fair enough, but we can at least ….”
So what? The point is that both your hypothesis and the null can be false at the same time, so they’re not mutually exclusive, so you don’t have a valid null. There has to be a flaw in your logic.
“ You didn’t point to anything – you simply claimed “science!” If you’re going to critique, be specific.”
I was referring to textbook science on atmospheric dispersion and mixing. You claimed it was “unkown unknowns”. I it were “unkown unkowns” I wouldn’t know what it was, so I would be unable to mention atmospheric dispersion and mixing, right?
And if you’re not willing to accept textbook science, what’s next? Do we have to elaborate on what CO2 is, and why there are human emissions?
But I will help you with a thought experiment. Suppose you have lots of measuring stations for CO2: one on the beach near LA, one 25 miles to the west, the next one 50 miles to the west, and 100, 200, 400 miles, etcetera. What would a every doubling of the distance do with the weekly cycle, do you think? Would it be the same for every station, or would it decrease with the distance? And what would that do with the result of your back of the napkin calculation? Any idea?
July 1, 2014 at 18:51
> it’s simply an instantiation of the hypothesis revealed into a number.
Which hypothesis, that there’s a statistical relationship? If that’s the case, then I’m afraid you’re working to corroborate an unfalsifiable hypotheses, dear krischel. This means its set of falsifiers is empty.
Funny, that.
:-P
July 1, 2014 at 18:56
@Hans Custers: “Because the hypothesis we are testing and the null are mutually exclusive, a null that’s known to be false, implies a hypothesis that’s known to be true, right?”
Implies. Not guarantees, but implies.
Not-P -> Q
We cannot, from P, assert Q is true. That’s called denying the antecedent.
“The point is that both your hypothesis and the null can be false at the same time, so they’re not mutually exclusive”
Check your logic again:
P Q
1 0
0 1
0 0
1 1
The only item disallowed in a mutually exclusive situation is 1 1.
“I was referring to textbook science on atmospheric dispersion and mixing.”
Cite it.
“Suppose you have lots of measuring stations for CO2: one on the beach near LA, one 25 miles to the west, the next one 50 miles to the west, and 100, 200, 400 miles, etcetera. What would a every doubling of the distance do with the weekly cycle, do you think?”
If LA is the only source of emissions, you’ll see attenuation. If LA is simply one source out of many, and we’ve got fairly well distributed sources, and they’re of such magnitude that they compete with natural drivers, we should see a fairly strong signal.
Again, we’re not trying to argue that point sources have signals that attenuate, we’re trying to argue that humanity, as a whole, spread across the planet, has a signal that should be discernable, because the work week is generally synchronized across the planet.
July 1, 2014 at 19:26
Mutually exclusive means: it one is true, the other is false. Nothings else. The only two options are 1 0 and 0 1. I think you’re confusing null hypothesis and falsifier. They’re not the same thing.
And then the thought experiment: I was trying to explain that you will measure different weekly cycles on different places on the ocean. The result of your calculations will deped on where CO2 is measured. So why would Mauna Loa somehow be representative for the globe? Why not the South Pole? Simply because the weekly cycle is below the detection limit? And what if there would be better equipment on the South Pole, so it could detect a very small weekly cycle? Say, 1% of the one in Mauna Loa? Would the human impact in CO2 levels suddenly be 100 times less?
July 1, 2014 at 19:32
@hans custers: You’re confusing mutually exclusive with an XOR gate. Mutually exclusive is a NAND gate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events
“In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot be true at the same time.”
Nothing prevents them from both being false.
“I was trying to explain that you will measure different weekly cycles on different places on the ocean. The result of your calculations will deped on where CO2 is measured. ”
Only if you assume that the human signal is small enough and poorly distributed enough to be affected by that distance.
“So why would Mauna Loa somehow be representative for the globe? Why not the South Pole? Simply because the weekly cycle is below the detection limit?”
Actually, if you’ll read my comments, I *agree* with Cervany and Coakley, and am willing to discount Mauna Loa data as contaminated. The fact that the weekly cycle in the South Pole is below our detection limit actually gives us a constraint on the magnitude of human influence…back of the napkin, 0.52%.
You can get more human responsibility if you assume Mauna Loa is representative (around 11%), but I think that’s a hard case to make.
July 1, 2014 at 19:53
> Not-P -> Q
That’s not the way to express “are mutually exclusive,” krischel.
Try with an exclusive OR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or
Here would be Hans’ argument:
[1] H1 vv H2
[2] not H1
[3] H2
The obvious difficulty is to establish [1], whose equivalent is “H1 == not H2”. But assuming that [1] is the case, we could decompose its equivalent equivalence as “H1 -> not H2” and “not H2 -> H1”.
So the best way to test “not P -> Q” is to find “not Q” or to find “P,” (i.e. de Morgan). At no time Hans affirms any consequent in positing the mutual exclusion. This accusation rests on krischel’s own interpretation.
***
Funny that krischel has problem translating “are mutually exclusive.”
Even funnier that he keeps injecting “affirming the consequent” when more reasonable alternatives are so easy to find.
July 1, 2014 at 19:56
@willard: “Try with an exclusive OR:”
Except that’s not the mutually exclusive gate. You need the NAND gate :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events
“In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot be true at the same time.”
Nothing prevents them from both being false.
Funny that you’d hop on and defend Hans Custer’s clear misunderstanding of the meaning of “mutually exclusive” :) You’re really playing this as a team sport, not a search for truth, aren’t you? :)
July 1, 2014 at 20:02
Ah, semantics. Apparently, the right expression in English is “colletively exhaustive”. I think I made pretty clear that that is what I meant. English is not my mother tongue, so I may not find exactly the right expression now and then. Anyway, hypothesis and null should be collectively exhaustive, that was the point. So, your null is not valid.
Ah, and what you’re actually saying is this: if there’s any place on earth where there’s no weekly cycle in CO2, than the human contribution to the CO2 level is non-existent. Do I get that right?
Oh, by the way, I see you’re comparing the weekly cycle with the annual increase. Why? Why not the increase per week, or per day, or per second, or maybe per decade or century?
July 1, 2014 at 20:02
@willard/hans custers: More information on XOR in regards to mutual exclusion:
http://lc.brooklyn.cuny.edu/smarttutor/logic/mutual.html
“Mutual Exclusion states that in an exclusive disjunction, if one of the exclusive disjuncts is true, then the other has to be false.”
In specific, mutual exclusion only allows you to conclude falsity of one operand if you know the truth of the other.
You cannot conclude the truth of an operand simply by knowing the falsity of the other.
July 1, 2014 at 20:07
> Nothing prevents them [events] from both being false.
Of course there could be: take “P and not P” and assume bivalence. Falsifiability itself rests on such cases, since modus tollens might not apply otherwise. Unless krischel wishes to ditch bivalence, his “nothing prevents” might be a bit farfetched.
Funny that krischel switches from hypotheses to events.
July 1, 2014 at 20:10
@hans custers:”Anyway, hypothesis and null should be collectively exhaustive, that was the point. So, your null is not valid.”
No, that’s not true. A hypothesis and the null do not have to be collectively exhaustive. It is not only possible, but probable, that multiple hypotheses can exclude the null – differentiating between all of them may require a collectively exhaustive list, but excluding the null does not require a collectively exhaustive list.
In fact, if you believe that, then the supposed falsification criteria of AGW which talks about “known” factors is patently *not* enough, since it is not collectively exhaustive and doesn’t include *unknown* natural factors.
“Ah, and what you’re actually saying is this: if there’s any place on earth where there’s no weekly cycle in CO2, than the human contribution to the CO2 level is non-existent.”
No, I’m simply asserting it is constrained. It could very well be so small as to be undetectable, but I’m not going so far to insist that it is zero.
“Oh, by the way, I see you’re comparing the weekly cycle with the annual increase. Why? Why not the increase per week, or per day, or per second, or maybe per decade or century?”
Good catch! Adjusted, it looks like we only constrain it to less than 27%, rather than the abysmal 0.52%
Is that a result that is compatible with your belief system?
July 1, 2014 at 20:13
@hans custers: I guess at the end of the day, I think that if we can agree in principle that through signals analysis we can constrain the limits of human responsibility on global CO2 levels, then we can falsify specific assertions of % responsible AGW.
On the other hand, I still insist that ambiguous assertions of AGW that do not quantify human contribution, or do not provide falsification criteria of human contribution levels to constrain them, are not falsifiable.
Is that compatible with your beliefs?
July 1, 2014 at 20:13
> You cannot conclude the truth of an operand simply by knowing the falsity of the other.
I don’t usually conclude truths, but when I do, it’s about propositions, not operands.
Funny that krischel confuses operands and propositions.
***
Let’s apply krischel newly discovered anti-realism to the usual falsication example:
[1] All crows are black
[2] Here’s White Crow, who is white.
What are we to conclude about [1]? It depends upon these:
[3] Crows are either black or non-black.
[4] What is white is not black.
Bivalence is [3]; mutual exclusion is [4].
Funny that a falsificationist like krischel discovers that Popper was a realist.
July 1, 2014 at 20:19
@willard: Mutual exclusion:
Crows cannot be both white and black
Crow #1 is not white, so it could be black, or it could be chartruese.
Crow #1 is not black, so it could be white, or it could be chartruese.
Crow #1 is white, so it *cannot* be black.
Crow #2 is black, so it *cannot* be white.
You’re trying to argue “collectively exhaustive”, which is something different :)
Hey, even Hans admitted he was imprecise and mistaken – are you still going to hold onto this one?
July 1, 2014 at 20:36
The expression “mutually exclusive” has a specific meaning in classical logic, and it’s the exclusive or, just like Hans implied.
Of course, there are cases in real life when events can be both mutually exclusive and non exhaustive. A crow can’t be black or non-black. Both are mutually exclusive, assuming crows exist. The silly “affirmation of the consequent” can be put to rest.
***
The dodge krischel now attempts rests on moving from hypotheses to events, perhaps because his falsifiability desiderata would show how wrong he is. This dodge has the power to destroy both frequentist statistical inference and falsifiability as krischel held it since now.
***
You’re slowly but surely coming to appreciate holism, dear krischel. Too bad if your realization of your progress escapes you. In the end, holism wins.
:-P
July 1, 2014 at 20:38
“I think that if we can agree in principle that through signals analysis we can constrain the limits of human responsibility on global CO2 levels, then we can falsify specific assertions of % responsible AGW.”
I think that your approach is utter nonsense. We found one major flaw, but there’s more. For example, you seem to be unaware of the fact that it takes time for air to travel to the South Pole. If it comes from Australia it takes a few days (I guess), from South-Asia a bit more, from China or Japan or Europe or North-America even more. So all it takes to destroy the weekly cycle in the South Pole measurements, would be some occasional changes in wind direction.
Let me put it mildly: you did not manage to convince me that you have a better scientific judgement that the scientist who actually work on the subject. It seems your definition of “falsifiability” is still different from mine, or Willard’s. I’ll leave it to that, for now.
July 1, 2014 at 20:55
@willard: “The expression “mutually exclusive” has a specific meaning in classical logic, and it’s the exclusive or, just like Hans implied.”
No. You’re wrong. It’s a NAND. :)
@hans custers:”I think that your approach is utter nonsense.”
I’m not asking you to endorse the specifics of the calculations, I’m asking if you agree that, in principle, that we can constrain the limits of human responsibility on global CO2 levels from signals analysis.
It seems that what you’re saying is that anthropogenic signals can be buffered…which I suppose I can agree with…but that then opens up the door for *any* anthropogenic signal over *any* time period from also being buffered.
“you did not manage to convince me that you have a better scientific judgement that the scientist who actually work on the subject.”
So, you think that “the scientist who actually work on the subject” believe that AGW contribution levels cannot be constrained by signals analysis in the global CO2 levels? That seems like an odd claim.
What do you think the consensus (of your favored scientists) for the specific human contribution responsibility to global CO2 levels? 100%? 50%? 25%?
July 1, 2014 at 21:04
OK, very last one.
“constrain the limits of human responsibility on global CO2 levels from signals analysis could mean so much, that in fact it’s a meaningless phrase. Don’t know why I should respond to that.
July 1, 2014 at 21:09
@Hans Custers: I suppose here’s the impression that’s being given on this whole “is climate science falsifiable” question – there is no assertion of quantity, and because of that, it seems like we’re lumping the option of 0.52% human contribution in with the option of 100% human contribution. This kind of ambiguity makes AGW as you put it, “a meaningless phrase”.
How about this – do you think it is possible at all to constrain the limits of human responsibility for global CO2 levels? Are there *any* observations that could lead us, step-wise, to the truth?
July 2, 2014 at 00:52
> No. You’re wrong. It’s a NAND.
Yet another proof by assertion.
The only difference between a NAND and a XOR is when both propositions connected by these connectors are false. In the case of a NAND, it’s true, i.e. a NAND is only false when both propositions are true. In the case of the XOR, it’s false, i.e. you need an odd number of inputs to trigger the logic gate.
That can’t be settled my semantics alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events#Logic
That’s it. What to do when the two events are false is a matter of convention, mainly. In classical logic, it’s a XOR, for reasons that may be related to the paradoxes of implication.
It’s quite clear what Hans meant, and it’s not a NAND.
***
Let the two propositions be hypotheses H1 and H2. According to krischel, the only way to properly interpret “H1 and H2 are mutually exclusive” is to say that it is true when both H1 et H2 are false.
Think about it: when H1 and H2 are false, the expression “H1 and H2 are mutually exclusive” is true according to krischel. How can he know, if both events fail to materialize?
But now, that should make all the difference in the world. But if both H1 or H2 are false, the truth value of “H1 and H2 are mutually exclusive” is utterly irrelevant.
July 2, 2014 at 01:10
@willard: Read your cite :)
“In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot be true at the same time.”
Nothing there says they cannot be false at the same time :)
July 2, 2014 at 01:17
From krischel’s own resource:
http://lc.brooklyn.cuny.edu/smarttutor/logic/mutual.html
Sigh. I suppose now krischel could reply: “made you look!”
July 2, 2014 at 01:18
@willard: Did you read your cite? :)
“Mutual Exclusion states that in an exclusive disjunction, if one of the exclusive disjuncts is true, then the other has to be false.”
In specific, mutual exclusion only allows you to conclude falsity of one operand if you know the truth of the other.
You cannot conclude the truth of an operand simply by knowing the falsity of the other.
July 2, 2014 at 01:27
> Nothing there says they cannot be false at the same time.
The OR connective is false when both propositions it connects are false. A XOR simply adds the “constraint” to this that both propositions can’t be true at the same time. From 1110 you go to 0110. That’s what a logical constraint means.
***
Think of it in probabilistic terms. If Hans asks krischel to calculate the odds to hit either a 3 or a 4 with two dice but not both, I’m sure Hans would be surprised if krischel said 34/36 because he only excluded the throws 3-4 and 4-3.
July 2, 2014 at 01:30
@willard: Read your cite again :)
“Mutual Exclusion states that in an exclusive disjunction, if one of the exclusive disjuncts is true, then the other has to be false.”
Note that XOR is an exclusive disjunction. Note that Mutual Exclusion is *NOT* an exclusive disjunction.
Note that Mutual Exclusion means that if you see one as true, the other must be is false.
Note that Mutual Exclusion does *not* mean that if you see one as false, the other must be true :)
Do you really want to keep beating on a drum showing that you don’t understand what “mutually exclusive” means? :)
Drum away, drummer boy!
July 2, 2014 at 01:39
> You cannot conclude the truth of an operand simply by knowing the falsity of the other.
Of course you can. If P or Q is false, P & Q can’t be true and P NAND Q can’t be false. Et cetera. See the table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Truth_table_for_all_binary_logical_operators
Perhaps you meant “you cannot always conclude”?
***
Where did you learn your logic, krischel, in Amsterdam? It’s supposed to be the logic Mecca. Here, for instance:
http://www.illc.uva.nl/
Lots of big guns there.
Unless it was in the coffeehouses?
July 2, 2014 at 01:41
K, can you present some examples, within the practice of Earth Sciences, where this “mutual exclusion” principle must be applied?
July 2, 2014 at 01:45
> Note that Mutual Exclusion means that if you see one as true, the other must be is false.
It does not mean that if both are false, mutual exclusion is true either. Read your cite again:
http://lc.brooklyn.cuny.edu/smarttutor/logic/mutual.html
Your claim that it means NAND is false, krischel. The best you can claim is indeterminacy.
July 2, 2014 at 02:24
@willard: “Mutual Exclusion is a rule of inference pertaining to the XOR operator.”
It pertains to the XOR operator – it *isn’t* the XOR operator :)
Look at the cite again :)
I can’t believe you’re still drumming on this!
July 2, 2014 at 02:28
@citizenschallenge: “K, can you present some examples, within the practice of Earth Sciences, where this “mutual exclusion” principle must be applied?”
The idea of excluding the null is to have your hypothesis and the null hypothesis mutually exclusive.
Hans Custers, who isn’t a native english speaker, meant to say that the proposed hypothesis and the null should be “colletively exhaustive”, not “mutually exclusive”. I disagreed with this contention, and only go so far as to say they should be “mutually exclusive”.
willard, on the other hand, can’t seem to learn english properly, even though it’s his native language :) He’s continued to bang on the drum of “XOR is mutual exclusion”, when in fact, his own cites show that it isn’t, and that in order to use mutual exclusion pertaining to XOR gates, you only get to derive falsity of one from truth of one, you cannot derive truth of one simply by falsity of one :)
So, if you’re going to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it should be mutually exclusive with the null – that is to say, the null and your hypothesis should not be able to be true at the same time.
July 8, 2014 at 09:29
— citizenschallenge of June 18, 2014 at 16:20 —
1) You accuse me of misrepresention – that’s pretty lame.
“You can’t seriously talk about climate when you refuse to try to understand the underlying issues you’re confused about!”
2) I’m confused, because I insist falsifiability is an essential part of the scientific method? Well, do you disgree?
“… people are trying to explain regarding the changes …”
3) Before trying to convince me of AGW, you need to convince me it’s actually science – that’s where falsifiability comes in.
“it’s really irritating how denialists refuse to actually discuss what others try to share”
4) Being irrated is no substitute for sticking to the issue at hand: falsifiability.
5) Drop the name-calling, it reduces your credibility.
“As for railing against the Republican/Libertarian …”
6) You have to bring politics into it, indicating once again that it’s about politics with you rather than science.
7) Anytime you wish to discuss politics rather than science, I’m ready for that as well.
“… but those are the facts”
8) Why should I believe your version of “the facts”? Do you think somehow you have credibility because you call me a denialist?
“… rather than spending all your focus on fallacious debates tactics …”
9) That’s another ad hom – I’m thinking that’s all you’ve got, but it doesn’t substitute for a scientific argument. You’ll have to actually make the point that I’m fallacious, you just can’t repeatedly make that assertion.
So why not address the last step of the scientific method, namely: it has to be falsifiable? You DO understand what that means, don’t you?
July 8, 2014 at 09:32
— willard (@nevaudit) of June 18, 2014 at 16:26 —
My response to Heathergirl1234? I think my post of June 18 serves as my response. What more would you have me say?
As I recall, she and I agree, but the response is up to you.
July 8, 2014 at 23:01
> What more would you have me say?
Something that would satisfy the concerns you expressed earlier. Show me an answer to Heathergirl1234’s question that would satisfy your requirements, and I’ll show you mine. Meanwhile, here’s Victor’s, which you might have missed:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-22371
Incidentally, this response repeats Bart V’s, and if you really wish to express concerns regarding his tone, then I’d suggest you to revise your policy about tone.
***
Also note that you can’t agree with what Heathergirl1234 says if all she does is to ask a question. Just Asking Questions is also known as JAQing off:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
If what you have in mind is your comment about falsifiability, then I think the main article provides enough examples to meet msot reasonable requests. If heathergirl1234 wishes to know more about falsifiability in general, she can follow the breadcrumbs I provided so far in the thread. She could also ask any epistemology or philosophy of science professor she can find.
For an introduction to these questions, I suggest this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Web-Belief-W-Quine/dp/0075536099?tag=donations09-20
She can find chapters from this book here and there online.
Many thanks!
July 8, 2014 at 23:13
@Ken Libamanti: The basic problem is this – the falsifiability question really comes down to a *specification* question, that is, what is the quantified effect of AGW? 10%? 20%? 50%? 51%? 100%? 110%?
While willard has spoken eloquently and creatively to avoid being pinned down to an actual specification, without it, all we have are straw men of our own creation – which is used as a debate device to deny refutation.
We may agree that there is a non-zero impact of humanity on global temperatures. We might even agree that the non-zero impact is overall *positive*. However, there’s a huge gulf between +.00001% and +100%, and no warmist here has yet been willing to actually be specific enough to even get close to the idea of falsifiability.
July 9, 2014 at 02:46
> [No one] here has yet been willing to actually be specific enough to even get close to the idea of falsifiability.
