Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 Next
Comments 37751 to 37800:
-
KR at 08:28 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness - You have been referring to GCMs and falsifiability; this is however an inappropriate terminology. Global circulation models are simulations of physics, evaluations of how those physics and the climate state might evolve over time, but they are not in themselves either hypotheses or theories.
GCMs are models, and models in general are always 'wrong' in that they do not contain the entirety of the physics, the details, and in that there will always be errors. The question with models is whether or not they are useful. It may very well be that the current generation of GCMs are incomplete in aspects of the climate that make them inaccurate - insufficient accounting for variability or modes thereof, or (as in the case of many models) run with inaccurate forcings or temperatures. There's certainly a significant literature pointing in that direction, as with England et al 2014 wrt variability or Contan and Way 2014 wrt temperature measures.
The only judgement you can make based solely on model output is whether or not they are accurate enough to be useful.
Global warming theory and the anthropogenic influence, on the other hand, is entirely falsifiable. Predictions include night warming faster than day, winter warming faster than summer, warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, polar amplification, the changes in top of atmosphere forcings with changing GHGs, the sum climate energy increase as seen in ocean heat content, etc. If these predictions failed, there would be evidence against the theories.
Those predictions have, however, been validated within the limits of the data available - while falsifiable, they have not been. And you have not been discussing the theories themselves in any fashion whatsoever.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:26 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness, you missed the point of my example of string theories. String theories certainly qualify as scientific theories as opposed to supernatural explanations. That was true despite them not being falsifiable when they were thunk up originally, as is true of a great many theories when they are originally thunk up but have not been subjected to empirical tests capable of falsifying them, and even when nobody has thought of a way to falsify them. Theories can be very valuable in other ways (e.g., fruitfulness) despite that. Initially, theories can get a pass on the falsifiability attribute of theory quality, as they can for low scores on other attributes. They are still scientific theories, and may even be potentially great theories because there is good reason to hope they can be improved in their low-scoring attributes. Eventually the theories might be abandoned because despite a great deal of work, folks have given up improving their low-scoring attributes or their total low score summed across all the weighted attributes. They might be "abandoned" meaning set aside because they are not as good as competing theories, rather than being "discarded" because they have been "falsified." Even a theory that appears to be falsified can be resurrected by realizing that some of its auxiliary theories were the pieces that were wrong.
"Falsifiability" is not an unambiguous, monolithic attribute. It depends on context--framework. Newtonian physics has been "falsified." But Newtonian physics has not been falsified in contexts where relativity is not strong enough to be important. Consquently, Newtonian physics is used a lot more than relativistic physics is. Newtonian physics still is a legitimate scientific theory. It scores poorly in certain attributes, but in most contexts of use those attributes are not very important.
Falsification is not the only attribute of scientific theories. It is not necessarily the most important attribute.
-
Tom Dayton at 07:57 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: You implied that I said GCMs are not falsifiable. That is incorrect. GCMs of course have the ability to be empirically demonstrated wrong. But there are many varieties of "wrong," so there are many varieties of my answer to your question. I can't respond with my answer to your question until you specify which variety of "wrong" you are asking me about. For example, do you want to know my criteria for concluding, based solely on the match of GCM projections to observations, that the presence of greenhouse gases does not make the Earth warmer than it would be otherwise? Or do you want to know my criteria for concluding that GCMs over-predict temperature trend by 2 times? Or what? Exactly?
-
jja at 07:56 AM on 3 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
In RPjr's senate testimony he stated that his models of future hurricane activity response to climate change, if perturbed to align with worst case model projections (I assume a 36% increase in extreme hurricane (3+) landfalls by 2100, that these events would not produce a stastically significant result for several decades.
I would like to know just how many extreme hurricane landfall events were needed between now and then to produce a statistically significant result.
Then I would want to see a total cost, in lives lost and economic damages for the sum of those events.
Finally, I would like to see the same projections (lives and cost), scaled out to 2200 for the climate response that results from maintaining BAU emissions for those "several decades" while we wait for the statistically significant trend to surface, and only then engaging in significant mitigation activities.
I am guessing that his model would show at least 14 significant major hurricane landfall events, above those that would have happened absent of global warming, for a total sum cost approaching 650 billion dollars and hundreds of lives lost.
-
Albatross at 07:54 AM on 3 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
I have mixed feel ing about Holdren debunking Pielke. The downside is why Holdren bothered trying to enagage and reason with a bit player like Pielke, it just feed's Pielke's ego, not to mention that Pielke just loves attention.
On the up side, a highly respected and influential figure has finally called Pielke on his repeated misleading comments, misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts. Footnotes or not-- including key information in footnotes just highlights the fact that Pielke is not being 100% honest with his audience, yet Pielke is ironically trying to use his conscious decision to claim his innocence ;) Fail.
Pielke has been quite slippery in the language he has used (and also what he has chosen to highlight or ignore for that matter) to appease the Republicans and help Republicans in their ongoing agenda to stand in the way of the USA reducing GHG emissions.
This episode has tarnished Pielke's reputation and his claim to be a supposed "honest broeker", and rightly so. Pielke walks a fine line between right and wrong and it was just a matter of time before he went over the line and got called out.
After Spencer (an infamous "skeptic") completely lost it in public recently, he is probably not going to be called to testify on behalf of the Republicans (the 3% has become even smaller). Fortunately, Pielke (a political scientist) will likely be only too happy to come to the aid of the obstructionist and ant-science Republicans when they next try to undermine climate science.
PS: It is interesting, Pielke allegedly voted for Obama and was happy with the appointement of Holdren as science advisor. Yet Pielke is only to happy to repeatedly help the Republicans stall on addressing AGW.
-
PanicBusiness at 07:36 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Okay Tom Daytons' 32 is an excellent start for discussing falsifiability in the framework of GCM based simulations but one thing I want to point out is that if you have a theory you are the one obliged to provide a possibility of falsifiability as to mature your theory into a scientific theory. To stick with tom's example string theorists are indeed having hard time to finding testable predictions (with current technologies) but they are also under heavy pressure from the rest of the theorethical physics community to do so. For a catch up on the controversy you can read Woit's blog.
Now I do want to make sure that at this point everyone understands the need for a theory to be falsifiable. You can write books about it but this little text sums it up best from wikipedia about Pauli
"[...] However, this was not his most severe criticism, which he reserved for theories or theses so unclearly presented as to be untestable or unevaluatable and, thus, not properly belonging within the realm of science, even though posing as such. They were worse than wrong because they could not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear paper: "It is not even wrong!""
P.S. I like the automatic helper on the sidebar that helps people with keywords. It makes writing to a wider audience a lot easier.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repitition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Polcy. All of your assertions about falsifiability have been thoroughly addressed many times over by more than one SkS contributor. Please cease and desist replowing the same ground. If you do not, your future posts will be summarily deleted.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:36 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness, I continued my response to you on the more appropriate thread Models Are Unreliable.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:33 AM on 3 March 2014Models are unreliable
This comment is a continuation of a conversation that started on the Falsifiability thread; this continuation is more appropriate on this Models Are Unreliable thread.
PanicBusiness: I can say that evaluating GCMs' temperature projections requires evaluating the GCMs' hindcasts rather than forecasts, when the hindcast execution differs from forecast execution only in the hindcast having the actual values of forcings--at least solar forcing, greenhouse gases (natural and artificial), and aerosols (natural and artificial). That is because GCMs' value in "predicting" temperature does not include predicting those forcings. Instead, GCMs are tools for predicting temperature given specific trajectories of forcings. Modelers run GCMs separate times for separate scenarios of forcings. GCMs are valuable if they "sufficiently" accurately predict temperature for a given scenario, when "sufficient" means that scenario is useful for some purpose such as one input in policy decisions.