Courtesy of Vaughan Pratt:
http://www.allisons.org/ll/MML/20031120e/
Let readers wonder why Krischel invented his own idiosyncratic desiderata.
July 9, 2014 at 03:46
@willard: You managed to reply, once again, without actually taking a stand on what percentage or amount of AGW you’re defending :)
Fun fact – with enough variables to tweak, you can fit your algorithm to almost any curve :)
Click to access Chapter-1-Models.pdf
July 9, 2014 at 05:06
> what percentage or amount of AGW you’re defending
You’re burdening with a defense to which I made no commitment yet, dear Krischel. You’re also projecting something that only makes sense in your very personal interpretation of falsificationism. When you’ll show me you can satisfy your own desiderata, I’ll see what I can do.
***
Here’s a model that fits the data within one Millikelvin:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/
July 9, 2014 at 05:10
@willard: Your lack of commitment to anything specific has been noted :)
I love this quote directly from your cite: “With enough parameters one can make any two curves equal to within any desired precision.”
Well said, indeed :)
July 15, 2014 at 06:39
Let’s just take one question she asked and I will paraphrase: How can you believe in AGW when no matter the weather, some AGW guy says, “That proves AGW”?
I agree with her because I have noticed the same thing EXACTLY. If you are someone with a scientific turn of mind observing this, can you not see that that would make you extremely skeptical of AGW?
As to suggesting links to articles and recommending books, even if other reasons are ignored why that doesn’t wash, there is still this: one cannot debate them when you disagree; flesh and blood is required for that.
And forgive me for noting this: believers in AGW that I have run across do NOT inspire confidence. Most know very little about science or statistics, and I have to wonder why their faith is blind. At the very least, they should be agnostic on the issue. Which is what I am.
Bart suggests that mentioning “things like global cooling or settled science” marks her as a skeptic, which she already clearly implies that she is. That cheap shot wasn’t necessary, was it?
> citizenschallenge Says: No Heather I’m afraid you are not honestly “skeptical” I say this because I know that the information is out there.
Attacking her honesty? Ridiculous.
> Victor says, “The reason why it is communicated that there is a consensus is because the public has the wrong impression that scientists are not sure yet whether climate change is a problem.”
No, that is NOT the impression the public has, at least for those that know some science — it is that the pro-AGW folks lack credibility. Publications are refusing to publish articles by any scientist that is skeptical. That may seem okay to you, but to the public it smells.
> Then Brand says, “As soon as you get an answer… you jump
to another ‘question’”
Well I have been reading Heather and she had a lot of questions — seems normal to me. She finally gave up.
> citizenschallenge Says: “The Republican approach, which
you parrot quite well”
That is an ad hom attack. That does NOT substitute for a defense of your POV. That indicates that his pro-AGW views are based on politics, NOT science.
The posts responding to her ignored her falsifiablity question — instead, tried to convince her by attacking her.
July 15, 2014 at 06:42
Is there a way to edit what you just posted?
July 15, 2014 at 14:56
> How can you believe in AGW when no matter the weather, some AGW guy says, “That proves AGW”?
Let’s try to answer what looks like a rhetorical question.
There’s no need to believe in AGW. It’s just the best explanation there is.
People say all kinds of silly things about relativity or evolution. That does not mean these theories are wrong.
***
> Well I have been reading Heather and she had a lot of questions — seems normal to me.
Indeed, JAQing off is quite normal:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Lots of these questions were rhetorical, like the one Ken underlined.
If there are others, my prediction is that they can be found here:
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
or there:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
***
> one cannot debate them when you disagree; flesh and blood is required for that.
I thought Heather was just asking questions.
***
> The posts responding to her ignored her falsifiablity question — instead, tried to convince her by attacking her.
This is demonstrably false, at least insofar as Ken is referring to Bart or Victor’s question.
Victim playing is boring.
Think about it. Someone writes a post listing what it would take to falsify AGW, and someone comes up in the comment thread and asks: “yes, but what would it take to falsify AGW?”
JAQing off is easier than reading.
July 15, 2014 at 16:47
@Willard
We’re at a standoff then. Until you answer my questions even tho you label them rhetorical, until you stop trying to smear skeptics by bringing up relativity or evolution, we’ll get nowhere.
You don’t see the obvious ad homs directed at Heather, perhaps because you use them yourself. You say “demonstrably” false: okay, demonstrate. You of course cannot. I have directly told you why giving me links to follow is useless, STILL you pepper your post with links!
You dance around legit questions rather than answering them. I want to hear YOUR defense — I want see what YOU know. Believers in AGW generally don’t know ANYTHING about science which is why they produce links and refuse to engage personally. It is they that declare that AGW is “settled science”.
“There’s no need to believe in AGW. It’s just the best explanation there is.”, say you. Is THAT supposed to be a real answer? That is merely an assertion, not anything to assuage skeptics. Is “JAQing off” supposed to enlighten her? No, it’s insulting, and was meant to be.
Dr. Landsea and I are still skeptical. So much for consensus science. Probably a double-blind study is needed.
July 15, 2014 at 17:24
@willard: “There’s no need to believe in AGW. It’s just the best explanation there is.”
Sounds like someone telling us why we should believe in God :)
July 16, 2014 at 17:49
Ken Libamanti Says: July 15, 2014 at 06:39
> citizenschallenge Says: “The Republican approach, which
you parrot quite well”
~ ~ ~
That is an ad hom attack. That does NOT substitute for a defense of your POV. That indicates that his pro-AGW views are based on politics, NOT science.
The posts responding to her ignored her falsifiablity question — instead, tried to convince her by attacking her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It not an ad hom attack when it’s a description of how the Republicans have handled their political campaign that puts personal interests above a rational look at the science and that’s founded and dependent on the conscienceless repletion of known lies!
Just examine the stuff your Senator Inhofe has been pulling for the past decades:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/james-inhofe-says-bible-refutes-climate-change
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3416539/inhofe-senate-epw-committee/
http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for resenting people sharing educational links – well we know no one is convinced by other’s arguments if they don’t want to listen – that’s why we try to share credible information that will help those with good-faith curiosity to learn on their own, thus enabling them to draw the lines between the dots – but then if you refuse to look at the information guess we all lose.
Ridiculing authoritative links simply underscores your disingenuous nature regarding the honest learning about AGW. {But, then Republican still think Bush/Cheney did the right thing with war of convenience in Iraq. So there’s not much hope, is there?}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PS. curiosity this is sort of on the topic:
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Nasif S. Nahle – a look at Science in a Vacuum
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/nasif-nahle-science-in-vacuum-1.html
Then Monday, July 14, 2014
The Unspoken Backbone of Climate Science Denial
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/backbone-climate-science-denial.html
July 16, 2014 at 17:54
Libamanti, unfortunately I don’t think we are able to get back in for a little editing and we are stuck with our typos and booboos.
lordie knows I could use a “edit” opportunity. Please note “curiosity” was supposed to be “curiously” and I’ll pretend I haven’t noticed the other couple errors in my just written post. ;- )
July 16, 2014 at 18:00
@citizenschallenge: Friendly advice:
1) arguing about whether or not Republicans or Democrats are rational or moral people is a losing argument. Stick to the science, and you’ll get more people listening;
2) understand that your “authoritative links” aren’t quite as authoritative as you think they are. I’ll admit, out of the dozens you posted, one of them really got me thinking, and I had to get over the partisan tone of the thing before I could usefully listen to it, but many many of the cites you make simply echo the *political* position you have, and don’t adequately address the *science*.
I think in the end you’re well intentioned, but you’ve still got a lot of work to do on self-reflection, empathy, and challenging your own preconceived notions. You’ve got useful things to say, but all too often they’re surrounded by cruft that is actually disadvantageous to your purported convictions.
July 17, 2014 at 02:55
krischel Says: July 16, 2014 at 18:00
Regarding Republican comment
You’re ignoring that the issue of depending on a pack of lies that has been addressed from every angle.
Here’s a collection: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Hell even you have misrepresented the consensus understanding in order to support you point.
As for your “valid” arguments, they are all about creating impossible expectations – which is no way to learn about what’s happening.
July 17, 2014 at 03:00
@citizenschallenge: You can certainly be more empathetic to rational disagreement with your belief system than that :)
Frankly, it is just as reasonable for people of different political persuasion to accuse Democrats of lying, cheating, stealing, and whoring themselves in pursuit of policies that have no basis in the science. You’ll get nowhere with convincing people of your position if you start off insisting that they’re somehow morally deficient or evil.
That being said, I thought we had gotten at least to the point where we agreed that a specific statement of quantifiable AGW could be falsifiable by signals analysis of the weekly human CO2 emissions cycle – it’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
Asking for falsifiability isn’t creating impossible expectations – it’s following the scientific method :)
July 17, 2014 at 07:23
OK krischel help me out, I’m trying to study up on this “Null Hypothesis” 101, using:
Basic concepts of hypothesis testing
Handbook of Biological Statistics
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/stathyptesting.html
~ ~ ~
Null Hypothesis Martyn Shuttleworth
https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis
~ ~ ~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
~ ~ ~
Sure, pretty basic stuff, but that’s were understanding starts, with the basics.
In any event, krischel I’m trying to understanding this Null Hypothesis and how it’s supposed to function regarding dynamic geophysical processes, process that can not be measured with absolute precision.
Seems to me Null Hypothesis is a statistical test that scientists uses for very specific questions within their specific studies.
Seems to me the “consensus” is the result of thousands of small Null Hypotheses succeeding or failing
and each providing another pixel of information.
I believe you try to get people to focus on the pixels in order to ignore the image.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mind you I’m no scholar – but I am an old handyman, these days I’m constantly confronted with old homes and their nightmare situations of all varieties. In other words, I feel like I live “Null Hypothesis situations” every time I’m on a job – so I think I know something about approaching the unknown in a situation where my choices make a big difference in outcomes.
Then I read your evasions to Hans Custers/Bart Verheggen/Willard/Victor Venema…
In truth when reading your stuff all I hear is philosophizing with no connection to how the real world operates. That’s why I keep saying you set impossible standards (so of course your expectations will never be met.)
Still, I’ll listening to you now, how about sharing some critiques, comments, suggestions?
How’s this for a string of Null Hypotheses:
Our planet, by the good fortune of it’s orbital local plus the stability afforded by it’s partnership with our moon, evolved into a global heat distribution engine, infinitely complex, yet composed of basic and understandable components {Y?N}
These components follow fundamental understandable rules of behavior. {Y?N}
{Scientists know about the various drivers that influence our climate as the eons of time changes march by, perhaps not with absolute precision, but resolution short coming should not make us blind to trends and where they are taking us.}
GHG levels are but one of our climate’s features –
but GHGs is still a major driver that acts in concert with other “drivers”. {Y?N}
Society has introduced geologically massive quantities of these GHGs into our thin atmosphere. {Y?N}
~ ~ ~
Here’s a null hypothesis test to run some models on:
Warming a closed system will energize that system. {Y?N}
Energizing our planet’s hydrological cycle will resolute in enhanced torrential rain and drought and wind events. {Y?N}
A warming global heat distribution engine will not impact the hydrological cycle of our planet – meaning there will be no change in historical weather patterns. {Y?N}
July 17, 2014 at 07:30
Regarding: krischel Says: July 17, 2014 at 03:00
~ ~ ~
so long as you don’t look at the evidence of dirty trick and lies and malicious attacks on reputable climate scientists that did not deserve the attack,
Yea K, keep that blind-eye shut and you can stay secure in your delusion.
July 17, 2014 at 08:01
@citizenschallenge:”In any event, krischel I’m trying to understanding this Null Hypothesis and how it’s supposed to function regarding dynamic geophysical processes, process that can not be measured with absolute precision.”
The null hypothesis is that there is no causal relationship between the things you’re studying – it has nothing to do with precision of measurement.
In the case of climate change, the null hypothesis is that there is no causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and global climate. We know there was climate change before humans existed, so we don’t start off believing that climate change is caused by humans (though, if we play the science game right, and are careful about putting together a good, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, we might prove the null wrong).
“Seems to me the “consensus” is the result of thousands of small Null Hypotheses succeeding or failing
and each providing another pixel of information.”
The “consensus” was always a political idea – science doesn’t happen by voting :) The real problem though, is that without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you can have all kinds of pixels of information that don’t show you the massive holes in your hypothesis. Astrology has lots of pixels of information, and they try to paint beautiful pictures with it – but confirming data is not sufficient for science – one must be rigorous and thorough about the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
“Our planet, by the good fortune of it’s orbital local plus the stability afforded by it’s partnership with our moon, evolved into a global heat distribution engine, infinitely complex, yet composed of basic and understandable components {Y?N}”
Not sure what you’re getting at here – infinitely complex yet basic and understandable? I think you have to pick *one*.
“These components follow fundamental understandable rules of behavior. {Y?N}”
I suggest you look at Wolfram’s cellular automata – http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/cellular-automata-complexity/
Even with understandable and deterministic rules of behavior, systems can defy prediction based on chaos theory.
“GHG levels are but one of our climate’s features –
but GHGs is still a major driver that acts in concert with other “drivers”. {Y?N}”
That’s really where the debate lies – are GHGs a major driver, or are they mostly followers? It could very well be that GHGs are important to the final climate, but for CO2, in particular, measured in parts per million, it’s likely that it has much less to do with global climate than say, ocean currents and cloud albedo.
“Society has introduced geologically massive quantities of these GHGs into our thin atmosphere. {Y?N}”
Absolutely not. On the geologic scale, we’re actually still below average on CO2. We’ve arguably *emitted* massive quantities, but there’s little reason to believe that these quantities haven’t been buffered (as we’ve discussed before, the missing CO2). Using the anthropogenic work week cycle, we can back of the napkin figure we’re at the most responsible for a small fraction of actual CO2 changes.
“Warming a closed system will energize that system. {Y?N}”
We’re not a closed system.
“Energizing our planet’s hydrological cycle will resolute in enhanced torrential rain and drought and wind events. {Y?N}”
Increasing global temperature by primarily increasing temperature at the poles, leads to less temperature differentials between the poles and the equator, which leads to less cyclonic activity.
Having an energized hydrological cycle should enhance rain, but not drought -> ENSO, on the other hand, has very well identified impacts of drought, and rain, in different regions.
“A warming global heat distribution engine will not impact the hydrological cycle of our planet – meaning there will be no change in historical weather patterns. {Y?N}”
There is *always* change in historical weather patterns. Further, there is always change in the hydrological cycle.
At the end, though, I still think you misunderstand what the null hypothesis is. In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change. We don’t have to specify all the parameters of this natural change, but we start off believing that the earth changes now for the same reasons why it has changed before humanity.
What this means, is that if you want to show AGW, you really have to show that climate change isn’t natural – which is particularly hard when you actually don’t know all the drivers and their interdependencies. Even worse is that every climate change observed in the modern era is *not* unprecedented – look at a long enough timeline, and we’ve seen every rate of change, and magnitude of change, previously.
So far, and in great thanks to your cite of inez fung, I think the best case to start the AGW science discussion is to identify the magnitude of the work week anthropogenic cycle on global CO2 – as it stands, we’ve mostly only got negative results, leaving us with fairly tiny estimates of human contribution, but it’s definitely the right start. Based on the signals analysis of the work week cycle in CO2, you should be able to constrain the responsibility of human impact on CO2. After that is established, we might get to the harder question as to whether or not CO2 is a primary driver of temperature, or say, oceans and albedo are. But if you’re at least willing to entertain the idea of signals analysis for a clearly anthropogenic signal of a work week (there is no natural 5 day/2 day cycle, obviously, and certainly not one that matches our Gregorian calendar with its various leap days), then you’re on the path to actually getting to a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis.
July 17, 2014 at 08:02
@citizenschallenge: “so long as you don’t look at the evidence of dirty trick and lies and malicious attacks on reputable climate scientists that did not deserve the attack,”
Did you actually read the climategate emails? The dirty tricks, lies, and attacks on reputable scientists came from the warmists :)
July 20, 2014 at 21:00
Thanks for that lengthy response, I’ve only had a chance to skim it, but will spend more time with it when I can. Still I’m curious about this most odd statement :
“The “consensus” was always a political idea”
~ ~ ~
Do actually believe that?
Question #1
Isn’t the entire “verifiability of experiments” a part of reaching a consensus understanding.
Question #2
If “consensus” is a “political idea” why is it the corner stone of the medical sciences and medical treatment? (just using the most dramatic example)
Question #3
I wonder if you can define “consensus”?
Question #4
Can you think of a field of science where reaching a common understanding is considered unimportant, or even negative?
July 21, 2014 at 02:21
@citizenschallenge:
Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements.
#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that.
#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind.
#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align.
#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress.
That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.
July 21, 2014 at 19:01
krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 –
“Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. ”
~ ~ ~
Do you actually believe that?
What’s the point of designing reproducible experiments –
if not a desire to find support in “consensus”?
~ ~ ~
Don’t you appreciate that the “consensus” is nothing more then the “general agreement” among informed experts.
And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?
~ ~ ~
#1 Has nothing to do with consensus, because you refuse to acknowledge the warming of polar regions and ocean depths. – you have presented a cheap Argument from Ignorance.
#2 Why did you ignore “consensus” question? Merely complained that medical sciences aren’t perfect, get’s no one anywhere.
Tell me, if you suffered severe bodily injury, would want to be taken to your favorite mechanic or your PhD philosophy sparing mates – or would you prefer to be dropped off in a certified Emergency Room?
Think the principle of “consensus” might have something to do with that choice?
#3 Is an example of the pure cynicism that is the lifeblood of the contrarian. Trying compare the proceed of learned folks with expert level understanding and the conclusion they draw from their experiments and experiences – with the flakey civilian population who can be swayed by any well scripted soundbite.
#4 There’s a big difference between brutally honest and being a malicious vandal who uses lies of convenience (such as your #1) to confuse and stonewall – rather than to learn and move forward in our understanding.
July 21, 2014 at 19:19
krischel Says: – July 17, 2014 at 08:02
Did you actually read the climategate emails? The dirty tricks, lies, and attacks on reputable scientists came from the warmists :)
~ ~ ~
I already answered in the affirmative – yes I have ready many of those emails.
Now, how about you sharing which of those emails you find most heinous?
Can you support that opinion with any facts?
~ ~ ~
Oh and, exactly who are these “reputable” scientist that were “attacked”
and what did those “attacks” consist of?
July 21, 2014 at 20:29
@citizenschallenge: “What’s the point of designing reproducible experiments – if not a desire to find support in “consensus”?”
The point is to offer up a better argument than “believe us because there is consensus” – reproducible experiments allow people to check your work without having to take your word for it.
There really are three ways you can create consensus:
1) poorly defined polling methods excluding contrary opinion (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/06/richard-tol-fights-back-with-an-article-in-the-guardian-showing-that-cooks-97-consensus-is-actually-nonsensus/);
2) political force;
3) as an *effect* of the science.
Carefully note #3 – “consensus” can be an end result of the scientific method, but it is *never* a *reason* to believe something.
Also note that #1 and #2 accurately represent the “climate” consensus.
“Don’t you appreciate that the “consensus” is nothing more then the “general agreement” among informed experts.”
Even taking that definition, “consensus” is never a reason for scientific belief. It is an after effect, not a cause -> and sadly, it is an effect that can have causes *other* than scientific integrity.
“And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?”
If only that were true :) Given 17+ years of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues to rise unabated, have you seen any change in the AGW “consensus” to admit that CO2 sensitivity is much lower than initial scare-mongered? :) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/breaking-ipcc-ar5-report-to-dial-back-climate-sensitivity/
“because you refuse to acknowledge the warming of polar regions and ocean depths.”
The north pole is warming, the south pole is not, and the ocean depths simply do not have enough sensor information to assert that they are warming.
“Tell me, if you suffered severe bodily injury,”
The mechanics of first aid and critical care have very little to do with science, and a whole lot to do with rote technique.
A better analogy is, “if you were having emotional problems with your wife, would you go to your priest, a psychologist, a licensed counselor, or a close friend for support”?
“Trying compare the proceed of learned folks with expert level understanding and the conclusion they draw from their experiments and experience”
One of the beauties of the scientific method is that you don’t have to trust anyone -> you can ask for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and double check their work.
Trust is something you give to a priest. Verification is something you ask from a scientist.
“uses lies of convenience (such as your #1) to confuse and stonewall ”
Sadly, lies of convenience are generally the purview of the folks promoting AGW. For them it is more important to convince people, than it is to do good science.
” yes I have ready many of those emails.”
Read them all – it’s worth it.
“Now, how about you sharing which of those emails you find most heinous?”
hide the decline.
“Oh and, exactly who are these “reputable” scientist that were “attacked”
and what did those “attacks” consist of?”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subverted-peer-review
July 21, 2014 at 21:02
@citizenschallenge: Interesting recent study on deep ocean heat content – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/deep-oceans-are-cooling-amidst-a-sea-of-modeling-uncertainty-new-research-on-ocean-heat-content/
Given that study, do you change your provisional consensus now? :)
July 23, 2014 at 18:40
Here’s an excellent example of the alternate universe right-wing political forces have created, forces that are dedicated to pure Crazy-making.
What’s Up With that crazy anthony Watts – is a purely contrarian website that elevates dilettantes like Jim Steele to smarter than expert status.
Your link to WUWT is an example of Jim Steele playing word games and misrepresenting the facts. Regarding Carl Wunsch
On the subject of global warming Carl has said:
“Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof. [1]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch
~ ~ ~
Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
~ ~ ~
Misrepresentation of Carl Wunsch’s Views
http://ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/wunschviews.htm
~ ~ ~
Tell you what K, rather than passing along Steele tactically contorted nonsense, why not look at this written by Wunsch himself
Click to access heatcontentchange_26dec2013_ph.pdf
Find something in there to dispute the “consensus” – then I might take you a bit more seriously.
~ ~ ~
As for your Steele now he thinks he’s an expert on everything but in reality he’s a perfect example of a dilettante who actually believes he’s smarter than real experts. Plus he ignores all the lesson he’s been taught – when it’s counter to his entrepreneurial message that all climate science is shit and should be ignored.
The man is not a scientist, he’s a character that could truly be defined as a political actor –
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/anthony-watts-dog-whistle.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/fabricating-climate-doom-looking-at-jim.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/04/jimsteel-distorting-science.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/fabricatingclimatedoom-steele-enron.html
(and there’s mora dora…)
~ ~ ~
Then you come up with:
CATO – that is political organization!!! – They don’t have anything to do with studying or understanding the science – they are policy focused – not learning focused!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well there’s one different between us – I like going to the science and learning about the science and you like going to political sites, that reinforce your conviction.
Then to make yourself feel better you accuse an information loaded science website like http://SkepticalScience.com of being political… but then your type has been quite successful with your PR campaign of morphing anyone who supports the scientific findings, (that point to definite manmade global warming), as a political enemy. Never realizing that all this is about much more than a political policy argument. It’s about facing a reality we are in control of.
July 23, 2014 at 18:58
Oh for god sake, don’t go comparing climatology with psychology.
That’s the last straw: you really do deserve the label ‘crazy maker’ – but I’ll give you credit you sure are good at avoiding a direct conversation.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Following the “consensus”:
krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 20:29:
Carefully note #3 – “consensus” can be an end result of the scientific method, but it is *never* a *reason* to believe something.
~ ~ ~
CC: Well unless you are an uninformed lay-person – then it would be quite sane to rely on the expert’s understanding, since I don’t understand the full breath of literature or the details of the arguments and complexities.
It’s as idiotic as you tossing formulas and graphs at me and telling me to make my own conclusion to your well-crafted manipulative questions. It’s a fool’s trap.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 20:29: “One of the beauties of the scientific method is that you don’t have to trust anyone -> you can ask for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and double check their work.”
~ ~ ~
CC: One of the prerequisites of getting along in life is realizing one’s level of incompetence and respecting that some people know more and understand more than I do about topics they have devoted their lives to.
July 23, 2014 at 19:04
@citizenschallenge: “a purely contrarian website that elevates dilettantes like Jim Steele to smarter than expert status.”
Aren’t you doing the same thing, trying to elevate yourself to smarter than expert status? :)
“They don’t have anything to do with studying or understanding the science – they are policy focused”
And as they are policy focused, aren’t they better policy experts than scientists who don’t understand policy? :)
” I like going to the science and learning about the science ”
Precious. You think that SS is doing science, not policy advocacy :)
“Oh for god sake, don’t go comparing climatology with psychology.”
Neither have necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements :)
“Well unless you are an uninformed lay-person – then it would be quite sane to rely on the expert’s understanding, since I don’t understand the full breath of literature or the details of the arguments and complexities.”
You don’t understand the full depth and breadth of the science, and you’re arguing against a very well informed lay person – why should I accept your judgement of which experts are reliable if you’re not informed?
“One of the prerequisites of getting along in life is realizing one’s level of incompetence and respecting that some people know more and understand more than I do about topics they have devoted their lives to.”
Arguably, I’ve devoted more of my life to this topic than you have, and educated and informed myself to a greater level of competence than you have. Why don’t you respect my superior understanding, but instead insist that your trusted experts are trustworthy because *you*, an uninformed and inexpert lay person, have deemed them so?
The arguments from competing authorities is something that the scientific method, with the requirement for falsifiability, deals with neatly :)
July 24, 2014 at 10:05
It seems hopeless.
We’re discussing AGW with people that don’t even know statistics well enough to understand why it is necessary to try to reject the null hypothesis. Neither do they seem to understand the scientific concept of falsifiability.
And always, always, attacking politically without understanding that actual science and the scientific method have NOTHING to do with politics. And they seem to believe that scientific arguments can be settled by the use of ad homs.
Was there a better way to explain why it is that dueling references don’t work, that in order to have the slightest credibility, you have to be able to understand concepts well enough that you can discuss them with the knowledge that you yourself posess?
That last is a serious question that I put to you. In the past I have tried unsuccessfully to explain that concept, but STILL people trot out links to articles that obviously would agree with them.
Given all that illogic, it would surely be a strange coincidence if it were to turn out that there actually is something to AGW. I’m sure there is an example of that in science; I just can’t remember it at the moment.
July 24, 2014 at 10:08
That last post was for you, Krischel.
July 25, 2014 at 03:56
@ken libamanti: I feel your pain :)
There are a number of tropes in this argument, including “Political Attack Dog”, and “Layman True Believer”.
The “Political Attack Dog” is the one focused mostly on ad homs, and trying to score *points* rather than reach understanding. Their job is to root for their team, and you simply can’t question your team if you’re rooting for them. They’re passionate, dedicated, and not just willfully ignorant, but aggressively so. And I get it – team sports are fun, and the feeling of being on a team is euphoric – hell, people *riot* over soccer games they don’t even play in! But remember first and foremost, their goal is to protect their team, not to understand. These are often the hardest people to reach, because they are using every last bit of their intelligence to protect their preconceived notions.
The “Layman True Believer” is a slightly lesser version of the “Political Attack Dog”, with more subtlety and finesse. Their focus isn’t so much on the ad homs (although they do slip through), but mostly on the “leave it to the experts” line of reasoning. They’re a little more open to persuasion, but often times once they’ve picked their favorite authorities, they simply hold onto their untenable beliefs by imagining that if their hero was present, they’d be able to come up with a withering argument that would protect their belief. They never need to see that withering argument in order to believe in its efficacy, which makes them almost completely immune to doubt. The irony of the “Layman True Believer” is that they never question their ability to discern between worthy authorities and unworthy authorities – for my dad, it’s pretty much “Was it published in Time Magazine?” It reminds me of Bastiat’s “The Law” (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html) where he critiques those who believe that the masses are infallible when it comes to choosing leaders through voting, but once the voting is done, they are unable to make any decisions and must be guided by the benign hand of government force.
Personally, I’ve actually had revelation in my life – I have, on multiple occasions, realized not only that my beliefs were wrong, but amazingly, blindingly, outstandingly wrong. Such a dramatic change of belief is probably not something everyone can endure – and my guess is that most of the people arguing the AGW line are well intentioned people, but are all too often too afraid to be *wrong* about their beliefs. It’s embarrassing. It can bring regret and remorse. It can bring grief. But honestly, without that willingness to seek the truth despite the pains it can bring, it’s highly unlikely that people can actually find the truth.
Which, of course, is the cornerstone of the idea of falsifiability :) Without being willing to have one’s grand ideas tossed down into the trash heap of falsified hypotheses, you simply can’t find a rational path to the truth.
Religions have always found a way to preserve their conceits in the face of contrary evidence – it’s part of their design. As a religion, AGW simply fits into that model, but they wear lab coats instead of priests’ robes :)
July 28, 2014 at 17:38
Well stated, and interesting.
We’re dealing with personality differences. But when it comes to science you wouldn’t think people would treat theories as received wisdom.
Faith is something that should be reserved for things that can neither be proven nor disproven, not for scientific theories, which by their very nature can be shown to be false.
Especially GW — Al Gore was adamant that the ocean would rise by twenty feet in ten years; you would expect, given that was several years ago, the ocean (I live near the Atlantic) would at least rise perceptibly. I’ve got to believe my faith in that theory would be shaken, but no, not for this, for those that have continually argued that AGW is true.
Perhaps it is as you suggest, they think of themselves as part of a team. If that were true, it is easy to see how it might be difficult for a person to change his mind on this issue: his friends, especially tight-knit political ones, would no doubt consider him traitorous. Maybe the implications would be that he no longer may attend AGW events.
Certainly his friends would quiz him on political issues to see if he is still loyal, politically. An uncomfortable situation, no matter the group with which you identify. I hang out with people that mostly would not care which view I take on AGW, and I suspect it is the same with you.
In any case, it is hard to imagine those that consider the feds of capable to reverse, or even to halt, AGW. How could they, taking into consideration the track record of government? It is difficult not to regard such people as lemmings, and this is a mistake since I hope to ween some of them away from blind faith in government. BTW, I am also a fan of Bastiat.
Another issue which is probably touchy in some circles, is whether GW would affect mankind beneficially. Of course a corollary of belief in AGW is that devastion will reign and man will suffer the brunt of it. Breaking in to a tautology is not for the faint-hearted.
July 28, 2014 at 17:48
@krischel — sorry for the confusion: asweyo is my alias — an alias chosen for typing simplicity. I never know whether my handle will be asweyo or ken. I suppose I should figure out why this is happening, but there is not world enough or time to do everything that needs doing.
July 28, 2014 at 23:10
@asweyo: You mention something I’ve experienced personally – drifting “outside of the faith” has some fairly severe consequences in left-wing circles. Ironic as it is, I’ve had more tolerance of my atheism from my evangelical friends than I’ve had tolerance for my heresy son AGW from my democrat friends :)
@citizenschallenge: You wanted some specific info about the attacks on climate scientists for not hewing to the party line: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/28/whos-really-waging-the-war-on-science/
Two different institutions essentially using their resources to protect AGW folk, but refusing to give the same consideration to those who question the dogma on the topic. Even if you believe in AGW, such blatant attacks on scientists should give you pause.
July 28, 2014 at 23:43
Just have a moment to peek in – You’re doing great Krischel and now you suggest I learn something from Paul Driessen.
His piece is a tad emotionalistic, yellow journalistic like even… but admitted I’ve only skimmed it.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
NOTHING QUITE LIKE DOING SCIENCE BY POLITICS!
July 28, 2014 at 23:45
@citizenschallenge: “NOTHING QUITE LIKE DOING SCIENCE BY POLITICS!”
That’s exactly the point of the article – two scientists were defended by universities because of their political beliefs, and two scientists, from those same universities, were persecuted because of their political beliefs.
Driessen might not have anything useful to say about the science, but his clear reporting on what is clearly a political bias in two separate universities is pretty compelling, even if a tad emotional :)
July 29, 2014 at 10:02
Asweyo, could you please provide evidence for the following claim you made:
“Al Gore was adamant that the ocean would rise by twenty feet in ten years; you would expect, given that was several years ago, the ocean (I live near the Atlantic) would at least rise perceptibly.”
If you fail to find any such evidence, could you please be so kind to explain what mental hiccup made you make such a false claim?
(you might notice from the above that I am quite certain you will not be able to provide any evidence for such a claim).
July 29, 2014 at 10:11
Krischel claims that ” In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change”.
This is a null hypothesis that has been tested and rejected. See the IPCC reports.
July 29, 2014 at 11:04
Paul Driessen is lying. Yep, that’s right, I said it, lying.
There was no differential treatment of Mann and Michaels at UVA. In both cases (the ATI and Greenpeace FoI requests, respectively) UVA collaborated, asking for payment to investigate whether there were any relevant documents, and whether those documents could be released. Greenpeace never paid, so UVA not only did not release any e-mails, it never even investigated.
UVA *did* initiate work on Mann’s e-mails and documents, and in fact, agreed to release e-mails. This is where Mike Mann stepped in and took action. Also, UVA realized that having lawyers who were also the plaintiffs look at the e-mails UVA would consider exempted from the release did not sound like a good idea. The court agreed.
I haven’t followed the Legates case much, and only know Legates fought the release of the material on the same basis as Mike Mann did. Nothing *was* released. I also know that Legates apparently does not understand the difference between a FOIA request and the CID that Cuccinelli filed regarding Mann (and hence why AAUP did get involved in the latter case).
July 29, 2014 at 17:37
@Marco: regarding Al Gore, I think Ken was given that impression by Gore’s movie and promotions for it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html
“Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.”
“The film’s distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: “If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.””
I can see how you might weasel out of that doomsaying, but certainly you can admit Al Gore was wrong.
Re: IPCC:
“This is a null hypothesis that has been tested and rejected. See the IPCC reports.”
I’ve read them cover to cover. Could you cite on which page they actually show what observations cause them to exclude natural climate change?
Re: UVA and Mann: “There was no differential treatment of Mann and Michaels at UVA.”
Yes, there was. To deny that is be willfully blind, and frankly, diminishes your credibility.
July 29, 2014 at 19:32
1. That asweyo (not Ken) cannot understand basic English is not my problem. Gore did not claim this would happen “in the near future”. Gore did make some mistakes, yes, but he isn’t wrong that if Greenland melts, or half of Greenland and half the WAIS, sea levels would rise 7 meters. Under BAU this is likely to occur within 500 years.
2. Reading a report is clearly not the same as understanding. Read the “detection and attribution” chapters and try to understand them. Plenty studies that all show that recent/current climate trends cannot be explained by natural factors. H0 (natural) rejected in favor of H1 (antropogenic). There’s a good reason many climate scientists consider the current null hypothesis to be “AGW”.
3. The facts?
Step 1: ATI/Greenpeace both submitted FOIA requests.
Step 2: Both requests were considered, and UVA requested payment to initiate investigation in both cases.
Greenpeace did not want to pay, so UVA never went further and Greenpeace never received anything (that’s right, the lie of Paul Driessen that I mentioned, and which you ignored). ATI did pay, and indeed received documents/e-mails. Just not all, which is what most of the court cases were about.
In other words, not differential treatment. Unless you make the exact opposite claim as Paul Driessen and claim ATI received preferential treatment compared to Greenpeace, because they *did* receive documents…
It is no surprise to me you accept Driessen’s lie that UVA just gave Greenpeace Michaels’ e-mails. Your credibility was non-existent anyway.
July 29, 2014 at 19:44
@marco: 500 years is not “in the near future”, thank you very much :) Gore was wrong, simply admit it.
” Read the “detection and attribution” chapters and try to understand them. ”
Cite the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement where they are able to exclude natural climate change. They may claim that they don’t have climate models that can explain observations based on *known* natural climate drivers, but they certainly haven’t excluded natural climate change – their climate models don’t match observations as it is!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6897-university-of-virginia-to-finally-release-climategate-documents
“Marshall made an initial FOIA request for Mann’s records about a year ago when he learned UVA was in the process of fulfilling a similar petition from the activist group Greenpeace for materials relating to another former professor, Patrick Michaels. When UVA denied Marshall, Michaels asked the school about the Greenpeace request and was told “some people’s records are treated differently than others.””
Honestly, if you’re trying to make the case that UVA treats all climate scientists the same, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/is-the-university-of-virginia-biased-against-professors-that-challenge-the-idea-of-global-warming/
“When Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall submitted a request for the research materials of Mann, he was told by university officials that the documents had been destroyed because the professor was no longer an employee.
When Greenpeace, a national environmental advocacy organization, requested the same materials for Michaels, university officials promptly began the process of complying with the FOIA and told the organization how much the fee would be.”
Your fraudulent claims simply don’t hold water.
July 29, 2014 at 22:37
First, Gore didn’t say “in the near future”.
Second, I am not surprised you just dismiss the many studies that show it’s AGW. After all, you cannot accept what you have decided to dismiss a priori.
Third, just to see whether you can distinguish facts from opinions and lies, have you seen the blatant lie in your first link? You know, the one in which they claim a congressional investigation determined Mann’s hockeystick was fraudulent?
Fourth, why do you use a different story to claim differential treatment than Paul Driessen? Also, there may well be a very logical explanation for the response Marshall obtained regarding Mann: Mann had already left in 2005, and his e-mails were on a back-up server; Michaels left in late 2007, so (some of) his e-mails may well have been on a different and still used server and thus easily found.
Fifth, where is your outrage that Driessen lied when he claimed UVA released e-mails to Greenpeace, despite the fact they didn’t?
There are also a lot of multi-interpretable comments that are, of course, interpreted only such that it fits the storyline. For example, I know that the records of people working at my department have long been treated differently, depending on their position. When I was still a postdoc I had limited server storage, and although backups were made, those went on a different server than those of our permanent staff. In other words, they told us “some people’s records are treated differently than others”. Of course, knowing Pat Michaels history and his playing fast and loose with the truth, I am in doubt they even told him this.
July 29, 2014 at 22:43
@marco: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/an_inconvenient_truth_for_al_g_1.html
Here’s the quote:
“AL GORE:
The melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland would result in a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future.”
–Oscar-winning movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” ”
“Second, I am not surprised you just dismiss the many studies that show it’s AGW.”
None of them show that, they assert it. Not a single study ever cited by any warmist has given a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, period.
“Fourth, why do you use a different story to claim differential treatment than Paul Driessen?”
Multiple sources point to the same truth – there is persecution against climate scientists who don’t toe the party line on AGW :)
“Fifth, where is your outrage that Driessen lied when he claimed UVA released e-mails to Greenpeace”
Quote, please – Dreissen says this:
“UVA administrators quickly agreed to turn over all archived records belonging to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent climate chaos skeptic who had recently retired from the university.”
You’re lying about what Driessen said.
July 30, 2014 at 09:35
That quote is not a direct quote. It isn’t in the movie. Here’s the full transcript of the movie: http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/courses/blog/gw/An%20Inconvient%20Truth%20Transcript.pdf
You will not find the words “in the near future”. In fact, you will not find *any* time frame in relation to the melting of WAIS or Greenland. The British judge just accepted the claim from the plaintiffs that people may believe this would happen in the near future.
“Not a single study ever cited by any warmist has given a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, period.”
What you meant to say was
“I will never accept that there is a sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, period”.
We have already seen you dismiss any hypotheses, just because you didn’t like that they showed AGW to be as proven as evolution.
Your persecution claim is based on two examples with questionable historical narratives.
If we for a moment take your interpretation of Driessen’s word as accurate (that is, UVA only agreed to turn over all archived records, Driessen did not mean to imply they actually did turn them over (but why have they not done so, if they agreed to turn it all over, eh?)), it is still a blatant lie. UVA at no point agreed to turn over all archived records. Nor did they “continue to insist it was proper and ethical to turn all of Dr. Michaels’ material over to Greenpeace”.
They only agreed to look at which records might be releasable upon payment of a fee, the exact same they did with ATI’s request regarding Mann’s e-mails. I apparently need to repeat this last issue a hundred times before you recognize this. Or perhaps you are just like Driessen impervious to facts that don’t fit your narrative.
July 30, 2014 at 17:38
@marco: You’re right – it’s not a direct quote…it’s actually a finding by a judge:
“Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise. ”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Surely you’ve seen the movie, and surely you agree that his power-point presentation on the amount of sea level rise was not properly caveated with a reasonable time scale…like 500 years.
“We have already seen you dismiss any hypotheses, just because you didn’t like that they showed AGW to be as proven as evolution.”
Evolution is falsifiable. AGW is not. You don’t seem to want to accept that the AGW premise of “any observation is a confirmation of our hypothesis” is just as silly as the creationist dogma that any evidence can be manufactured by god :)
“UVA at no point agreed to turn over all archived records.”
You’re lying, and your interpretation of Dreissen’s statements frankly, is much more unreasonable than the judge’s interpretation of Gore’s presentation, even though both of them are clearly not direct quotes :)
Here’s your real problem, Marco – you’re trying to defend the indefensible with semantics, instead of logic.
1) FACT: Gore was clearly misleading in his presentation of sea level rise;
2) FACT: Nowhere in the IPCC report, or anywhere in this entire comment stream, has a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW been presented, with the possible exception of *me* with the very first part of constraining human impact on global CO2 levels;
3) FACT: UVA showed zero hesitation in releasing records for a climate scientist who didn’t toe the line of AGW dogma, in comparison to one who was politically correct.
You can try and pick at whether or not I should have used the word “who” or “whom”, but in the end, you’re making a very unconvincing case for your position :)
July 31, 2014 at 09:59
Fact 1: the judge just accepted the plaintiffs’ claim. I’ve not seen the movie, but read the transcript. There’s no timeline indicated, period, and therefore it is not deliberately misleading. It is possible that, because the timeline is not mentioned, some people may believe this would happen on a short timescale. This makes it inadvertantly misleading.