My other requirement for evaluating GCMs is that even within an accurate scenario of forcings, that the short-term noise be ignored. Perhaps the most important known source of that noise is ENSO. ENSO causes short term increases in warming and short term decreases in warming, but overall balances out to a net zero change, meaning it is noise on top of the long term temperature trend signal. You can do that by comparing the observed temperature trend to the range of the model run result trends rather than to the trend that is the mean of the individual runs. In GCM trend charts sometimes those individual model runs are shown as skinny lines, as in the "AR4 Models" graph in the "Further Reading" green box below the original post. (Unfortunately, in many graphs those skinny lines are replaced by a block of gray, which easily can be misinterpreted to mean a genuine probabilistic confidence interval around the mean trend.) Actual temperature is expected to not follow the mean trend line! Actual temperature is expected instead to be jagged like any one of those skinny model run lines. The GCMs do a good job of predicting that ENSO events occur and that they average out to zero, but a poor job at predicting when they occur. The mismatches in timing across model runs get averaged out by the model run ensemble mean, leading easily to the misinterpretation that the models project a trend without that jaggedness.
Another way to see past ENSO and to match observed forcings is to statistically adjust the GCMs' projections for those factors. That approach has been taken for observations rather than models by Foster and Rahmstorf. That approach just now has been taken for model projections by Gavin Schmidt, Drew Shindell, and Kostas Tsigaridis--paywalled, but one of their figures has been posted by HotWhopper. Doing so shows that observations are well within the range of model runs.
-
PanicBusiness at 06:08 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Hi, @Rob Honeycutt
It is remarkable how you fall for the number one communist fallacy. You seem to think that the cost of restricting free markets manifests itself in the cost of creating and enforcing the regulations plus incubating otherwise unhealthy business models. NO. The vast majority of the cost of the climate regulations is in the fact that on the long run free markets are the best possible model for efficient use of the available resources(yes, free markets are the most sustainable when you account for the actual goods and services produced). Now for the actual cost, see what we got here. $8B? really?
"The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion"
As for Ms Figueres, here's another reference if you think the last one was an unbalanced interpretation. But I don't think you have room to question that the AGW/CAGW beliefs are strongly tied to devastating political regulations. Here's another:
"The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said."
Most of what I say is widely accepted the reason why I still provide references is to give opportunity for readers to catch up on the issue.
note: Rob's confused comment calls for an answer but I do recognize it is not very beneficial continue ths discussion and I am committed to put an end to it.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:00 AM on 3 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: Your question is poorly formed and even odd: "How much more discrepancy between the GCM based simulations and real measured surface temperature anomalies is required before it is safe to announce that those models have been falsified*?"
I don't know what exactly "falsifying" GCMs means. It is not as clear cut as "falsifying" the theory that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths.
If what you mean is demonstrating that GCMs' temperature projections are inaccurate, you need to specify what amount of accuracy is sufficient, because of course GCMs' projections are not and never will be 100% accurate, but that fact is not relevant to anything at all.
When evaluating any theory, it is necessary to specify the framework/goals within which it is evaluated--to what purposes is the theory being put, and is the theory sufficiently useful for those purposes? For example, in the world of physics, string theories so far are not "falsifiable" insofar that nobody has even conceived of a way they could be empirically distinguished from each other or from non-string theories--not even in principle. So string theories rate "0" in the falsifability attribute of theories. (Not exactly 0, because somebody might come up with a way someday. They are not unfalsifiable in such a deeply principled way to get a true 0.) But string theories rate high in the fruitfulness attribute--they have sparked creative thinking even within non-string theories.
You failed to provide that framework for evaluating GCMs, so I can't answer your question.
-
Jim Eager at 02:20 AM on 3 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
I have received two emails from SK as described by John Byatt.
Moderator Response:[JH] The SkS automated email system is experiencing a technical glitch. Please bear with us while we fix it.
-
arch stanton at 02:04 AM on 3 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
Kudos to Dr Holdren for taking the time to address these "seriously misleading" statements by Dr Roger Pielke, Jr. and the Republican Senator from Alabama, Mr Sessions.