But if you are so enamored with the opinion of the judge, you’ll have to accept that he considered the documentary to by-and-large accurately represent the prevailing scientific opinion about climate change:
”
I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
”
Fact 2: there are numerous easily falsifiable elements in AGW. You could, for example, show that greenhouse gases are not radiatively active – which would rock the whole world of physics and chemistry, as that is considered an established fact – but who knows, eh? You could also show, if you don’t want to take on the greenhouse hypothesis, that the CO2 increase cannot be due to anthropogenic sources (or that those are minor compared to other net sources). Some have tried, but only managed to do so by ignoring loads of evidence against their own hypothesis (E.g., Salby has to ignore that an extrapolation of his model makes CO2 concentrations negative during the Little Ice Age). You could show that the known drivers of climate change have been substantially larger (into the warming direction) than the anthropogenic forcings. You could show there is no warming of any element of the earth’s system. All that is discussed in the IPCC reports amongst others in the detection and attribution sections (those don’t deal specifically with the carbon cycle).
Fact 3: it remains an absolute lie that UVA “UVA showed zero hesitation in releasing records for a climate scientist who didn’t toe the line of AGW dogma, in comparison to one who was politically correct.” Both ATI and Greenpeace were promptly asked, after their FOIA request, to pay if UVA were to do a search for e-mail records that could potentially be released. Even more damning, ATI actually received e-mails *before* it went to court because it considered UVA to act too slowly (4 months after the FOIA request). It was only after *that* court action that the court battles began.
Oh wait, I just realized that you could consider Michaels the one to be “politically correct”, considering he is towing the republican party line that it isn’t real, or if it is, it isn’t bad, or if it is, doing anything about it is even worse. Then yes, UVA did have differential treatment, actually releasing some of Mann’s e-mails and none of Pat Michaels. Of course, *I* don’t consider that differential treatment, since Greenpeace didn’t pay, whereas ATI did.
July 31, 2014 at 18:43
@marco: “I’ve not seen the movie, but read the transcript. ”
Then you’re speaking from ignorance. Watch the clip where he is obviously misleading, and then you can comment with some authority.
“there are numerous easily falsifiable elements in AGW.”
Yes, you have lots of *necessary* elements, like “CO2 exists” and “humanity exists” – both of which *must* be true for AGW to be true. But those are not *sufficient* to show AGW. What you are missing is *sufficiency*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Your current conception of falsifiability, that does not require sufficient criteria, but only one or more necessary criteria, could clearly make creationism scientific, since obviously, if the world didn’t exist, creationism would be falsified.
“Both ATI and Greenpeace were promptly asked, after their FOIA request, to pay if UVA were to do a search for e-mail records that could potentially be released.”
You’re lying, again.
“When Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall submitted a request for the research materials of Mann, he was told by university officials that the documents had been destroyed because the professor was no longer an employee.”
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/is-the-university-of-virginia-biased-against-professors-that-challenge-the-idea-of-global-warming/
July 31, 2014 at 19:56
Krischel claims that ” In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change”.
Krischel has still not faced the fact that there is nothing “unnatural” about current climate change. Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!
CO2 has always had it’s insulating properties, nothing has changed about those physics!
Today’s “climate change” is a natural result of greatly enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.
In the past there were other causes for increasing those greenhouse gas levels. Today we know, beyond all doubt, that humans have injected geologically significant amounts of CO2.
Warming will enhance our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land.
Krischel null hypothesis is a fail –
Sadly K fights an unfair battle in that he steadfastly refuses to accept the authoritative information he’s been offered… instead believing that the “authority” of his own conviction holds supreme… thus justifying his deaf ear to all rational arguments and learning moments.
July 31, 2014 at 20:01
@citizenschallenge: “Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!”
That’s not true. Look at the ice core records where CO2 *lags* temperature from 400-800 years.
“Today’s “climate change” is a natural result of greatly enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.”
That’s an assertion, not a fact. In fact, it’s a barely tenable assertion given the great increase of CO2 we’ve had over the past 17 years with no statistically significant warming.
“Today we know, beyond all doubt, that humans have injected geologically significant amounts of CO2.”
We know humans have *emitted* significant amounts of CO2 (“geologically” is a useless term here). However, there is no evidence that those emissions, after being subjected to the natural forces around us, has altered global average CO2 levels by any significant amount.
“Warming will enhance our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land.”
And apparently, it will also decrease our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land. :) It wins either way! :)
“K fights an unfair battle in that he steadfastly refuses to accept the authoritative information he’s been offered”
You’re right, I don’t believe in authorities proclaimed by zealots :) And yes, that is unfair to true believers :) But the scientific method isn’t fair – it is, as Feynman said, the belief in the ignorance of experts :)
Which, brings us to the point – why should I believe you’re a good judge of who is a reliable authority? :) Why should *you* believe you’re a good judge of who is a reliable authority?
If Satan came to earth, and told you he was God, how could a mere mortal like you possibly see through the supernatural lying power at his disposal? :)
August 1, 2014 at 02:28
Wow, I was going through your comment systematically, (plan to make a post out of it at WUWTW, you know with supporting links and such) then you go and waylaid me that last line. It’s like holy wow where did that come from. . .
~ ~ ~
krischel Says: July 31, 2014 at 20:01
If Satan came to earth, and told you he was God, how could a mere mortal like you possibly see through the supernatural lying power at his disposal? :)
~ ~ ~
Am I conversing with a faith-based soul?
. . . . . now you did it.
I gotta share I’m astounded by people who presume that they’ve actually figured out the “Will” of god almighty maker of time and creation”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allow me, first draft:
~ ~ ~
Here’s an interesting twist, K reaching for the Bible, I though we were talking “null hypothesis” and falsifiability in science and me I’m all about the Earth observations and appreciation.
K writes: “If “Satan (where to) come to earth” –
Oh jeez, K get real! I’m here on account of the real world out there!
Wake up, there ain’t no satan and there ain’t no “Lord Almighty” for you to claim to speak for!
Nor is there a neat supernatural excuse for you to hang all of this on, this is our own doing and some of us, such as myself, have been watching this travesty against learning and understanding that you seem to be standing for, so you’ll excuse me speaking my mind.
It’s us and our own selves and our own honesty, and integrity, and spiritual worth, ain’t nothing supernatural out there, except for what’s in your heart and mind.
There may be a “God” out there but I’ll tell you after my 59 year journey of observing and trying to understand “God, Maker of Time and Creation” if she’s out there she is way beyond the human ability to comprehend (just like your precious Bible warns you.).
It’s the same reason I’m much more into watching documentaries than fiction make-believes and spiritual con jobs.
The real world and how we got here is way the blessed more fascinating that your Satan fantasizing. Save that for someone else buddy!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
August 1, 2014 at 02:32
… were to…
:- (
August 1, 2014 at 02:33
@citizenschallenge: “Am I conversing with a faith-based soul?
. . . . . now you did it.
I gotta share I’m astounded by people who presume that they’ve actually figured out the “Will” of god almighty maker of time and creation””
Do you understand my critique?
You seem to believe you’ve figured out the “authority” of AGW almighty, even though you, yourself, don’t have the scientific background to judge it. *You* are asserting yourself an expert judge of AGW authorities.
Much like someone who believes in God asserts that even though they can’t tell the will of God, they can recognize him when they see him – they ascribe to God some mysterious powers, but then ascribe to themselves the even more wonderous power to *recognize* God!
August 1, 2014 at 02:37
@citizenschallenge: “There may be a “God” out there but I’ll tell you after my 59 year journey of observing and trying to understand “God, Maker of Time and Creation” if she’s out there she is way beyond the human ability to comprehend (just like your precious Bible warns you.).”
I’ve read the Bible (new international, new american, king james), the Mormon Pearl of Great Price, the Koran, and various other religious texts. None of them has convinced me that they’re accurate :)
So while certainly the Bible is precious to me as a historical artifact of cultural significance, I don’t believe in the supernatural – you seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that I’m a bible thumper due to your own prejudices in this matter.
Back to your quote – you believe God (if one exists), is beyond the human ability to comprehend…much like you believe that AGW is beyond the lay person’s ability to comprehend, which leads you to point to various august authorities in AGW as your saviors.
But here’s the question – what makes you an expert on picking AGW authorities? How can you tell that the IPCC is better than the NIPCC? How can you tell that Patrick Michaels is worse than Michael Mann?
You seem to admit that you have no ability when it comes to the actual *topic*, but you seem to insist that you have the ability to pick which experts in the topic are correct.
This is the problem with your appeal to authority argument :)
August 1, 2014 at 02:40
@citizenschallenge: Oh, and FYI, the remedy to the problematic appeal to authority argument is to use the scientific method, which requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :) We start off with *skepticism* of the experts, and demand that they show their work, from start to finish, and not skip any steps just because they’re “authorities” :)
Your argument is the one a Catholic makes when they insist the Pope is the ultimate religious authority, with all kinds of deep theological background and titles :)
August 1, 2014 at 07:35
As for all the holy books you’ve read why should I care?
Reading is one thing ~ living and paying attention to life passing you by is quite another.
~ ~ ~
==========================================
krischel Says: July 31, 2014
Which, brings us to the point – why should I believe you’re a good judge of who is a reliable authority? :) Why should *you* believe you’re a good judge of who is a reliable authority?
~ ~ ~
Well we need to take this at a couple different levels.
On a personal one on one level I listen to what people say with a polite yet inwardly slightly skeptical attitude (until supporting evidence comes along) and I watch what they do. I will superficially accept pretty near any story that’s offered but I notice inconsistencies when they show up. I pay attention and cover my ass and in the end trust my own counsel most. But, here’s my trick, I actually like people and thanks to my grand pappy I learned the beauty of trying to listen to others and hearing what they are trying to teach me. I dare say I’m a quick study, fit, handy and honest so that’s helped also the way … you see other’s are keeping their skeptical eyes open too.
As for which scientists to trust, here too there’s a couple levels, personally I like listening to lectures and have listened to a great many over the internet in the past half dozen years. Here too I listen and incoming information is processed against what I’ve already learned and my current understanding.
I can hear the difference between a scientist talking about his area of expertise and the current state of knowledge, (that consensus thing) and one like Dr. Lindzen who’s performing as some Shakespearian scientific god on high looking down his nose while spouting an endless stream of rhetorical contrarian tripe (a show of insults over substance) that has nothing to do with looking at any aspect of climate science and Earth observations.
On another level I rely on the standing of scientists within their community. For instance despite all the insults and slander Hansen and Mann continued to publish and speak to the expert community who listen to them. That says worlds more to me than all the insults FauxNews and their various mouth pieces can utter.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I challenge krischel to some dueling lectures,
Let’s compare a Ben Santer talk with any Lindzen talk he
(or anyone else) cares to offer. How about it?
A little friendly side bet:
Spot the scientist… spot integrity vs political performance.
We can examine the respective substance of the two speakers
August 1, 2014 at 07:46
krischel Says: August 1, 2014 at 02:40 . . .
~ ~ ~
You are being silly and getting back into all that philosophizing about how YOU think studying our planet should proceed with no apparent awareness of how science actually proceeds – nor any apparent interest in learning about it.
Plus you love misrepresenting common knowledge and refuse to allow yourself to be corrected. No curiosity, no interest in learning… hallmarks of the contrarian.
August 1, 2014 at 07:48
@citizenschallenge: “As for all the holy books you’ve read why should I care?”
I just wanted you to understand that I don’t find the Bible precious because of any particular belief, but because it is an important cultural artifact, like the holy books of other cultures.
“As for which scientists to trust, here too there’s a couple levels, personally I like listening to lectures and have listened to a great many over the internet in the past half dozen years. ”
So, you’re apparently an expert in judging experts, even if you can’t actually understand the science behind their claims :) Q.E.D.
“Dr. Lindzen who’s performing as some Shakespearian scientific god on high looking down his nose while spouting an endless stream of rhetorical contrarian tripe”
So, your method of deciding who the better authority is which one doesn’t come off like an ass? It’s as if you don’t believe it’s possible for someone to be educated, snooty, well-versed in science, and *right* :)
“On another level I rely on the standing of scientists within their community. ”
Much like how Catholics rely on the standing of Bishops and Cardinals and Popes in the Holy See :) Can you see the problem here?
“A little friendly side bet:
Spot the scientist… spot integrity vs political performance.”
The way you spot the scientist is by looking for the one who actually has a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement – it really is that simple :) You don’t need to look at attitude, or how well dressed they are, or their haircut, or how popular they are in a given institution – you simply have to hold them strictly accountable to the scientific method.
If you can still defend the fraud Michael Mann with a straight face, then obviously you’re immune to any critique of your chosen saviors :) I know you probably don’t have the introspective nature required to understand just how utterly unscientific your process for divining truth and ultimate trustworthy authority is, but I’ll have my believer friends pray for you :)
August 1, 2014 at 07:52
@citizenschallenge: “YOU think studying our planet should proceed with no apparent awareness of how science actually proceeds”
On the contrary, I insist that to learn the truth of our planet, we must strictly adhere to falsifiability as the demarcation criteria, and demand, from any authority claims, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
“you love misrepresenting common knowledge and refuse to allow yourself to be corrected.”
On the contrary, I’m very open to correction – quote me a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I’ll freely admit my error :)
On the other hand, since you don’t practice that creed, and must defend even the indefensible like the fraud Michael Mann, it’s ironic that you would choose to level that accusation against me :) Can you think of any evidence or observations that would make you change your belief system, or is it impervious to any attack, like the faith of the apostles? :)
“No curiosity, no interest in learning”
Sure, that’s exactly why I’ve studied the topic in as much depth as I have – total lack of curiosity, total disinterest in learning :) OMG, dude, one moment you imagine me as some bible thumping christian, and without missing a beat, you accuse me of being incurious and disinterested in knowledge? :) You’ve got to be kidding me :)
August 1, 2014 at 10:36
krischel: ATI =/ Marshall.
You also just assume UVA deliberately lied to Marshall, despite their being numerous other explanations that do not require a persecution syndrome. Also, where is the FOIA request from Marshall (was it “research material” he asked for? Or was it “e-mails”, as he has argued elsewhere)? Where is the response from UVA? All we have is a claim by Marshall, further interpretations by partisan media outlets (in this case the Daily Caller), and then further interpretations by ideologues like you.
Regarding your “necessity and sufficiency”, you are just trying to use impressive-sounding words to say “I never will accept there is sufficient evidence that our current emissions are causing measurable changes in our climate”. In science we will always have to work with uncertainty, and by necessity have to make expert judgments on when the evidence is sufficient. This expert judgment leads to ‘arbitrary’ cut-offs like 95% confidence intervals or 6-sigma events in high-energy particle physics. Setting those cut-offs still depends on our current understanding.
That human emissions will affect climate is a logical conclusion following from our current understanding of what controls climate – and that understanding has plenty of falsifiable elements. That current climate change (and I am talking about the long-term trend) is primarily driven by anthropogenic emissions (AGW) is also a logical conclusion from our current understanding of what controls climate. That there is uncertainty in some elements does not make this logical conclusion any less logical. It is very much the same as evolution, which is based on our current understanding of geology, anthropology, biology, and loads more. Uncertainty in these elements does not make the conclusion any less logical. Unless you are one of those who believes the uncertainty in radiodating is sufficient to argue that the timeline may well be wrong, and therefore evolution is unproven.
Which brings me to a question for you to answer, so I know how well you are constructing your arguments:
What do you consider a “sufficient” argument for evolution, and why is that “sufficient”? How does this argument make evolution “falsifiable”?
August 1, 2014 at 15:17
krischel writes: So, you’re apparently an expert in judging experts, even if you can’t actually understand the science behind their claims :) Q.E.D.
~ ~ ~
Hilarious now you pull a Monkton on us? Quod erat demonstrandum to you to buddy !
—>
Like I offered: let’s cue up your favor Lindzen lecture and my favor Ben Santer lecture and we can do a side by side demonstrandum.
{As for Lindzen coming off like as ass –
it’s the substance of what he says that’s the horse’s poop,
his style is just an irritant that exposes his complete closed mindedness and manipulative manner.}
~ ~ ~
Also anyone who seriously listens to academics lecture, learns to appreciate early on that you must be willing to put up with and look beyond personal style and delivery ability to the substance of the talk, since unfortunately many extremely intelligent scientists are not proficient public speakers.
K, do you appreciate the concept of looking past the facade and into the substance?
August 1, 2014 at 15:28
krischel writes, August 1, 2014 at 07:48:
Much like how Catholics rely on the standing of Bishops and Cardinals and Popes in the Holy See :) Can you see the problem here?
~ ~ ~
Boy do I see some problems here!
You seem incapable of understanding the difference between scientists and clergy.
In your mind you seem to think that when young scientists are initiated they swear to uphold their Bible of Consensus and spend the rest of their careers defending their faith against rationality.
That’s a great cartoon if you want to hate scientists but it has nothing to do with the real world of academia and actual scientific advancement.
Apparently you view the world of Biblical dogma as the same as the world constructed on the lessons learned from observing our planet. Is that how your thinking goes?
Because you confuse me more and more as you drift ever deeper into metaphysical fantasy when we were supposed to be talking about the falsifiability of FACT BASED science studies.
August 1, 2014 at 15:38
krischel writes, August 1, 2014 at 07:48:
If you can still defend the fraud Michael Mann with a straight face, then obviously you’re immune to any critique of your chosen saviors :)
~ ~ ~
Write up your list of specific charges defining Dr. Mann’s alleged fraud. Let’s take a closer look at them.
And yes I am willing to defend Dr. Mann because I’ve yet to see you folks come up with any actual wrong doing – other than not being perfect. {sometime I should tell you my joke about what they did to the last perfect carpenter.}
~ ~ ~
{But, then you still haven’t listed your claimed Climate-gate emails instead switching your demand to, I have actually read every one of the thousands of stolen emails… as though you have.}
~ ~ ~
I tell you one thing I’ve learned from my years of trying to dialogue with fake skeptics such as yourself, they are big and bold up front but have no follow through. Another indicator of their bankrupt intellectual integrity. :- |
August 1, 2014 at 15:48
Marco Says: August 1, 2014 at 10:36
Regarding your “necessity and sufficiency”, you are just trying to use impressive-sounding words to say “I never will accept there is sufficient evidence that our current emissions are causing measurable changes in our climate”.
In science we will always have to work with uncertainty, and by necessity have to make expert judgments on when the evidence is sufficient. This expert judgment leads to ‘arbitrary’ cut-offs like 95% confidence intervals or 6-sigma events in high-energy particle physics. Setting those cut-offs still depends on our current understanding.
~ ~ ~
Thanks Marco, it was worth repeating.
August 1, 2014 at 17:43
@marco: “You also just assume UVA deliberately lied to Marshall, despite their being numerous other explanations that do not require a persecution syndrome”
You’re right. It could be that they were just particularly incompetent when dealing with climate scientists they didn’t agree with :)
“Regarding your “necessity and sufficiency”, you are just trying to use impressive-sounding words”
No, they are simple, humble words, that mean something very specific. You can’t just insist that AGW is true because of the spectrum absorbed by CO2, or just because humans emit CO2. Every step of the way must be subject to strict scrutiny, and must be falsifiable, with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
“That human emissions will affect climate is a logical conclusion following from our current understanding of what controls climate”
No, it isn’t. It’s an arbitrary conclusion following from political pressure, and a completely simplistic view of what controls climate.
Ancel Keys did this once to us, promoting a low-fat diet that has caused 40 years of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases – his “logical conclusion” from his fraudulent 7 countries study, and the subsequent denial of any possible falsification, has caused massive harm, just as proposed remedies to magically stop climate from changing have caused massive harm.
“What do you consider a “sufficient” argument for evolution, and why is that “sufficient”? How does this argument make evolution “falsifiable”?”
Assuming this is a sincere question, I’ll start you off with a review of Karl Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
When we say “sufficient”, I’m specifically talking about the following:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).
So, for evolution, it’s pretty simple – find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian. Observing that pretty much kills the idea of evolution through natural selection.
Without such anachronistic observations, only natural selection remains.
More tricky would be the null, which I’d assert in the case of evolution is that “species emerge randomly without natural pressures”, which would lead to things like rabbit fossils in the precambrian.
Now, there are bits of evolution that have been adjusted around the edges here and there over the years (say, inter utero effects justifying some lamarckian claims that darwin pooh-poohed), but for the most part, as a hypothesis, evolution through natural selection was bold, falsifiable, and has survived strict scrutiny from all quarters.
AGW, not so much :)
August 1, 2014 at 19:44
We’ll have to continue this later, my play time is over.
For my parting thoughts visit http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/null-hypothesis101-3-drifting-off-topic.html.
Your alway invited to comment over there.