-
monkeyorchid at 00:41 AM on 3 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9B
Here's some more evidence of BBC bias, or perhaps just a complete inability to distinguish between science and politics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711
Check out how the author repeatedly calls manmade climate change a "view" and attacks the Green party for daring to suggest that all government ministers should accept the scientific consensus. I'm not saying the BBC should agree with the Greens, but neither should they present it as a party demanding that everyone agree with them. Meanwhile the BBC has been accused of right-wing bias, which could could be linked to its refusal to treat the science as settled:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html -
aryt.alasti at 20:41 PM on 2 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
It is indeed a most impressively comprehensive account, and gives reassurance about the sophistication of your current efforts to combat attacks. I'm assuming that at the time when it initially occurred, there was notification to all who might have been affected, although I confess to not yet then being aware of the site. At this point I find it invaluable, and the close moderation has been a model discussed in debate about the need for such on another list that I'm on. My concern, should there be an intrusion here, would be about surreptitious alteration of content, although for others the privacy issue is legitimately primary.
-
MartinG at 19:41 PM on 2 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
My point is, that by following the propaganda road (say it again*E100) you allow your detractors to rubbish what you say with real, if partial arguments. This allows them to portray you as spouting dogma in conflict with science, and thus allowing the gap between public perception and where real science is to widen. This is counterproductive, and unhelpful, just as many of the comments on this site say more about the contributor than the topic. We should rather focus on what the real consensus is – because that includes that the planet is warming, which is an undisputed fact , – then we can seriously discuss what is the best thing to do about it. After all most propaganda in the past has been used to push false impressions on an unenlightened public, and rarely has a lasting effect. That’s why I say – get real.
-
john byatt at 18:29 PM on 2 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
Just received an emial skeptical science non reply included a list
this was one line
PGh0bWw+IAogPGhlYWQ+IAogIDxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVu
-
Tom Curtis at 17:08 PM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Michael Sweet @28 & @30, technically Tamino's graph shows the continuation of the trend 1975-1999 trend for Cowtan and Way's krigged HadCRUT4 temperature index. That trend is 0.155 +/- 0.11 C per decade. That is, the trend is just under one SD below the AR4 model mean prediction, and 1.4 SD below the AR5 model mean trend. Consequently there will be several years more than one SD below mean expected values as determined by the models, and may even be one or two that are two SD below the mean expected value as determined by the models.
That does not constitute a falsification of the models. Not even on a naive falsificationist model of science with a naive frequentist approach to statistics does it constitute a falsification. But the balance of evidence at the moment is that current trends are running 15% below AR4 expectations, and 26% below AR5 expectations. That has been occuring for long enough now that is is probable that the model mean is running too hot, but only by a small amount. Certainly not sufficiently hot to warrant setting 1.5 C per doubling as an upper bound on climate model sensitivity. Indeed, a climate sensitivity 1.5 C per doubling has also not been falsified by observations, but it is a lot closer to being so falsified than is a sensitivity of 3, or even 4.5 C per doubling.
PanicBusiness' comment about setting 1.5 C as an upper bound on model climate sensitivity (which, as it happens would exclude all models) removes any doubt as to his agenda. He is not a true falsificationist in science. Rather, he is using a language he does not appear to understand to claim that any observed values in disagreement with the values he preffers for political reasons are wrong, and on the putative basis that they are unfalsifiable. Meanwhile his confidence in a low climate sensitivity is so unshakable by observation that he does not see that Rohling et al falsify it (as much as anything can be falsified). Falsification, obviously, in his practise, is a standard that only applies to beliefs he does not want to accept.
Clearly there is no point in pretending he is capable of rational discussion. DNFTT
-
grindupBaker at 16:22 PM on 2 March 2014Global warming continues, but volcanoes are slowing down the warming of the atmosphere
Chris #2 Hansen, Sato & Ruedy paper you linked came right out and said "Thus it is puzzling that no reflight has been scheduled for the mission". Puzzling indeed. By way of contrast, I found the many comments out there about billions wasted, wealthy scientists, glad funding's being cut and whatnot to be comically transparent.
-
michael sweet at 14:36 PM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Here is a copy of the graph.
It is your responsibility to provide data to support your wild claim that a discrepancy exists. I do not see any data links in any of your posts. If you cannot provide data, they are all empty political statements. Provide data to support your wild claims or stop making them.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:32 PM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PB @26...
1) The Daily Caller states that, "United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model."
In fact, Figueres said nothing of the sort. She didn't say anything suggesting anything about political systems at all. She stated, "China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming."