~ ~ ~
catch ya later.
August 1, 2014 at 19:45
you are always welcome to . . . ;- }
August 1, 2014 at 20:45
@citizenschallenge: “Like I offered: let’s cue up your favor Lindzen lecture and my favor Ben Santer lecture and we can do a side by side demonstrandum.”
Because we’re simply supposed to judge scientists by observing their lectures and giving our opinions?
You’re missing the answer – demand adherence to the scientific method and its required falsifiability. *That’s* how you judge authorities in science, and *that’s* why you’re failing to discern between good authorities and bad authorities.
“K, do you appreciate the concept of looking past the facade and into the substance?”
Yes, which is why the only thing that matters is strict scrutiny and adherence to the scientific method. The cornerstone of scientific method is falsifiability, and Ben Santer, nor any of your chosen authorities, have taken that first step.
“You seem incapable of understanding the difference between scientists and clergy.”
On the contrary, I do – clergy don’t have necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses, and scientists do.
The point, which I’m not sure you’re getting yet, is that your method for choosing scientists to believe in is the same method used by believers to decide which clergy to believe in.
“we were supposed to be talking about the falsifiability of FACT BASED science studies.”
And you haven’t provided any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW. All the observations in the world don’t matter if you don’t have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
“And yes I am willing to defend Dr. Mann because I’ve yet to see you folks come up with any actual wrong doing – other than not being perfect.”
Hide the decline. That’s not just imperfection, it’s willful deception to further “the team” :)
” by necessity have to make expert judgments on when the evidence is sufficient.”
The problem being is that you can’t recognize an expert :)
While you probably can’t quite overcome the cognitive dissonance that I provide for you, and insist on trying to plug me into some caricature of a “denier” in your head, where I’m supposed to be religious, or uninformed, or irrational, or incurious, or some sort of political partisan, I think you completely miss looking in the mirror at yourself for the flaws you’re so eager to ascribe to others.
1) you have a belief system, not a science system, for determining expertise;
2) you are a partisan, unwilling to admit anything but “innocent mistake” from the people you consider to be on your team;
3) you are notoriously incurious at examining the contradictory point of view with an open mind – you have thus been unable to actually *understand* the arguments being presented to you.
Is there hope for you? Perhaps not. Perhaps you simply can’t imagine that you’re wrong. Perhaps even in the face of 20, 25, 30, or 50 years of statistically insignificant warming and ever increasing CO2, you’ll still find an excuse to preserve your belief. You’ve obviously decided *what* you believe, but I don’t think you’ve given much thought as to whether or not *why* you believe it is justifiable.
August 2, 2014 at 04:40
krischel Says: August 1, 2014 at 20:45
“@citizenschallenge: “Like I offered: let’s cue up your favor Lindzen lecture and my favor Ben Santer lecture and we can do a side by side demonstrandum.”
Because we’re simply supposed to judge scientists by observing their lectures and giving our opinions?”
~ ~ ~
Sure seems like you are dodging :- |
I claim that throughout his talk Ben Santer displays exactly those qualities you harp on.
I can show by a careful examination of Dr. Lindzen’s talk that the man is theater and does not present the scientific process or it’s evidence honestly. I’m willing to try to prove my case, in as objective manner as we can.
You keep claiming you defend the true principles of science, let’s see how one of your hero’s measures up to one of my scientific heroes.
Why run from that sort of learning exercise.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: August 1, 2014 at 20:45
“You’re missing the answer – demand adherence to the scientific method and its required falsifiability. *That’s* how you judge authorities in science, and *that’s* why you’re failing to discern between good authorities and bad authorities.”
~ ~ ~
You’re missing the point.
A) I have never presumed to be a “judge” of who the trustworthy authority is.
B) I have no choice but to decide for myself whom I will trust.
Because I trust them does not make them a certified trustworthy authority {it takes other experts to do that}!
C) Here we get into that consensus thing again…
I can only assess “trustworthy authority” on the basis of the opinion of the community of experts who understand the complexities of the science – the only ones who are truly in any sort of position to “judge”.
Fellow experts are the only ones who know who’s truly adhering to the principles of the scientific method and its required falsifiability.
Fellow experts are the only ones who know who’s framing research questions properly in order to achieve the most useful answer.
Fellow experts are the only ones who know best if procedures have been following and if the mathematics and statistics have been applied properly.
Anyone who has spent anytime actually listening to scientists explaining their craft, will be astounded at the depth of complexities they understand. Another eye opener is how critical scientists are of their own work, it’s weaknesses and potential biases, all these things are openly discussed and argued about and digested-on in good faith. Because all parties are looking for, if not the ‘right’ answer, the best approximation given our current abilities.
K you are great at tossing fancy ideals and principles around, but you do it in a nasty destructive manner and given your lack of appreciation for the depth and complexity of the issues Earth scientists deal with along with your obvious hostility towards them – of course you’ll find it easy to see only what you want: no one living up to YOUR expectations and you’re convinced it’s all a hoax.
But, what qualifies you, Mr. K, to be any sort of judge of how well scientists are doing? Your qualifications pleaz! ;)
Where have you displayed any sort of ability to explain anything,
or any desire to learn from other’s knowledge?
Nope, instead all I’ve seen is you just keeping-on heaping-on ever weirder distractions. : – \
August 2, 2014 at 05:17
K, you just keep on giving, don’t you.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/another-climate-science-skeptic-dodges.html
Now, about all those challenges you keep ignoring. . .
August 2, 2014 at 07:25
@citizenschallenge: “I claim that throughout his talk Ben Santer displays exactly those qualities you harp on.”
Please, feel free to quote any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW Ben Santer has put forward :)
“I can show by a careful examination of Dr. Lindzen’s talk that the man is theater and does not present the scientific process or it’s evidence honestly. ”
No you can’t – you don’t even understand the requirement of falsifiability! How can you *possibly* imagine that you can examine, much less judge Dr. Lindzen’s work?
“You keep claiming you defend the true principles of science, let’s see how one of your hero’s measures up to one of my scientific heroes.”
If you want me to measure your scientific hero, show my their necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW :)
If they don’t have one, you’re not choosing your heroes well :)
“A) I have never presumed to be a “judge” of who the trustworthy authority is.”
You’re kidding me.
“B) I have no choice but to decide for myself whom I will trust.”
Contradicts A, but what the hell – what *process* do you use for trust? If it doesn’t include demanding a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it’s not science based.
“I can only assess “trustworthy authority” on the basis of the opinion of the community of experts”
And who decides what the “community of experts” comprises of, that is so worthy to decide on authorities? :) The clergy? The Council of Cardinals? :)
You, my dear sir, have faith :)
“Fellow experts are the only ones who know who’s truly adhering to the principles of the scientific method and its required falsifiability.”
No, falsifiability is something anyone with the grasp of the english language, and a willingness to learn, can understand. It doesn’t take an expert to ask the questions:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).
“Another eye opener is how critical scientists are of their own work, it’s weaknesses and potential biases,”
Cite a single time where Ben Santer criticizes his own work, and explains its weaknesses and potential biases. Be specific.
“you do it in a nasty destructive manner”
My apologies if you’ve been offended, I have a difficulty being sensitive sometimes when I’m chortling at something I’m reading :)
“But, what qualifies you, Mr. K, to be any sort of judge of how well scientists are doing? Your qualifications pleaz! ;)”
I am a human with sufficient intelligence to understand the scientific method, and the integrity to apply it strictly. I am willing to be wrong, and insist that others who propose hypotheses are also willing to be wrong, and more importantly, are quite specific about what observations would prove them wrong.
It doesn’t take qualifications to apply the scientific method, only a willingness to be skeptical and demanding of falsifiability.
“Where have you displayed any sort of ability to explain anything,
or any desire to learn from other’s knowledge?”
Seriously? I’ve already thanked you for the Inez Fung video, which led me down the path of the workweek anthropogenic signal as a potential way of constraining human effect on global CO2.
What, dear friend, are you willing to admit you’ve learned from me? :)
“Now, about all those challenges you keep ignoring. . .”
Your challenges are the challenges put forward by a true believer in defense of their data molesting priests :)
Yes, I’ll ignore them :)
August 2, 2014 at 12:58
Thanks, krischel, for showing you do not apply the same scrutiny to evolution as you do to AGW.
It is funny you use Haldane’s argument, since Godfrey-Smith has argued that the supposed observation of rabbits in precambrian rocks, described as an anachronistic observation, is as such insufficient evidence to falsify evolution for several reasons. For example, possible reasons for this anomalous observation can be incorrect identification of the fossils or incorrect dating of the rock. The latter issue is commonly (ab)used by those denying evolution, e.g. pointing out that a lot of rock layers are dated based on the observed fossils, causing a circular argument.
Equally important, Godfrey-Smith has argued that even if incorrect identificating and dating (or a hoax) are ruled out for the observation of rabbits in the precambrian, it could also ‘merely’ indicate a major failure in our understanding of part of the chronology. Having to correct the timeline would not necessarily falsify evolution.
In other words, whereas the chronology is important (you can call it “necessary”), finding an error in that chronology is not sufficient to call it falsified.
You also state about my claim that AGW is a logical conclusion:
“No, it isn’t. It’s an arbitrary conclusion following from political pressure, and a completely simplistic view of what controls climate.”
which requires you to claim people like Tyndall, Arrhenius and Calendar were ideologically motivated when they determined that greenhouse gases caused a significant increase in the expected average temperature of the earth, and that increasing their amounts in the atmosphere would cause measurable further increases. I almost hoped you could see the idiocy in that argumentation, but unfortunately I have to conclude, based on my prior interactions with you, that you will consider this to be the case, or your argument would fall apart, and you’d have to admit you were arguing from an ideological perspective yourself.
Your complaint about Keys you keep repeating, and yet you never ever cite what evidence is available for your claim that “a low-fat diet […] has caused 40 years of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases”. Where’s your sufficiently falsifiable list of evidence for that claim?
After listing that, where is your evidence?
If you go for correlation (obesitas, diabetes, cancer rates have increased since the 1970s, when Keys made his recommendation), you’ll be making a fool of yourself, since you not only have to argue that this increase is primarily due to a few % less fat intake, but at the same time ignore that Americans have increased their energy intake by 5-10% and haved significantly reduced their physical excercise. If you take in more energy than you use, it has to go somewhere. Gee, that’s like the atmosphere: if it cannot get rid of the incoming energy from the sun, due to the blocking effect of greenhouse gases, the temperature has to increase.
August 2, 2014 at 16:02
krischel when I wrote:
“A) I have never presumed to be a “judge” of who the trustworthy authority is.”
“B) I have no choice but to decide for myself whom I will trust.”
You responded:
“You’re kidding me. and that B Contradicts A, but what the hell.”
~ ~ ~
hmmm, guess you don’t understand plain words very well. Because I trust someone does not automatically make that someone a trustworthy authority from an objective standpoint. It’s takes folks with a higher degree of understanding to establish that.
What’s confusing you about that?
Is it that you have a hard time with the part about appreciating one’s own limitations and deferring “judgement” to other more qualified minds?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Krischel writes: “(CC says) “I can show by a careful examination of Dr. Lindzen’s talk that the man is theater and does not present the scientific process or it’s evidence honestly. ”
No you can’t – you don’t even understand the requirement of falsifiability! How can you *possibly* imagine that you can examine, much less judge Dr. Lindzen’s work?”
~ ~ ~
Lots of talk and claims, but you refuse to accept the challenge and do this simple exercise. Shame on you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Krischel writes: ” “(CC says) “But, what qualifies you, Mr. K, to be any sort of judge of how well scientists are doing? Your qualifications pleaz! ;)”
I am a human with sufficient intelligence to understand the scientific method, and the integrity to apply it strictly. I am willing to be wrong, and insist that others who propose hypotheses are also willing to be wrong, and more importantly, are quite specific about what observations would prove them wrong.”
~ ~ ~
But then can spout utter nonsense such as implying there has been no global warming since 1998, based on tabloid reporters lies.
Why not try your integrity and sense of falsifiability to look at the observations that blow your “no warming” claim out of the water?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/null-hypothesis101-3-drifting-off-topic.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
PS
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2011/10/dr-ben-santer-attempts-explaining.html
1/3 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/lindzen-deconstructs-global-warming.html
2/3 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/lindzen-deconstructs-global-warming_8.html
3/3 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/lindzen-deconstructs-global-warming_5538.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/concluding-thoughts-on-lindzen.html
August 2, 2014 at 17:24
@macro: ” you do not apply the same scrutiny to evolution as you do to AGW.”
What part of “evolution requires, and has, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement” didn’t you understand?
“For example, possible reasons for this anomalous observation can be incorrect identification of the fossils or incorrect dating of the rock.”
For the purposes of our falsifiability test, we’ll assume that the observation is legitimate. This is like claiming that the lack of statistically significant warming for the past 17+ years during a period of rising CO2 is an incorrect temperature or CO2 measurement network :)
“it could also ‘merely’ indicate a major failure in our understanding of part of the chronology.”
A modern rabbit in the precambrian isn’t just a “major failure” in our understanding of chronology, it’s a *catastrophic* one. Barring the admission of time travel or aliens, and other such macguffins, there is no “merely” excuse.
“requires you to claim people like Tyndall, Arrhenius and Calendar were ideologically motivated when they determined that greenhouse gases caused a significant increase in the expected average temperature of the earth”
Not at all – the misnamed GHG effect is certainly real. The peculiar notion that human CO2 emissions flow straight into a complex carbon cycle, and serve only as an additive component, and will result in catastrophe without immediate political intervention is the politically driven “science” I refer to.
Again, simply because some scientist of the past discovered electron orbitals, and those are necessary for CO2 to exist, which is necessary for AGW to be correct, doesn’t mean that electron orbitals in and of themselves imply or demand AGW. Necessity and sufficiency.
“you never ever cite what evidence is available for your claim that “a low-fat diet […] has caused 40 years of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases”. Where’s your sufficiently falsifiable list of evidence for that claim?”
Gary Taubes, “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, is the definitive compendium. I’ll send you a free copy if you’re not willing to buy one yourself.
“If you take in more energy than you use, it has to go somewhere. Gee, that’s like the atmosphere:”
And that’s *exactly* where your blind spot is. Energy intake and energy expenditure are not independent variables when it comes to obesity. The problem is *not* too little exercise and too much food, the problem is a hormonal imbalance and resistance to insulin, which causes fat accumulation.
In the same way you misunderstand obesity, you misunderstand the atmosphere – CO2 levels aren’t simply a straight sum of emissions and sinks, there is a dynamically active system here that reacts to changes: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/where-did-all-co2-go
August 2, 2014 at 18:51
@citizenschallenge: “Because I trust someone does not automatically make that someone a trustworthy authority from an objective standpoint. It’s takes folks with a higher degree of understanding to establish that.”
And how do you decide who the folks with a higher degree of understanding are? :) Sounds like turtles all the way down :)
“Is it that you have a hard time with the part about appreciating one’s own limitations and deferring “judgement” to other more qualified minds?”
I have a hard time believing you can tell who is more qualified. You insist you have limitations on the topic, but then insist that you’ve got the amazing skill to determine the experts who determine the experts :)
“as implying there has been no global warming since 1998”
I’m not implying anything – it is a *fact* that there has been no statistically significant warming over that period of time.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
1) be sure to choose “trend+significance” to see the faded areas of time where no statistically significant change has occurred.
2) Note, there is a difference between “global warming” and “statistically significant global warming” – don’t conflate one with the other.
August 3, 2014 at 05:09
2) Note, there is a difference between “global warming” and “statistically significant global warming” – don’t conflate one with the other.
THEN WHY DO YOU??
August 3, 2014 at 12:43
krischel, Taubes himself has admitted that the clinical evidence for his hypothesis is not convincing. Which is one reason scientists have criticized him for recommending low-carb diets: his criticism of low-fat diets starts with the complaint it was recommended before sufficient clinical evidence was available, and here he goes, recommending a diet before sufficient evidence is available! He has also admitted that high fat and high protein diets may have undesirable side-effects. But it won’t matter to you that Taubes himself is aware of the shortcomings of his own hypothesis – you have decided to take his hypothesis a step further: it is now “truth”.
I also maintain you apply different standards to evolution and AGW. Whereas you clearly are aware that multiple potential caveats are required to obtain a falsifiable observation for evolution, you ignore such similar caveats when judging AGW. Take your statement that “This is like claiming that the lack of statistically significant warming for the past 17+ years during a period of rising CO2 is an incorrect temperature or CO2 measurement network”
Well, first, we (as in “those who pay attention to the science”) all know that just looking at atmospheric temperatures is *indeed* an incorrect temperature measurement network, as it deals with much less than 10% of the total heat capacity of the earth – why do you ignore the oceans? Second, we (same “we” as above) know that the requirement of statistical significance depends on chosing the arbitrary 95% confidence intervals. Why do you demand 95% certainty for AGW, when you accept Tauber’s absolute lack of any remotely statistically significant evidence?
Third, we (yep, same “we”) know that if you use the actual forcings over the last two decades, as well as a temperature network that properly fills in poorly coveraged regions, a model like GISS Model E actually reproduces the observed atmospheric temperatures over the last decade quite well (Schmidt et al 2014). Looks like those models, which depend significantly on the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, aren’t as bad as some people like to claim they are.
Of course, you can then still maintain your strawman definition of AGW, namely that “human CO2 emissions flow straight into a complex carbon cycle, and serve only as an additive component, and will result in catastrophe without immediate political intervention”. And whatever happens, you’ll just either claim it isn’t a catastrophe, or it could be due to something else, regardless of whether it was predicted or not. Using a fluid definition, as you do, makes it easy to proclaim there is no sufficiently falsifiable hypothesis. Just change the meaning of the words a little bit, and krischel can soothe his mind once again.
August 3, 2014 at 13:30
@marco: “krischel, Taubes himself has admitted that the clinical evidence for his hypothesis is not convincing. ”
Are you kidding me? Taubes critique is against Ancel Keys’ hypothesis :) Taubes certainly recommends more study (http://nusi.org/), but to pretend that there isn’t convincing evidence that fat accumulation is driven by insulin levels is to be willfully ignorant :)
“as it deals with much less than 10% of the total heat capacity of the earth – why do you ignore the oceans? ”
Listen to yourself Marco – your faith demands that a trace gas measured in parts per million of the atmosphere, which is less than a fraction of 10% of the total heat capacity of the earth, will somehow overwhelm the heat exchange and transfer in the 90% of the heat capacity :)
Why do *you* ignore the oceans! Isn’t it more realistic, given the vast heat capacity of the oceans versus the atmosphere, that global atmospheric temperature is driven by variations of the oceans, rather than vice versa? :)
Hell, given the fact that you don’t have a valid network of measurement by your own definition, isn’t it *completely premature* to claim global warming? Isn’t it possible that the oceans have cooled by a small fraction, and transferred their heat into the atmosphere, without actually changing the global heat content?
Or are you positive of your missing measurements of ocean heat content? :)
“Why do you demand 95% certainty for AGW, when you accept Tauber’s absolute lack of any remotely statistically significant evidence?”
What do you think Taubes’ hypothesis is?
“GISS Model E actually reproduces the observed atmospheric temperatures over the last decade quite well”
So can we now say that all other models besides GISS E are falsified, and the hypothesis they support is now rejected? :)
Building dozens of models, running them hundreds of times, and then claiming a winner and ignoring all the losers isn’t science :)
“Using a fluid definition, as you do, makes it easy to proclaim there is no sufficiently falsifiable hypothesis. ”
Then be specific. The reason for the straw men is because *you* don’t actually have a specifically stated, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Pick *ANY* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and we can start the science game. Until then, you’re simply hand waving.
August 3, 2014 at 13:33
@citizenschallenge: Are you actually trying to say that when you say “AGW” you really mean “Anthropogenic Statistically Insignificant Global Warming”?
Let’s be very clear here – I’ve always treated the question of Global Warming as a question of its *statistical significance*, and I believe the literature on the topic has always done so as well (although I’m happy to be shown any paper where your science heroes simply claim that there is statistically insignificant warming).
August 4, 2014 at 03:27
krischel Says:
August 3, 2014 at 13:30
@marco: “GISS Model E actually reproduces the observed atmospheric temperatures over the last decade quite well”
~ ~ ~
So can we now say that all other models besides GISS E are falsified, and the hypothesis they support is now rejected? :)
Building dozens of models, running them hundreds of times, and then claiming a winner and ignoring all the losers isn’t science :)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
K, do you understand how models work?
Why would GISS falsify “all other models” . . .
Then that second sentence.
… it sounds to me like you expect models to be an exact representations of the natural system they are modeling.
Would that be an accurate appraisal of what you think?
~~~
If not can you explain that statement?
August 4, 2014 at 03:29
that would be –
Why would “GISS Model E” falsify “all other models” . . .
August 4, 2014 at 03:32
@citizenschallenge: “K, do you understand how models work?
Why would GISS falsify “all other models” . .”
So let’s say you’re an astrologer. You write thirty different forecasts for one guy. One of them comes true, 29 don’t. Do you then claim the one “hit” means astrology is real? :)
Here’s the problem with the whole “climate model” issue – they’re tinker toys, and even though none of them accurately represent our actual observations, somehow, people believe they represent some sort of truth. Some will claim averaged together, they become more accurate, or that with enough “model runs”, they represent the truth – but the fact of the matter is this -> they fail.
Now, once they fail, you’ve got two choices -> dismiss the failure with an ad hoc special pleading (ENSO, soot, tradewinds, whatever), or, admit that the central conceit of the model (CO2 drives everything) is wrong.
Thus far, the people running and promoting the models haven’t had the scientific integrity to admit their central conceit is wrong.
August 4, 2014 at 03:36
@citizenschallenge/marco: Oh my, just looking at the “match” from GISS model E is hilarious:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/giss-model-e-data/
If that’s what you call accurate, what would you call inaccurate? :)
August 4, 2014 at 03:50
@marco: So, read Schmidt et al 2014, and it looks like the claim is that if they adjust a number of parameters and fudge factors in GISS model E, they can match observations – so essentially, the only way they can pass the test of observations is to wait until they happen, then adjust their hard coded model to curve fit it :)
Not very impressive to claim you can match observations only *after* those observations have happened and you’ve had time to tune your models to hind cast it :)
August 4, 2014 at 04:06
krischel Says:
August 3, 2014 at 13:33
@citizenschallenge: Are you actually trying to say that when you say “AGW” you really mean “Anthropogenic Statistically Insignificant Global Warming”?
Let’s be very clear here – I’ve always treated the question of Global Warming as a question of its *statistical significance*, and I believe the literature on the topic has always done so as well (although I’m happy to be shown any paper where your science heroes simply claim that there is statistically insignificant warming).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It seems to me that perhaps you are (This is pure conjecture based on my reading your words) one of those who thinks that Earth systems are an intellectual construct – and that unless some human can construct an explicit description, you get to assume it doesn’t exist.
I come from a more direct Earth appreciation prospective and my love for science is based in my love for what it teaches me about this incredible planet I was born into.
Not for science in and of itself.
Science like models are tools towards better understanding.
But a gap in science to me is a gap in understanding – it seems to me
you turn that gap on it’s head when convent for your AGW contrarianism. Thus, when convenient – you believe if science can’t exactly define it, it can be ignored as if it doesn’t exist.
Am I close?
~ ~ ~
PS.
AGW, we inject too much CO2 into atmosphere.
CO2 even in parts per million are potent
(from an above comment it seems you believe that something in ppm must be impotent. Are you serious?)
Seems to me this real world evidence goes way beyond statistical significants:
Sea levels rising,
Oceans warming,
Cryosphere melting away before our eyes,
Stationary heat dome related extreme-heat events increasing,
Heat record way the hell out pacing cold records,
Infrastructure destroying extreme extreme-weather-events increasing.
But, then I guess you don’t think GHGs behave as GHGs anyways.
So maybe all this warming is just God Will independent of any geophysical forcings??
August 4, 2014 at 04:31
@citizenschallenge: “my love for science is based in my love for what it teaches me about this incredible planet I was born into.”
How can you say you love science if you don’t actually believe in practicing the scientific method with the requisite falsifiability?
“you believe if science can’t exactly define it, it can be ignored as if it doesn’t exist.”
No, I believe that admitting a lack of knowledge is the first step to wisdom, and precipitously demanding a course of action based on the precautionary principle, without the requisite knowledge, is foolish.
“AGW, we inject too much CO2 into atmosphere.”
No. That’s an assertion and value judgement with no rational basis.
“CO2 even in parts per million are potent”
No. We’ve had an increase in CO2 ppm for the past 17+ years, and no statistically significant warming – that’s a sign of impotence.
“real world evidence goes way beyond statistical significants”
Um, if it’s not statistically significant, you can’t discern whether or not it’s real or an artifact of measurement.
Look, your laundry list of talking points is foolish, since it’s directly falsifiable by data:
Sea levels rising at *millimeters* per year.
Oceans warming at a negligible rate.
Cryosphere melting and refreezing in the Artic, and extending in the antarctic.
Stationary heat dome related extreme-heat events show no statistically significant change.
Cold records outpacing warm records: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/31/so-far-in-2014-record-low-temperatures-outpace-record-highs-2-1/
Infrastructure destroying extreme events showing no statistically significant change in weather, but rather in where people have built up.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/
With such blatant lies about things I can actually go check data for, why should I believe you on anything?
August 12, 2014 at 08:39
Inadvertently misleading is a copout — that myt be true if those misled were always deniers, but when faithers ALSO are misled and right after watching the movie quote Al Gore as saying, “a 20-foot rise in ten years”, the word inadvertently doesn’t quite cut it.
Arbitrary cutoff such as 95% ? Wow. Your quibble is with statistics, I guess. AGW is special — apparently YOU get to choose the level at which you reject the null hypothesis. And I’m pretty sure I read a post above that said something like you guys have decided that AGW is the null hypothesis, so the burden of proof shifts to those who are skeptical of AGW. THAT takes it out of the realm of science.
Faith applies to folks that insist AGW is real when they know little science and no statistics. You’ve gotta agree with that, right? And what about journals REFUSING to publish articles skeptical of AGW? That surely leads to readers sharing your bias, wouldn’t you say?
Also a post above took a shot at republicans, implying that THEY are the ones putting politics before science. Some of them believe in AGW, but pretty near 100% of liberals believe in it, so which case indicates a POV based on politics?
August 12, 2014 at 17:29
As I expected, krischel throws around a lot of platitudes and doesn’t know what he is talking about, e.g. when referring to the Schmidt et al paper. It’s wondrous to see people complain about a paper that uses *actually measured values* as input for a model, rather than projected values (you see, those are not “fudge factors” or deliberately altered parameters, they are the ACTUAL values). Not knowing how models work is clearly another on a long list of things krischel doesn’t know (also, one wonders why Steve McIntyre suddenly ignores the known variability and uncertainties in both model runs and temperature records. And that comparison to UAH is hilarious (but you probably won’t understand why).
Regarding Taubes, read your own claims about what Ancel Keyes supposedly caused, where you used Taubes’ book as your single piece of evidence. Not a single shred of doubt there, despite the fact that Taubes himself *does* indicate there is uncertainty. And yet he does the same as Taubes did with the same level of uncertainty: make diet recommendations. You simply will not get the irony, ever.
August 12, 2014 at 17:32
@Marco: So, what you’re saying is that you have the perfect model, it’s just that you need to know what the actual observations are before you can make it fit them :)
Hilarious :)
Tell me, what inputs did the model have incorrect when they ran it the first time for their projections? Be *specific*.
Re: Taubes – what do you think his hypothesis is?
August 12, 2014 at 17:49
asweyo, who supposedly claimed 20 feet in 10 years? References, please!
And yes, everyone who knows even the slightest about statistics will agree that 95% is an arbitrary cut-off. Or, as Ronald Fisher put it ” it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation is to be considered significant or not”. Convenient, but no clear reason why 1-in-20 is enough, and 1-in-10 is not (or why it shouldn’t be 1-in-50). Pretty funny that you don’t know this (it is in all the stat textbooks I know), and then accuse people like me of not knowing statistics. You might want to get an education first before trying to lecture people who even with basic statistics knowledge apparently already know more than you do.
And yes, it must be political that most (not all) Democrats believe their brightest scientific minds are correct. Funny, isn’t it? Republicans accepts some science, and then reject other science, because the science that suits their ideology must be right, while the science that doesn’t must be the result of some bias.
I wish it was different, but as of late the Republicans are much more likely to reject scientific findings than Democrats.
August 12, 2014 at 21:08
@Marco: The sad fact of the matter is that social conservative Republicans reject science that contradicts their beliefs (evolution), and liberal socialist Democrats reject science that contradicts their beliefs (natural climate change).
The way you get past the question of political preference is by asking for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Creationists don’t have one. AGW alarmists don’t have one.
August 13, 2014 at 07:54
krischel, you still clearly don’t get it. No model is perfect, as they all necessarily have to make assumptions when looking into the future. Things like volcanic eruptions cannot be projected into the future (some models incorporate this in a random fashion based on prior eruption frequencies). ENSO is a major source of variability, and not all models are equally good in projecting this variability on a decadal time-scale. Etc. etc. Your dismissive attitude shows that you have never ever even tried to really understand the topic.
Regarding Taubes’ hypothesis: apparently you believe his hypothesis to be falsifiabel and *therefore proven*. Look again at what you claim, and compare that to what Taubes himself admits about the available data: as yet unproven, at best indications. You would have to lower the bar for significance enormously to draw the conclusions you have drawn.
August 13, 2014 at 08:00
You are posturing with political games. The falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW is in the radiative forcing and its effect on climate and the carbon cycle and the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases (and aerosols) to the atmosphere. Simple. Read Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate to get a grasp of the fundamentals. I know you won’t. It would be too difficult for you to accept how much scientists understand. You will just make up your own definition of AGW such that you can include some kind of element you can proclaim “non-falsifiable”.
August 13, 2014 at 08:30
@Marco: “ENSO is a major source of variability”
Exactly, and one that hasn’t been accurately modeled. Assuming that ENSO can’t have an underlying linear trend is a massive failure in imagination.
Re: Taubes – what do you think his hypothesis is?
“The falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW is in the radiative forcing and its effect on climate and the carbon cycle and the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases (and aerosols) to the atmosphere”
That’s an assertion, not a falsifiable hypothesis. In fact, it’s multiple unchained assertions.
1) radiative forcing – trivial to show that this exists in both the lab and our environment;
2) effect on climate – unstated in your “hypothesis”, because you will claim *any* effect as proof of your belief;
3) the carbon cycle – something that you believe is so simple it can be simply perturbed by human emissions without *any* negative feedbacks or buffers possibly mitigating the response;
4) anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases – again, your imagination fails to conceive that these additions may simply be reacted to by the environment, rather than blindly accepted into the sum total.
The fact of the matter is this – you’ve got a model that doesn’t work unless you see the observations first, you’ve got a hypothesis that isn’t falsifiable, and you expect others to simply bow down and worship the same gods as you do :)
I know you believe I don’t understand the topic – but that’s simply a clever defense on your part against the cognitive dissonance that comes with believing you are unassailable, but being shown clearly that your ideas are flawed.
You remind me of Bill Nye and his flawed tabletop experiments: http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
August 13, 2014 at 16:04
asweyo Says:
August 12, 2014 at 08:39
Inadvertently misleading is a copout — that myt be true if those misled were always deniers, but when faithers ALSO are misled and right after watching the movie quote Al Gore as saying, “a 20-foot rise in ten years”, the word inadvertently doesn’t quite cut it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did Gore actually say “20-foot rise in ten years?
I recall something more along the lines of, if such and such happens we can expect a 20-foot sea level rise.
Would you have a source, but please not an “AmericanThinker” article or some other creative smear attack on Gore.
Can you come with a source that originates with Gore.
If you claim he says it in the movie (AIT), could you give the rough time signature where it could be found (I’ll be honest have only watched the movie once, and saw too many missed opportunities, and it irritated the heck out of me – so didn’t like it much and never viewed it again… but it would be interesting to see if he actually said those words…
Or if it’s another case of malicious creative reinterpretation, which climate science denialists have become so adept at.).
August 13, 2014 at 16:41
krischel Says:
August 13, 2014 at 08:30
You remind me of Bill Nye and his flawed tabletop experiments: http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curious lil paper and that website ‘aka’ – looks like another example of rhetoric over substance.
You should be reminded that table top experiments that demonstrate the Principle of a situation are not expected to exactly replicate the natural world.
Just as Climate Models have never pretended to be capable of exactly mimicking our weather.
For those who’s like a dose of science regarding greenhouse gases
“Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?”
Posted on 19 May 2010 Guest post by Chris Ho-Stuart
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-the-greenhouse-effect-been-falsified.html
and of course there’s:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/
August 13, 2014 at 16:49
@citizenschallenge: Did you read the paper? They actually bend over backwards to hew to the party line on AGW (read it all the way to the end), but criticize Nye for using an example that explicitly *doesn’t* show what he asserts. *Nye* is the one using rhetoric over substance, and getting the science wrong in order to push his political view.
It seems like you’re happy to give people a pass on bad science, so long as their answer lines up with your beliefs :)
August 13, 2014 at 18:06
krischel, you may want to parse my statement a bit more careful. I did not say “is”, but “is in”.
Also, the models require input values for some basic parameters to calculate the earth’s climate. That is, the models calculate temperature, temperature distributions, and also humidity based on input parameters that are not any of the above. This is how *all* scientific models work: you need input values to calculate output values. If you take projections of the input values, the correctness of the output values depends on the using the correct projections. By definition projections are never perfect, and thus one can never expect a climate model to exactly mimick what is going to happen.
To give an example from your own obsession, carbohydrates and insulin, a well-controlled diabetes patient adjusts his insulin injections based on what he expects to eat. A scientist could, based on those two parameters (units insulin and expected carbohydrate intake) and the known glycaemic response of the diabetes patient, give a very good estimate of the blood sugar levels. But if the patient doesn’t eat as much as he had planned, that projected blood sugar level will be wrong. If the scientist then uses the actual carbohydrate intake, his calculation would be right (ballpark-right, there are some other factors, too). Your flawed logic would proclaim the scientist’s model is wrong.
Oddly, you then go on and show you do get some of the basics, demand I have imagination, and fail to note that if you could show the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic, you *have falsified on major element of AGW* (next to show is that the anthropogenic aerosols are not relevant). There are plenty of possibilities for you to show the increase is not anthropogenic, but you can’t. Those who have tried have done so by doing mathturbation, often ignoring big elephants in the room, e.g. Salby’s ultralow or negative atmospheric CO2 concentrations when his equation is backcast to the LIA.
August 13, 2014 at 20:08
@Marco: “I did not say “is”, but “is in”.”
So, what you’re saying is that instead of specifying a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you just gave a reference to something else unspecified. Good job :)
“Also, the models require input values for some basic parameters to calculate the earth’s climate. ”
Specify these input values. If part of what is necessary is the *actual* temperature, or the *actual* ENSO value, doesn’t that simply mean your model is a curve fit to some arbitrary set of values?
“By definition projections are never perfect”
Not only are they not perfect, they’re apparently immune to falsification, because any time they don’t match observations, you simply curve fit to the observations again.
“a well-controlled diabetes patient adjusts his insulin injections based on what he expects to eat.”
Wouldn’t it be better for the diabetes patient not to eat foods that cause insulin response? If you require an injection to eat a certain type of food, maybe you shouldn’t be eating it.
“fail to note that if you could show the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic”
I’ve already shown you can constrain that by looking for the work week cycle in global CO2 levels. Certainly, it still leaves room for anthropogenic influence, but do you accept that this influence is constrained to only a minority of the increase in global CO2?
“There are plenty of possibilities for you to show the increase is not anthropogenic”
Besides the work week constraint I’ve illustrated, what else would convince you that global CO2 levels are not determined by gross human CO2 emissions? Be specific.
Re: Taubes – you still haven’t said what you think his hypothesis is.
August 14, 2014 at 02:04
krischel Says: August 13, 2014 at 20:08
@Marco: “I did not say “is”, but “is in”.”
So, what you’re saying is that instead of specifying a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you just gave a reference to something else unspecified. Good job :)
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Krischel you are dodging again.
Marco Said: August 13, 2014 at 18:06
“Oddly, you then go on and show you do get some of the basics, demand I have imagination, and fail to note that if you could show the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic, you *have falsified on major element of AGW* (next to show is that the anthropogenic aerosols are not relevant). There are plenty of possibilities for you to show the increase is not anthropogenic, but you can’t. Those who have tried have done so by doing mathturbation, often ignoring big elephants in the room, e.g. Salby’s ultralow or negative atmospheric CO2 concentrations when his equation is backcast to the LIA.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What’s sadly funny, is that you (K) keep waving your “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement” banner, yet every time someone does just that and produces examples of perfectly reasonable tests – you avoid the essence of problem, instead dodging into your philosophical back alleys (that seem devoid of any interest in constructive learning) of that superiority complex towards full-time scientists.
Listen to yourself. You proclaim for yourself what is and is not relevant regardless of the greater knowledgable community’s “consensus” opinions. You act as though you have the right to distrust everyone who doesn’t product the answers you’re expecting, no matter how much smarter and more informed than you they are.
Seems to me you sure are convinced of your own superiority.
Am I being out of line?
Can you please explain your dripping contempt for others of deeper insights into these matters? Here’s where I expect you to say: well I expect nothing more than some “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But, Marco offered a couple good tests. Why do you dodge them?
…As you dodged defining exactly which stolen emails show any actual wrong doing
(Oh and K, you asked me once if I’d read them. Yes, I have read many and to me they reveal a healthy and skeptical communication between engaged serious professional community involved in a serious endeavor – that’s why you are afraid to engage in any actual serious examination of those emails.
I welcome it. Bring it on.
Nah, you won’t more Luftgesheft, hot air.)
…As you dodged undertaking a rational side by side comparison of a talk by Dr. Ben Santer (of my choosing) and a Dr. Lindzen talk (of your choosing).
This challenge too you run away from because you probably understand that Dr. Lindzen is a charlatan and that bettering understanding his formula would break the mesmerist’s spell as his act of smoke and mirrors falls apart.
I welcome it. Come on down http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com
Bring it on.
Nah, but you won’t, more Luftgesheft, hot air.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now you dodge Marco:
“you could show the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.”
or you could “show that the anthropogenic aerosols are not relevant.”
What could be simpler K?
~ ~ ~
Since you decline Marco’s challenge,
could you try to explain – in as simple a manner as possible
What your “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement” is supposed to mean,
and how it is supposed to be carried out in the real world of limits that we live in???
August 14, 2014 at 02:17
@citizenschallenge: Don’t be obtuse – Marco offered *no* tests. Simply stating “you could show the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic” is not a test, its *begging* for a test…which I then referred to the work-week signature as a constraint on possible human impact on global CO2 levels.
“As you dodged undertaking a rational side by side comparison of a talk by Dr. Ben Santer (of my choosing) and a Dr. Lindzen talk (of your choosing).”
You show me Ben Santer’s necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement in *any* of his talks – no need for comparison, just the basics of the scientific method :)
” produces examples of perfectly reasonable tests ”
You misunderstand the difference between necessary and sufficient. You need *both*.
“Seems to me you sure are convinced of your own superiority.”
Well, when it comes to understanding falsifiability, I’m clearly superior to you and Marco :)
“Can you please explain your dripping contempt for others of deeper insights into these matters?”
I have nothing but contempt for a priest who demands that I believe in his dogma because his chosen authorities must be honored. Science has nothing but contempt for those who demand we believe things simply because some authority proclaimed it so – the whole *point* of the scientific method, and rationalism in general, is to understand that knowledge and truth are *not* the sole province of authority figures.
If you want to convince me, you need to follow the scientific method, and start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Saying you get a tingle when you listen to Santer, and a chill when you listen to Lindzen isn’t science.
“As you dodged defining exactly which stolen emails show any actual wrong doing”
I didn’t dodge at all. The climategate emails clearly show a mindset where what matters is the team, not the science. Your sad devotion to the heroes of your religion, despite their obvious malfesance, displays your commitment to the cause, but not very much rational thought.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subverted-peer-review
Of course, you’ll argue that it was legitimate for them to redefine peer review to keep out “bad” papers because obviously, in their divine judgement, those papers were bad. Color me unconvinced :)
“Come on down http://somecheesyblogparodyofwattsupwiththat”
Is that what this is? Some attempt to get traffic at your blog? Pardon me if I pass :)
“could you try to explain – in as simple a manner as possible What your “necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement” is supposed to mean,”
I’ll state it again – two very simple things:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).
August 14, 2014 at 03:49
krischel Says: August 14, 2014 at 02:17
“I have nothing but contempt for a priest who demands that I believe in his dogma because his chosen authorities must be honored. ”
~ ~ ~
I notice not a word about the fact that some folks are more educated and experienced and knowledgeable.
You want to ignore that these folks who’s information you resent have achieved levels of education, followed by on the job experience… plus experience driven insights… you and I don’t come close to.
What about believing something from someone that obviously understands more than you do?
Instead you keep using labels on things you don’t like.
Labels explain nothing. And educate no one.
~ ~ ~
{PS
Plus, all of this skirts the fact that you’ve misrepresented the scientific understanding on a number of occasions, revealing yourself to be a bit more of a vandal than any seeker of education. }
What about misrepresenting the science?
Why you got no problem with that?
August 14, 2014 at 03:54
@citizenschallenge: “not a word about the fact that some folks are more educated and experienced and knowledgeable.”