The Daily Caller has taken extreme liberties with her intended meaning.
So, strike one on this source being "sufficiently accurate."
Strike two would be that none of this has any bearing on what you're apparently citing which is "political regulations (sic)." The best you could possibly claim is it's tangential.
2) The Larry Bell article is related to a 2011(?) GAO report regarding climate spending and bear no resemblence to what you seem to be attempting to cite, which is "devastating" (?). Devastating what? Spending? Larry Bell is making an absurd case in this article (as per usual) since the climate budget according to the GAO document was $8B out of a $3.8T budget. That amounts to 0.2% of the US budget.
Strike three. You're out.
-
michael sweet at 14:29 PM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Ppanic,
Tamino demonstrates here that there is not any discrepancy between the trend in increasing temperature over the past 30 years and GCM models. There is an issue with cherry picking the extreme heat year 1998 as start year. This cherry pick causes it to be not yet statisticly certain that it is still warming for the period of the cherry pick. In the past 15 years there are no years that are below one standard deviation from the expected trend line and there are two years that are above one standard deviation from the trend line.
This is a scientific blog. Data is required to support all claims. I have provided data to support my claim that no discrepancy exists. Please provide data to support your wild claim that there is a discrepancy between observed and GCM simulations. Your unsupported assertion that such a discrepancy exists is insufficient to support your claim, data is required here at SkS.
-
PanicBusiness at 14:00 PM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Ok we are never getting there so I have to ask directly: How much more discrepancy between the GCM based simulations and real measured surface temperature anomalies is required before it is safe to announce that those models have been falsified*? If you say "it doesn't matter simulations are still true", then you right there failed to accompany the scientific method(falsifiability).
*real skeptics say they already are. -
BC at 12:50 PM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9B
The link for the sixth item - Global warming action: good or bad for the poor - didn't work for me
Moderator Response:[JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention.
-
jyyh at 10:52 AM on 2 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
Thanks <BL>, so it's not that simple, . I guessed as much, pr4obly the '¨solution' would prove to be inadequate,,, ,. I'm rather a noob with programming so I guess the code is looked over rather regularly, so this was an intented hack.
-
PanicBusiness at 10:49 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
As to my references @Rob Honeycutt, I checked, all of them are sufficiently accurate, and I decided that these will do the best with the crowd at hand.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please lose the snark.
-
mikeh1 at 09:50 AM on 2 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
There is a malformed link in the first sentence of the section "Drought trends in the American West".
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:45 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Glenn... When PB said, "I further urge the community to propose experimets that could potentially exclude models and theories with high climate sensitivity i.e. higher than, say 1.5°C."
My interpretation was that he's saying "the community" should find ways to only show low sensitivity in the range that he prefers. Note the predetermined conclusion for what CS should be.
PanicBusiness... Researchers come up with novel methods for how to estimate climate sensitivity, collect the data, run the numbers, and then let the cards fall where they may. You can't frontload the results you want.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:17 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
It's worth taking note that PB's citations @15 consist of Wikipedia, The Daily Caller and Forbes' Larry Bell.
PanicBusiness... If you want to be taken seriously you're really going to have to up your game just a touch. It's fine to use Wiki to get a general gist of things, but you'd probably want to dig into the references and read those in addition.
As for the Daily Caller and Larry Bell, these are not reliable sources at all. Anything you read there should be followed up with actual research to check for accuracy.
Being "skeptical" means putting in some real leg work and being ready to have your own position challenged. Be ready to adjust your beliefs based on what you learn.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:12 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
panicbusiness
" I further urge the community to propose experimets that could potentially exclude models and theories with high climate sensitivity i.e. higher than, say 1.5°C."
OK. We examine past climates to estimate the climate sensitivity actually was. If past climates commonly indicate a CS below 1.5 then the idea of a CS above that may well be falsified.
They look at several dozen sttudies, examining periods over many millions of years estimating CS.
The key graph is this (you can find it on page 6)
They are quoting CS as K/W/m2
To convert to the more common usage of CS as per doubling of CO2 multiply by 3.7. The center points for all the estimates then averages around 3. None are lower than 2. And several are significantly higher.
That CS is above 1.5 is not falsified. However the the counter assertion, that CS is below 1.5 is falsified.
This is how proper science is done, including the appropriate use of pepperian falsifiability. And the results from Rohling et al were included in the latest IPCC report.
panicbusiness. There is no dishonesty among the scientific community regarding AGW. But some parts of the blogosphere are awash with dishonesty. Best to not get ones opinions from those sources don't you think.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:15 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: A caveat about the theory evaluation explanation I just gave you. Note that the term "disprove" in the first paragraph there is in quotes. That's important, because science does not really disprove nor prove anything, per Tom Curtis's comment above. It really all comes down to subjective probability, eventually.
Often people say "proof is for math, not science." But even math does not have absolute proof, because mathematicians can make mistakes. Otherwise there would be no "proofs" disproving other "proofs." -
Tom Dayton at 06:10 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: Following up on Michael Sweet's reply, I suggest you research "theory evaluation." Here is one of a great many excellent explanations. I found this one at the top of my Google search results page just now: http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/theoryeval.html
-
michael sweet at 05:32 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Panicbusiness,
I noticed that you skipped the content of the first two paragraph of the link you have. The theory of AGW meets all the descriptions in your link, including the falsifiability provision.
I listed 5 falsifiable predictions of AGW in my post above. Several other posters have either listed what you need to show or linked to other sites which list a variety of additional experiments you can do to show your point. It is not really our responsibility to repost these links every time a new person appears who does not want to read the posts already on this thread.
When scientists have been working on a theory for 180 years, they solve most of the problems with the theory. This has happened with the theory of AGW. All the major issues were addressed 50-150 years ago. The falsibility tests have been done and the theory has correctly predicted what would be measured in the new experiments. AGW has stood the test of time. Deniers do not want to acknowledge these results so they claim that is impossible to falsify the theory.
You are correct in one way though: it is impossible to falsify a theory that is correct.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:10 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
no, IIRC it was blank at that time as well.
-
John Hartz at 05:05 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Dikran:
Was there an OP posted when you commented on Jan 24?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:44 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness, Please read the comments policy; your previous post is in contravention of the comments policy in a number of respects: (1) sloganeering - you are just repeating a point that has already been addressed by Tom (2) accusation of dishonesty: (3) inflamatory tone. I suspect if you continue in this way, your posts will soon attract the attention of the moderators (I would already have taken action if not for the fact I have already participated in the discussion).
DNFTT.
-
Phil at 03:38 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
SteveS @14 no I don't see an article either !
Here <sarc>is the proof that Einsteins general theory of relativity is unfalsifiable. Why don't "skeptics" complain about that too ? </sarc>
-
PanicBusiness at 03:36 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
@Tom Dayton, @Composer99, @JH and others. It is a pleasure to introduce you to the scientific method.
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.1
Now, I am not claiming that the current widespread AGW belief system cannot be formulated in a scientific manner, quite on the contrary I urge the AGW/CAGW community to commit themselves to do so.
In particular, as the AGW belief system happens to be strongly tied to devastating2 political regulations3, I further urge the community to propose experimets that could potentially exclude models and theories with high climate sensitivity i.e. higher than, say 1.5°C.
In science, scientists are actively looking for experiments that would potentially falsify their theories and they proudly announce if they find such. Because this makes their theories scientific. Yet the vast majority of commenters here attempt to bend the definition of science to make "climate science" a better fit.
Again, I urge the AGW community to stop this dishonest behavior and start discussing potential ways to falsify AGW/CAGW theories and announce it when they reach a "consensus". Until then you not only cannot assert that AGW/CAGW is settled science, you can not even assert that it is science.
-
SteveS at 03:23 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Is there supposed to be an actual article associated with this? All I can see is the Myth (Global warming theory isn't falsifiable) followed immediately by the comments. I see the same thing on an iPhone, an iPad, and an iMac (using both Safari and Firefox). I don't notice this on other posts. Don't get me wrong: the comments have been very interesting, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something (and why that might be).
Moderator Response:[SkS] The author team is looking into this matter.