That is correct – nobody gets a free pass no matter how many years of seminary they’ve had, or how many years they’ve been a cardinal, nor how many verses of the bible they’ve memorized.
No matter how studly you are, you’re required to show your work, and start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
“What about believing something from someone that obviously understands more than you do?”
Good question – why don’t you believe me? :)
Here’s the thing – science democratizes the investigation and search of truth. You don’t have to simply believe in the smarter person, you can insist that they show their work, and follow the scientific method, starting with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
“What about misrepresenting the science?”
I’ve never misrepresented the science, and your claims that others have aren’t judged by any rational measure, but by whether or not they agree with your preconceived beliefs. Obviously Michael Mann, with his “trick” misrepresented the science – but you refuse to call him out on that because he’s on *your* team. That’s great when cheering on a soccer match, but not so good for science :)
August 14, 2014 at 16:03
krischel Says: August 14, 2014 at 03:54
I’ve never misrepresented the science, and your claims that others have aren’t judged by any rational measure, but by whether or not they agree with your preconceived beliefs. Obviously Michael Mann, with his “trick” misrepresented the science – but you refuse to call him out on that because he’s on *your* team. That’s great when cheering on a soccer match, but not so good for science :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you go again krischel making your arguments with “Labels” rather than rational presentation of evidence.
Please do explain Mann’s “trick”?
What it was?
Why do you believe it wasn’t good science?
Please don’t link me to CATO a group who only interest is in power politics and consistently ignores and misrepresents sciences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets see if you can actually describe your complaint regarding Dr. Mann.
August 14, 2014 at 16:09
“The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”
http://www.cato.org/about
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not a single word about humanity’s interaction with this Earth.
Nothing about humanity’s dependence on a healthy biosphere.
Nothing about seeking any understanding of natural forces.
In fact, it’s a perfect example of Republican/Libertarian/God Fearing folk’s disconnect from reality in favor of believing in ancient tribal books and having the unhinged audacity to believe they actually understand God – so that they can ignore the planet we depend on for everything.
This in turn leads them (you?) to believe that only their own personal short term interests have any important and that all else can go to hell.
Shame on the whole lot of you. :- (
August 14, 2014 at 16:24
@citizenschallenge: “Please do explain Mann’s “trick”?”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
“This in turn leads them (you?) to believe that only their own personal short term interests have any important and that all else can go to hell.”
You really do see this as a holy crusade to stop people from going to hell, don’t you? :)
Look, you asked me for specific climategate emails that showed malfesance, and I gave you a citation to a climate scientist (Patrick Michaels) who wrote an article for the Cato Institute, showing clearly the abuse of the peer review system undertaken by your AGW heroes.
Your response? “Bad, bad, bad republicans!” Very mature :)
As for why Cato was interested in this at all, obviously when you have a religious program instituted by government that impinges on individual liberty, expands the scope and size of government, and destroys free markets, well, it’s right up their alley :)
Look, I understand it’s difficult to be confronted with facts that don’t jibe with your preconceived beliefs – but try for a moment to re-read the article regarding the subversion of peer review with an open mind. Imagine if you had read these emails from bible thumping creationists, and they had decided to keep scientific papers out of some report in order to protect their belief system…put the shoe on the other foot, and walk around a bit. If you’re lucky, you’ll not only notice the hypocrisy in yourself, but you’ll confront it, and apologize for defending the indefensible.
August 15, 2014 at 05:03
Look, you asked me for specific climategate emails that showed malfesance, and I gave you a citation to a climate scientist (Patrick Michaels) who wrote an article for the Cato Institute, showing clearly the abuse of the peer review system undertaken by your AGW heroes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You haven’t produced jack!
Produce something we can actually examine
here.
Stop pointing at others.
~ ~ ~
Bad Bad are people who depend on misrepresenting scientific evidence and who steadfastly refuse to focus on the real issues and questions.
You betcha!
August 15, 2014 at 06:02
krischel Says:
August 14, 2014 at 16:24
@citizenschallenge: “Please do explain Mann’s “trick”?”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
…
Look, you asked me for specific climategate emails that showed malfesance, and I gave you a citation to a climate scientist (Patrick Michaels) who wrote an article for the Cato Institute, showing clearly the abuse of the peer review system undertaken by your AGW heroes.
~ ~ ~
Please explain where this malfeasance exists.
Also please explain why you believe the explanation offered by folks who understand these matters should be ignored, rather than examined and weighted???
In particularly let me point your attention to an interesting informative article at SkS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm
:”However, the original text indicates otherwise:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. Somehow Jones’ original email has morphed into “Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline” to the point where even Professor Muller quotes this line as fact.
So what is “Mike’s Nature trick”? This refers to a technique (in other words, “trick of the trade”) used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann et al 1998). The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. Here is the original hockey stick graph published in Mann et al 1998:
There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled in Mann’s 1998 Nature article, the follow-up Mann et al 1999 and the IPCC Third Assessment Report. To claim this is some sort of secret, nefarious “trick”, or worse – to confuse this with “hide the decline” – displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.
The “decline” has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995
While skeptics like to portray “the decline” as a phenomena that climate scientists’ have tried to keep secret, the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995).
In Phil Jones’ email, he was discussing a graph for the cover of an obscure 1999 World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report, which depicted both instrumental temperature data and reconstructed temperatures based on tree rings. The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): … ”
etc., etc.
~ ~ ~
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/mikes-nature-trick-to-hide-the-decline/
~ ~ ~
Though as was pointed out here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
“More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. …”
– See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#sthash.oHe4VsYa.dpuf
August 15, 2014 at 06:18
krischel Says:
August 14, 2014 at 16:24
@citizenschallenge: “This in turn leads them (you?) to believe that only their own personal short term interests have any important and that all else can go to hell.”—
krischel: “You really do see this as a holy crusade to stop people from going to hell, don’t you? :)
Look, you asked me for specific climategate emails that showed malfesance, and I gave you a citation to a climate scientist (Patrick Michaels) who wrote an article for the Cato Institute, showing clearly the abuse of the peer review system undertaken by your AGW heroes.
Your response? “Bad, bad, bad republicans!” Very mature :)
As for why Cato was interested in this at all, obviously when you have a religious program instituted by government that impinges on individual liberty, expands the scope and size of government, and destroys free markets, well, it’s right up their alley :)”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you explain why you consider
Learning about humanity’s interaction with this Earth.
Learning about humanity’s dependence on a healthy biosphere.
Learning about seeking an understanding of natural forces.
???
zany religious things, seems rational as the sun rise to me.
~ ~ ~
listen to your “destroy free markets” ejaculation –
haa – that “free market” that is consuming our very life support system and that has now come to depend on a war machine to continue growing*. What’s so good about it’s momentum? And don’t give me a song and dance about the wonder advances of the 20th century – yes it was a great time, but it was also a Ponzi Scheme and it’s starting to fall apart before our eyes.
{* PS learn a little history
“Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex”
what about all the destruction to our life support systems your precious corporate free market has inflicted upon this shrinking Earth. Why doesn’t that seem to matter to you folks one bit?
It’s like you folks are oblivious to simple math and the reality of limits.
August 15, 2014 at 16:32
@citizenschallenge: “You haven’t produced jack!”
Here, I’ll provide you the cite again: http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
“why you believe the explanation offered by folks who understand these matters should be ignored,”
SS is a propaganda site that censors contrary opinion, deletes and edits comments to fit their agenda, and provides verbose, but totally unconvincing defenses for things like Mann’s trick. Instead of taking it head on, they create a straw man they can strike down (Mann vs. Briffa vs. both), and ignore the actual problem.
Yes, Briffa was worse, but Mann was either incompetent or malicious: http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
Your RC quotes show the same thing – put up a straw man (like the Evil Anti-Koch Soros), and ignore the plain facts in front of your face.
The inability for you, SS, and RC to look honestly at the bad behavior and poor science of those people you see as heroes damages your credibility on *everything*.
“Can you explain why you consider…[mantra of tree hugging]…zany religious things, seems rational as the sun rise to me.”
You’re not trying to learn, you’re trying to defend a belief system at all costs. In fact, you’re probably doing it more zealously than any of my mormon or evangelical friends :)
This was your quote: “only their own personal short term interests have any important and that all else can go to hell.”
It’s like you *literally* believe that people who have a different opinion than you are sending souls to hell. That’s not rational :)
“what about all the destruction to our life support systems your precious corporate free market has inflicted upon this shrinking Earth”
Okay, so obviously you’re still alive. Furthermore, *billions* more people are alive now than in 1900 – nothing is wrong with our life support systems if our population is growing and quality of life is increasing.
Second, the earth isn’t shrinking, unless you count the minuscule amount of atmosphere that gets torn away by the solar wind – certainly you can’t blame solar wind on corporations :)
“And don’t give me a song and dance about the wonder advances of the 20th century – yes it was a great time, but it was also a Ponzi Scheme and it’s starting to fall apart before our eyes.”
So you’re a unabashed, willfully ignorant Malthusian – given that, your point of view and your zealotry is perfectly understandable :)
Here – some history for you:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2009/02/20/Ikes-Not-So-Famous-Second-Warning
“Ike’s second warning: “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.””
Sounds ominously similar to the kind of public policy prescriptions you’re trying to justify on shoddy science :)
August 15, 2014 at 19:00
krischel Says:
August 15, 2014 at 16:32
@citizenschallenge: “You haven’t produced jack!”
Here, I’ll provide you the cite again: http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
{And I have looked at it and responded with contra information you rather ignore than discuss. You are good with the labels, how about adding a little substance?? CC ;-) }
“why you believe the explanation offered by folks who understand these matters should be ignored,”
SS is a propaganda site that censors contrary opinion, deletes and edits comments to fit their agenda, and provides verbose, but totally unconvincing defenses for things like Mann’s trick. Instead of taking it head on, they create a straw man they can strike down (Mann vs. Briffa vs. both), and ignore the actual problem.
~ ~ ~
OK please, in your own words, elucidate the actual problem?
August 15, 2014 at 19:03
@citizenschallenge: “OK please, in your own words, elucidate the actual problem?”
Seriously? You literally spam quote entire articles from your propaganda sites, and then ask me for something *in my own words*? :)
Sigh.
The article cited speaks quite clearly on the topic – if you are having a problem understanding a specific sentence in the article, please let me know and I’ll help you parse it.
You can focus here if you’d like:
“Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.
‘Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.’
mike’s response speaks for itself.
‘No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.'”
August 15, 2014 at 21:23
krischel Says: May 21, 2014 at 06:27
A good start, but some pretty big holes there:
1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
krischel Says: We’ve already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.
2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
krischel Says: Same as #1.
3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
krischel Says: Same as #1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I been doing some review and am wondering if you might explain what you mean with this comment ?
It sounds to me like your null hypothesis has been reduced to:
“Because past climate changes happened, humanity can’t have an impact on today’s climate”
~ ~ ~
krischel if I’m misunderstanding your message, could you explain what you’re trying to convey ?
August 15, 2014 at 21:49
krischel Says:
August 15, 2014 at 19:03
@citizenschallenge: “OK please, in your own words, elucidate the actual problem?”
Seriously? You literally spam quote entire articles from your propaganda sites, and then ask me for something *in my own words*? :)
Sigh.
The article cited speaks quite clearly on the topic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well yea, I read your article and it discusses sophisticated mathematical manipulation of data – but then one must handle data must’n one? Steve paints every adjustment a dishonest transgression though he doesn’t understand nor explain their significants, and he’s preaching to an uncritical uneducated audience.
It does speak quite clearly that everything Mann did was dishonest and intent on fooling others, or something like that.
Your main source of authority is a mining engineer investment strategist type with quite a colorful background that does not include any climate science. Yea, he knows his statistics up and down and he hates establishment climate scientists for disrespecting him.
Why do you trust this Steven Mcinyre’s words 100% ???
http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre
Where’s your healthy skepticism?
Then, when I read other sources that include actual informed climate scientists, it seems that what Mann did and what Briffa did are explainable… have been discussed in the literature since 4eeva… and were clearly labeled in actual reports and such in any event.
~ ~ ~
krischel, what I was hoping you could explain is why you are so sure that it’s evidence of dishonesty, rather than the usual messy affair that studying and measuring our real living planet is.
Why do you so uncritically trust McIntyre’s uneducated and openly hostile voice.
August 15, 2014 at 21:51
PS. Allow me to share this from RealClimate that speak directly to Steven Mcintyre’s game:
~ ~ ~
“Yamalian yawns”
Filed under: Climate Science Paleoclimate — gavin @ 11 May 2012
Steve McIntyre is free to do any analysis he wants on any data he can find. But when he ladles his work with unjustified and false accusations of misconduct and deception, he demeans both himself and his contributions. The idea that scientists should be bullied into doing analyses McIntyre wants and delivering the results to him prior to publication out of fear of very public attacks on their integrity is ludicrous.
By rights we should be outraged and appalled that (yet again) unfounded claims of scientific misconduct and dishonesty are buzzing around the blogosphere, once again initiated by Steve McIntyre, and unfailingly and uncritically promoted by the usual supporters. However this has become such a common occurrence that we are no longer shocked nor surprised that misinformation based on nothing but prior assumptions gains an easy toehold on the contrarian blogs (especially at times when they are keen to ‘move on’ from more discomforting events).
So instead of outrage, we’ll settle for simply making a few observations that undermine the narrative that McIntyre and company are trying to put out.
First of all, it should be made clear that McIntyre’s FOI EIR requests on the subject of Yamal are not for raw data, nor for the code or analysis methodology behind a published result, but for an analysis of publicly available data that has not been completed and has not yet been published. To be clear, these requests are for unpublished work.
– See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/#sthash.xgFn3yPQ.dpuf
August 15, 2014 at 21:55
Oh and krischel your rabid hatred of SkS is pretty indicative that you yourself are not near as impartial as you like to present. ;- |
Care to share (and examine) some of your most grievous complaints against http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?
August 15, 2014 at 22:09
@citizenschallenge: It sounds to me like your null hypothesis has been reduced to: “Because past climate changes happened, humanity can’t have an impact on today’s climate”
You misunderstand the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that observed climate change is natural in origin. Your statement is a straw man that isn’t being asserted.
Of course humanity will have an impact on climate – so do butterflies. The assertion being questioned is your odd and novel suggestion that human CO2 emissions are a dominant factor in an incredibly complex climate system.
As for past climate change, your problem is that nothing we’ve seen in the modern era is unprecedented, at any time scale. We’ve seen rates of change similar to the ones before the industrial revolution, and we’ve seen magnitudes of change similar to the ones before the industrial revolution. It’s like you’re insisting that a winning streak by an NBA team must be due to a lucky rabbit foot you found, when in fact, that same NBA team had that same type of winning streak before you were born – you’ve got a huge burden to exclude other explanations for the winning streak besides your lucky rabbit’s foot.
August 15, 2014 at 22:13
@citizenschallenge: “Care to share (and examine) some of your most grievous complaints against SS”
Really? You want to go there? :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/skeptical-sciences-john-cook-making-up/
Do you really have an open mind on this? Is there *anything* you could observe that would make you doubt the fraud John Cook or his cronies at SS?
“Your main source of authority is a mining engineer investment strategist type with quite a colorful background that does not include any climate science. ”
His authority is in his argument, not his credentials, silly :)
Do you deny that Mann lied about splicing proxy data with temperature data?
August 15, 2014 at 22:15
@citizenschallenge: “Then, when I read other sources that include actual people who agree with my point of view, it seems that what Mann did and what Briffa did are explainable”
There, FTFY :)
Exactly how do you justify hiding a divergence between proxy data and observations? In your own words, please :)
August 15, 2014 at 22:17
@citizenschallenge: (giving some desmogblog link)
ROTFL :)
Really, the Fakegate source is your cite? HAHAHAHAHA! :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/15/desmog-blog-headed-back-to-obscurity/
Ever hear of Peter Gleick? :) I’ll bet you’ve got a rock solid defense for his fraud too :)
August 15, 2014 at 22:22
@citizenschallenge: “Allow me to share this from RealClimate that speak directly to Steven Mcintyre’s game:”
Your RC cite simply called McIntyre names, and didn’t address any of his detailed analysis.
It boggles the mind that you can ignore McIntyre’s thoughtful, insightful, polite, and detailed work, and instead choose to believe in fallen heroes of your cause.
I take that back – actually, it makes perfect sense. You’re a team player. You’re here to fight for your team, no matter what fouls they commit. You’re dedicated, you *believe*, and you’ll use every ounce of your intelligence to rationalize away any contrary evidence to your belief system. You’re a good hearted guy who picked the wrong team, and because of that are arguing for bad things.
The sad part is that while I can empathize with what motivates you, all you have in your head regarding anyone who disagrees with you is a caricature of right wing social conservatives, so you haven’t even managed to get close to understanding my motivations or point of view.
Anyway, sounds like you might be going through something like this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/a-climate-of-despair-20140813-102r1w.html
August 15, 2014 at 22:24
@citizenschallenge: “krischel, what I was hoping you could explain is why you are so sure that it’s evidence of dishonesty, rather than the usual messy affair that studying and measuring our real living planet is.”
Splicing proxy with temperature data, then denying that you’ve ever known anyone who has ever done it, is lying. Period, end of story, no excuses, lying.
Mann is a liar, and a fraud, and a bully. Messy is fine, but this isn’t “messy” – this is putting “the team” above the truth, and using the cover of “science” to pervert science itself.
August 15, 2014 at 22:32
@citizenschallenge: “Oh and krischel your rabid hatred of SkS is pretty indicative that you yourself are not near as impartial as you like to present.”
Oh, if I hated SS, I’d have created a parody blog like “scepticalscience.org”, and whined about them continuously there :) I’m dismissive of SS, think they’re pathetic and dishonest, but I’ve got no hatred for them – I’ve got pity :)
As for impartiality, I’m more than happy to see evidence of malfeasance from anyone, on any side. It just so happens that the malfeasance comes from folk like Mann who lies about splicing data, or Gleick who uses forgery and identity theft to smear his opponents, or Jones who is willing to “redefine peer review” to keep contrary opinions out of the literature.
From the warmist side, FOIA is seen as malfeasance. Think about that for a second – the transparent distribution of information is seen as a *bad* thing by your side.
Are you sure you’ve chosen your heroes well?
August 16, 2014 at 00:23
krischel Says: August 15, 2014 at 22:09
“Of course humanity will have an impact on climate – so do butterflies. The assertion being questioned is your odd and novel suggestion that human CO2 emissions are a dominant factor in an incredibly complex climate system.”
~ ~ ~
Care to define odd and novel?
August 16, 2014 at 00:32
krischel Says:
August 15, 2014 at 22:15
Exactly how do you justify hiding a divergence between proxy data and observations? In your own words, please :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did he do that? The divergence problem was an area of active study and no one was hiding anything.
Can you come up with a source independent of McIntyre reconstruction ?
August 16, 2014 at 00:46
krischel Says: August 15, 2014 at 22:32
From the warmist side, FOIA is seen as malfeasance. Think about that for a second – the transparent distribution of information is seen as a *bad* thing by your side.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Oh no you liar, this FOIA thing isn’t about “transparent distribution of information” it’s about harassment and attempt to suppress. Digging through personal emails isn’t going to help anyone learn anything about the science.
~ ~ ~
Chilling Effect – By Dahlia Lithwick
How the attacks on a University of Virginia law professor are bad for academia, and all of us.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/douglas_laycock_gets_smeared_lgbtq_groups_attack_on_the_university_of_virginia.html
~ ~ ~
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/denialist-harassment-of-climate-scientists-needs-to-stop
~ ~ ~
Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann
Starting in April 2010, climate scientist Michael Mann has been subjected to a campaign of harassment, first by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has filed subpoenas demanding that the University of Virginia produce documents related to Mann’s time there, and later by the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a free-market think tank, which has sought identical materials through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
UCS has assembled the following timeline of events, editorial comments and statements from scientists, academics and other groups related to these attacks.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/va-ag-timeline.html
August 16, 2014 at 01:09
@citizenschallenge: “Care to define odd and novel?”
Sure. The idea that a factor that *lags* temperature change must be the *cause* of temperature change, much less a factor that is measured in parts per million, could overwhelm any other factors is odd and novel :)
“Where did he do that?”
http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/
“Can you come up with a source independent of McIntyre reconstruction ?”
Do you disagree with anything Mcintyre said specifically?
“this FOIA thing isn’t about “transparent distribution of information” it’s about harassment and attempt to suppress.”
Bullshit. Pure, utter bullshit. Science research done with public dollars should be *public*. You want to do something with your own money in your backyard, sure, keep it secret. You want funding from our tax dollars? I want you to version control and archive data, emails programs, and for it to be available to the public for free.
Mann is fighting so hard against disclosure because he’s a liar, and if his materials were examined it would prove it even more so.
If you want to look at suppressive tactics, just look at all the team pressure put on journals who dared publish anything that contradicted the professed dogma: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/peer-review-pal-review-and-broccoli/
But hey, keep fighting for opacity in government, and when the creationists get a hold of the reins of power, and insist that they’ve proven that the black race is inferior, or that gays are mentally defective, but refuse to provide their data, or suppress other work that contradicts them, they’ll be using the tools *you* put in their hands. The problem with your position is that it is based not on principle, but on the fact that you’re trying to justify keeping *power* in the hands of those you admire.
The only remedy to corruption and malfeasance in government funded science is transparency – and by fighting that, you’re making things worse for *everyone*.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/michael-manns-damages-over-foia-emails-a-piddling-250/
August 16, 2014 at 02:12
Out of time.
Later.
~ ~ ~
FYI – K, Jos, Hans, Victor,
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/necessary-and-sufficient-falsifiable.html
August 16, 2014 at 03:08
hey K,
What wrong with these explanations?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#comments
h/t to SM
August 16, 2014 at 05:36
@citizenschallenge:
We can skip myth #0, #1, #2 – they’re straw men nobody is claiming.
#3 is interesting, but their response is equivocal: “It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context.”
It only appears to be anomalous because they’re trusting invalid proxies. Trees are not good thermometers.
#4 is also interesting: “As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998).”
This is the particular problem with Mann – his algorithm will produce hockey sticks out of *noise* :) The fact that an upside down proxy makes no difference to the conclusion shows just how stacked the deck was to begin with :)
Mann was nobody until he hitched his wagon to the global warming star, and it makes sense that he would defend his errors of science and logic to the extreme. He is a fraud, a liar, a bully, and your full throated defense of him puts you in terribly bad company :)
August 16, 2014 at 17:10
krischel Says: August 16, 2014 at 01:09
@citizenschallenge: “Care to define odd and novel?”
Sure. The idea that a factor that *lags* temperature change must be the *cause* of temperature change, much less a factor that is measured in parts per million, could overwhelm any other factors is odd and novel :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s a shame that folks who know so little about the science feel so comfort spewing such nonsense. Why not try learning from a wider source pool that WUWT and the Great White Auditor.
~ ~ ~
K’s dodge in this case is that he ignores the known fact that in deep time those climate fluctuations were initiated by the so-called Milankovitch cycles which are regular changes in our planet’s orbit and rotation.
These periods of ancient warming were initiated by Earth receiving more of the sun’s energy with CO2’s impact kicking in later. The facts surrounding how this process operates has been studied and defined with increasing resolution for the past hundred years.
Misrepresenting such simple facts is another sign of the dishonest nature of your typical contrarian.
PS. To learn about what scientists have learned hear this:
Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
From the 2009 AGO Fall meeting.
~ ~ ~
As for your last comment, it has been responded to in detail over here. {Thanks for the fodder K, just wish I had time to do a more complete and organized job, but you pile it on too fast for me to keep up with.}
Examining denialist dodges, this time re Dr Mann
Friday, August 15, 2014
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/examining-more-denialist-dodges-re-dr.html
~ ~ ~
August 16, 2014 at 19:27
@citizenschallenge: “Why not try learning from a wider source pool that WUWT and the Great White Auditor.”
Racist and dodging the issue. Good job! :)
“in deep time those climate fluctuations were initiated by the so-called Milankovitch cycles”
Tell me, what does a milankovich model predict the global average temperature should be next year? When does a milankovich model predict the next trigger that overwhelms CO2’s greenhouse effect, and drives us into an ice age, while CO2 still increases?
Be specific :)
Regarding Alley: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/14/a-few-post-event-thoughts-about-the-agu-fall-meeting-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
“Thanks for the fodder K, just wish I had time to do a more complete and organized job,”
Ah, so you see this as practice for your emotional parody blog :)
Well, you keep on going! I’m sure your blogging has some therapeutic effect for you :) In the meantime, I’m sure you’ll keep misrepresenting the science, demanding that others believe in the same heroes you believe in, and learn very little about what good science looks like :)
August 16, 2014 at 19:31
@citizenschallenge: Oooh, here’s some talk from Alley to Mann:
“http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4990-mar-2006-richard-alley-to.html”
” she was not convincing that trees were thermometers when
it was warm a millennium ago but are not thermometers when it is warm now.
…(I’m happy to go into details as to why the arguments were not convincing,
insofar as I captured the arguments, but they were not convincing to me, and
looking around the committee room, I don’t think they were convincing to
important members of the committee.)
…I don’t want to stir up trouble, I don’t want to piss off the tree-ring people yet again,
but I do think that the tree-ring workers (and by
association, all of us who do climate change) have a serious problem, and
have not answered it very well yet.”
Notice how careful Alley is to try and keep Mann calm about the important critique he’s making on the divergence problem? :)
I wonder why he feels so threatened by Mann? :)
August 17, 2014 at 16:41
k Says:
CC says: “Thanks for the fodder K, just wish I had time to do a more complete and organized job,”
K’s retort: Ah, so you see this as practice for your emotional parody blog :)
Well, you keep on going! I’m sure your blogging has some therapeutic effect for you :) In the meantime, I’m sure you’ll keep misrepresenting the science, demanding that others believe in the same heroes you believe in, and learn very little about what good science looks like :)
~ ~ ~
Hmmm, my emotional parody blog?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/examining-denialist-dodges-re-dr-mann-2.html
Here is an example of the contrarian’s contempt for everything he/she doesn’t want understand.
My blog is a serious effort to examine the contrarian mind, put together by an individual who has taken learning about his planet very seriously and has done so for over fifty years. Admittedly it is not highly polished as I’m neither a scholar nor professional writer, but that does not make it a parody.
Still here we have K demonstrating how to cling to his hostility – K’s mind needs to twist every “opponent” into some obscene parody that has no relationship with what the individual, {be it a regular citizen like myself, or an extremely accomplished and recognized world class expert in his field sharing his findings and evidence}, is actually trying to share.
A couple examples just from this most recent exchange?
K hasn’t admitted that trees are only one of several paleoclimate proxies used by scientists, all of which produce a similar ‘hockey stick” shaped graph.
K can stare at Dr. Mann’s CV all day and still claim “Mann is a nothing.”
If K gave it a moments good-faith effort he would discover that my blog is about examining the denialist mind in a sincere attempt to try to understand what makes such folks tick.
Although I have discovered after years of effort that the denialist mind refuses to open itself up to an actual good-faith discussion, one that is dedicated to learning rather than scoring rhetorical debate points. So I’m left with describing their actions and responses along with offering objective information that experts have gathered.
August 17, 2014 at 19:19
@citizenschallenge: “Hmmm, my emotional parody blog?”
Yes, your emotional parody blog. Unable to confront the rational discourse of people who disagree with you, you’ve created a site dedicated to emotionally lashing out at them. Labeling your opponents “denialists”, you dehumanize them at the very start, unable to imagine anything but pure evil intent on their part.
For shame.
You don’t come to this conversation with good faith, rather, your cognitive dissonance has driven you to demonize anything that might break through the defensive emotional walls you’ve built up. You ask for others to open themselves up, yet your mind remains as closed as an egg :)
I mean hey, instead of admitting that Mann was fraudulent, and then making the argument that despite his fraud, other proxies (unspecified at this point) prove the general point, you *defend* Mann to the end! You point to his CV, and expect that to exonerate his fraud :) In doing so, you actually serve to demean any other point you’re trying to make with other unspecified proxies.
You need to spend a little less time caricaturing “denialists”, and a little more time trying to understand what makes *you* tick :)
But go ahead, please, excerpt whatever you’d like from my comments, and do your best to fit me into your world view – I’m sure you’ve found it’s much easier to demonize your opponent than trying to understand them :)
August 18, 2014 at 00:52
de·ni·al, diˈnīəl
noun
the action of declaring something to be untrue.
“she shook her head in denial”
More
a statement that something is not true.
plural noun: denials
“official denials”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But the thing is Krischel “denial” is a very descriptive term for your approach to the science, even in the above you continue denying the educated opinions of thousands of other scientists. You dismiss the guy’s academic record, yet you don’t seem to know the first thing about his record – only that you are told to hate his guts and anyone who has anything to do with him. Yea, that’s real grown up guy.
It’s not about liking or disliking the guy, it’s about whether his science stands up to the test of others in-the-know. Your McIntyre doesn’t understands the science, and comes to this with hostile politically motivated intentions, as has been underscored by his work being thoroughly investigated and rejected.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears.[12][13]
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14]
Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ps
http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Investigating Dr. Michael Mann… a supplement
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/investigating-dr-michael-mann-supplement.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Believe it or not krischel I am trying to understand you, and it would be made a whole bunch easier with a bit of help from you in developing a good faith dialogue. How about it? :)
August 18, 2014 at 00:55
Oh, but that would require you being able to face and digest the information that puts the lie to a number of your childish accusations. Such as the nonsensical and truly malicious slander you heap on Dr. Mann.
August 18, 2014 at 01:27
@citizenschallenge: You are a natural climate change denier :)
“You dismiss the guy’s academic record”
Because Mann’s academic record doesn’t make up for his lies and fraud.
“Your McIntyre doesn’t understands the science”
On the contrary, he’s incredibly well educated, and shows his work. Mann hides it behind lawsuits :)
“Believe it or not krischel I am trying to understand you”
Then understand this – I’m a radical atheist low carb small government libertarian who believes in individual freedom including gay marriage, abortion, and the right to bear arms. I see the AGW panic as one predicated on poor Malthusian reasoning, pushing forward solutions that hurt the poorest of the poor, and damage humanity more than any amount of global average temperature change possibly could. The fact that so much corruption has been discovered amongst your heroes (Gleick, Mann, Jones, et. al.) only increases the amount of scrutiny that should be applied to the alarmist claims.
A few things I’m not:
– I’m not doubtful of the radiative properties of CO2;
– I’m not doubtful that global average temperatures have been rising since the little ice age;
– I’m not doubtful that humans emit CO2;
– I’m not a petroleum executive with a vested interest in natural petroleum;
– I’m not a nuclear executive with a vested interest in nuclear plants;
– I’m not opposed to your proposed solutions because of short term thinking, I’m opposed to your proposed solutions because I believe they’re bad in the short *and* the long run;
– I’m not being selfish by insisting the poorest of the poor be given the advantages of cheap energy;
– I’m not an evangelical christian.
I know this doesn’t fit into your worldview – how can an intelligent, rational, atheistic, socially liberal person doubt the great Al Gore, or Michael Mann? The answer is that if you take off your political blinders for a moment, and look at your chosen heroes with a critical eye, you can see the truth past their lies.
Because in the end, that’s your problem – you’ve been lied to, and instead of questioning your own bad judgement in heroes, you’ve decided to protect your ego by defending them to the bitter end :)
There is a way out of this trap though – the scientific method. Starting with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Demand this kind of due diligence from your heroes, and when they fall short, perhaps you can let go of your blind faith and return to the realm of the rational :)
August 18, 2014 at 06:27
Listen to yourself, tons of political talk, then a quick tag line about falsifiable hypothesis – but then you come up with your outrageously disconnected and plain old wrong notions about Dr. Mann’s work.
And all you got is one man’s statistical gamesmanship and back up by megapower PR and tons of your own self-certain conviction that changing our economy … is, is what, not sure hell maybe.
That against many many hundreds of educated full time experts who have examined the claims of McIntyre.
see: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/examining-denialist-dodges-re-dr-mann-3.html
What else you got, please not more rhetorical flourishes, but scientifically sound, supportable information?
August 18, 2014 at 06:33
krischel Says:
August 18, 2014 at 01:27
@citizenschallenge: You are a natural climate change denier :)
“You dismiss the guy’s academic record”
K says: Because Mann’s academic record doesn’t make up for his lies and fraud.
{WHAT LIES AND FRAUD?}
CC: “Your McIntyre doesn’t understands the science”
K says: On the contrary, he’s incredibly well educated, and shows his work. Mann hides it behind lawsuits :)
{How’s being incredibly educated in mining, investment strategies and statistics qualify McIntyre to judge climate science?}
August 18, 2014 at 06:40
Who in the world con’ed you into believing Dr. Mann doesn’t show his work?
Thursday, July 25, 2013
EXPOSED – The RealClimate.org’s “McKitrick and McIntyre” Files
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/exposed-realclimateorgs-mckitrick-and.html
Thursday, July 18, 2013
EXPOSED – The RealClimate.org’s Hockey Stick Files
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/exposed-realclimateorgs-hockey-stick.html
August 18, 2014 at 06:51
@citizenschallenge: “you come up with your outrageously disconnected and plain old wrong notions about Dr. Mann’s work.”
Mann is a liar and a fraud. This is an undeniable fact.
“And all you got is one man’s statistical gamesmanship”
Tell me, does Mann have a degree in statistics? Do you really think he’s got better chops than McIntyre?
FFS, Mann used a proxy UPSIDE DOWN! :)
“That against many many hundreds of partisan full time activists who have examined the claims of McIntyre.”
There, FTFY :)
You point to hundreds of these activists, but can’t seem to quote a single error McIntyre has made in any of his analyses :)
“{WHAT LIES AND FRAUD?}”
Do you deny that Mann insisted that he had never heard of anyone splicing the proxy record with the instrumental record, when in fact *he* did just that for his hockey stick?
Really, do you still deny that?
“{How’s being incredibly educated in mining, investment strategies and statistics qualify McIntyre to judge climate science?}”
Well, when it comes to statistics, obviously Mann relied on poor (or possibly malicious) statistical methods – McIntyre obviously has expertise there that applies to the foundations of Mann’s claims…which undermine’s Mann’s assertions in climate science.
If you don’t have a firm foundation, how can you expect a building to stand?
Let me ask you a question – if you’ve read any of McIntyre’s work, have you understood it? Do you have any statistical background at all, or do you just take at face value the claims of your heroes that bad statistics doesn’t mean bad science? :)
August 18, 2014 at 06:55
@citizenschallenge: Here’s a great breakdown for you on Mann’s lies:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/michael-mann-is-a-liar-and-a-cheat-heres-why.php
“The Briffa curve created disappointment for those who wanted “a nice tidy story” (Briffa 0938031546.txt). The L.A. [Michael Mann] remarked in emails that he did not want to cast “doubt on our ability to understand factors that influence these estimates” and thus, “undermine faith in paleoestimates” which would provide “fodder” to “skeptics” (Mann 0938018124.txt). One may interpret this to imply that being open and honest about uncertainties was not the purpose of this IPCC section. Between this email (22 Sep 1999) and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999, Fig. 2.25 Expert Review) two things happened: (a) the email referring to a “trick” to “hide the decline” for the preparation of report by the World Meteorological Organization was sent (Jones 0942777075.txt, “trick” is apparently referring to a splicing technique used by the L.A. [Michael Mann] in which non-paleo data were merged to massage away a cooling dip at the last decades of the original Hockey Stick) and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa’s curve had been truncated for the IPCC report (it is unclear as to who performed the truncation.) …”
http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud
“Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.”
August 18, 2014 at 10:47
This discussion has long passed the point of diminishing return. I suggest y’all agree to disagree.
I’d like to remind you that I do have a comment policy in place.
August 18, 2014 at 16:18
@Bart: My apologies for dragging it on too long with citizenschallenge – you’re absolutely right.
Thank you for your hospitality! I did learn some new things from the discussion, and appreciate your blog!
August 18, 2014 at 17:42
Bart,
It hasn’t gone unnoticed that you have been very tolerant during this unending comments thread that’s exploded into all sort of unforeseen directions, thank you.
As for diminishing returns, seems to me the public global climate science education dialogue has been stalled in a state of diminishing returns since before the turn of the century, thanks to the diversionary tactics K has learned so well.
There is logic to my pursuit and I’m hoping I might inspire some more able students to finally stand up and engage contrarians with the tools that come from thoroughly recognizing their debate template. Not, just recognizing their base arguments and dodges, but coming in prepared for the silly yet too often successful attacks that all vocal defends of the science will experience.
To better understand the anatomy of contrarian diversionary tactics and come in prepared to defend rational science and active (good-faith I dare say) learning in a proactive manner.
Bart I sincerely thank you for your tolerance and hospitality and I especially appreciate the invitation your comments rule #4 extends, namely, to move this over to your Open Comments thread {which I notice is empty and waiting for an interesting discussion}.
I hope that invitation remains open because K has given me plenty to chew on and respond to. Unfortunately, first I need to catch up on the chores I’ve been dodging.
Best wishes {and thank you for an excellent informative, engaging website},
CC
August 20, 2014 at 16:06
PS.
Krischel come on down.
“Examining denialist dodges #4 K gets down to brass tacks”
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/examining-denialist-dodges-4-k-brass.html
August 20, 2014 at 16:48
@citizenschallenge: No thank you. As you say, you are not a very able student, and discussing this with you has become, as Bart has noticed, tedious and boring. Email me at jere_at_krischel.org once you’ve gotten a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from one of your heroes, and maybe we can get past your activism and onto the science :)
November 26, 2014 at 14:01
1. This could be about to happen. I hope not.
2. As this has been rising since the last ice age (without human influence), why should its fall be considered necessary proof? Surely, that its rate of rise does seem to be slowing should be quite a good indication?
3. An idea that is dependent on the present rise in CO2 levels to be mainly anthropogenic; my understanding is that it is mainly natural.
4. A peculiar idea for proof – mainly as I believe the term “forcings” to be erroneous, but also, I cannot see the relevance of the past temperature changes being smaller. The temperature changes of the present are little different from those of the past; surely, that should be a better indicator of falsification.
5. As this is something that has only recently been measured on an appreciable scale, how can we know that any change is relevant?
6. As in (5).
7. As in (5).
8. This is presuming that the heating of the climate system is continuing; all the evidence shows that it is not.
9. Acceptable, though (5) might continue to apply.
10. A strange idea; it would more likely be that the “behaviour” of CO2 in the wild is totally subsumed by the many variables in its environment which may not be present in the laboratory.
November 29, 2014 at 06:57
There is a logically important distinction between models of the type that make “projections” and models of the type that make “predictions.” Models of the latter type make claims that are falsifiable. Models of the former type make claims that are not. All of the models of IPCC assessment report 4 (AR4) and IPCC assessment reports the preceed it are of the former type. The claims that are made by these models are not falsifiable thus being unscientific. These models are, however, the basis for policies that include the Kyoto Accords, the EPA’s “endangerment” finding on CO2 emissions and the institution of a Cap and Trade system for the purpose of curbing CO2 emissions by the government of California.
In global warming climatology, “prediction” is a polysemic term that takes on the monosemic meanings of a) prediction and b) projection. When this term is used in making an argument and changes meaning in the midst of this argument it is an example of an “equivocation.” To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically illicit. To draw such a conclusion is an example of an “equivocation fallacy.” Public policy on CO2 emissions is based upon this fallacy.
November 29, 2014 at 08:32
Radical Rodent Says: November 26, 2014 at 14:01
#8. This is presuming that the heating of the climate system is continuing; all the evidence shows that it is not.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Are you serious? Do you actually believe our Earth hasn’t continued to warm this past decade? What “all evidence” are you talking about? Care to list it?
re #10) Care to list your “many variables in its environment” that might subsume the physics of greenhouse gases?
November 29, 2014 at 10:14
Terry Oldberg, erecting a strawman and then cutting it down does not constitute a valid argument. You may get applause for such arguments on sites like WUWT Climate Etc, or JoNova, but not here.
November 29, 2014 at 19:18
Citizenschallenge: well, the IPCC, UKMO, NASA – even the UEA’s Phil Jones says there has been no statistically significant warming for over 15 years; who am I to contradict them? Or do you know better?
As these hypothetical variables might not be known to the bodies above, why do you think I might be able to list them? They are “unknowns”; there is a clue in that label. Can you assure me that they do not exist?
November 29, 2014 at 19:56
@Radical Rodent: You misunderstand the faith of believers here – although they will readily admit that their knowledge is insufficient, and insist that yours is as well, they insist that they are experts at *picking* the experts.
Moreover, they will also insist that they are experts at picking the *interpretations* of experts. Since the whole anthropogenic global warming corpus includes predictions of all sorts, covering the entire range of possibilities (warmer, colder, less cyclonic activity, more cyclonic activity, droughts, floods, you name it), no matter *what* the observation, they’ve got someone who predicted it, much like astrological charts :)
Throughout the hundreds of comments already here, as well as the original article, the real problem is that the cornerstone of the scientific method, a necessary and sufficient hypothesis statement, is missing:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is the hypothesis (rather than the null).
The response you’re going to get is going to be the following:
– trivial falsifiability (rather then necessary and sufficient)
– an attack on falsifiability as necessary (arguing with the scientific method itself)
– appeal to authority (quite often to authorities that are trivially refuted)
– ad hominem
– the precautionary principle (without any thought to the adverse consequences of their proposed interventions)
You have to