-
climatelurker at 03:09 AM on 2 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
These 3 blogs have been very fascinating reads. It's opened my eyes about SQL vulnerabilities (I'm no expert but learning every day), and the fact that you're able to track this guy's every step is really interesting too. Thank you for sharing this story, and I also think it's a very Important story that lots of people need to see. Opens up the black box that is hacking, and knowledge is power, power to protect ourselves from creeps like this.
-
dana1981 at 03:03 AM on 2 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Sheesh Martin @12! First of all this isn't 'my mantra', this is the result of Skeptical Science Cook et al. (2013) study. I repeat the result a lot because...well, for the reasons I explained in the above post!
I agree we should be debating what to do about it (policy), and have said so many times. But we're not, in large part because of the consensus gap. Just look at the BBC and all these other media examples - they're still 'debating' science instead of policy.
Then you say the BBC shouldn't have one-sided arguments. On climate science? When the debate is between fact and fiction, yes, it should be "one-sided". Especially when the other side is comprised of political ideologues.
I'll close with a quote from Frank Luntz.
"there's a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time."
-
Tom Curtis at 02:35 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
In answer to the moderator inline @9, Karl Popper did, or at least something very like it. In fact, he wrote:
"According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival."
(Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 20)
The odd thing is that a great deal of science was done before Popper published that "definition" of science in 1959. Some of the very best of that science (the development of heliocentrism, of Newton's laws of motion and graviation, of the principle of conservation of energy) was done by methods which do not meet the imprimature of Popper's methods. Either what the great scientists of the ages has been doing was not, after all, science - or Popper was wrong.
However, even if Popper was right, that would not justify the naive methodological falsificationism to which PanicBusiness appeals. As Popper writes:
"Every test of a theory, whether resulting in its corroboration or falsification, must stop at some basic statement or other which we decide to accept. If we do not come to any decision, and do not accept some basic statement or other, then the test will have led nowhere. But considered from a logical point of view, the situation is never such that it compels us to stop at this particular basic statement rather than at that, or else give up the test altogether. For any basic statement can again in its turn be subjected to tests, using as a touchstone any of the basic statements which can be deduced from it with the help of some theory, either the one under test, or another. This procedure has no natural end. Thus if the test is to lead us anywhere, nothing remains but to stop at some point or other and say that we are satisfied, for the time being."
(Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 86, my emphasis)
That may be a bit obscure to people unused to the philsophy of science, but what Popper is saying is that when we have a purported falsifying instance (ie, the "basic sentences" mentioned in this passage), the truth or otherwise of that sentence can also be called into question. And if called into question, it can be tested and potentially falsified. (This is just the Duhem-Quine thesis in a different guise.)
The obvious question then becomes, what happens to your falsification if the basic sentence which falsified the theory is itself falsified?
Regardless of how we answer that question, Popper is very clear that the acceptance that a basic sentence falsifies a theory is a matter of pragmatic convention. Clearly that convention must be heavilly influenced by empirical facts, and Popper specifies certain methodological conventions to ensure that this is so. Those conventions cannot be determinative, however. They must always leave room for essentially subjective choice. If they did not, then Popper would be claiming to have solved Hume's problem of induction, something he was certain could not be solved, and which his theory was intended to side step be developing a science without induction.
The consequence is that a truly Popperian science would proceed much as I described @7. So, PanicBusiness has not only mistaken Popperian science for naive falsificationist science, and but he(?) has mistaken a statement of how Popperian science must, logically proceed as a rejection of Popper.
-
michael sweet at 02:03 AM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
A new report from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Science is more readable than the IPCC report. It starts with 20 FAQ's about climate change. It looks like a good starting reference for climate science.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:03 AM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Mod inline @79, I assume he means data produced from a climate model, eg, model derived climate sensitivity estimates.
Full response to Russ @78 and @79 tomorrow.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:00 AM on 2 March 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Jonathon Swift @109, the conversion to differences between centigrade and fahrenheight is accomplished simply by multiplying by 1.8. You only add 32 if you are comparing absolute values, and need to account for the difference in the zero point (ie, the temperature at which ice melts, or -17.8 C degrees.
This would be plainer if instead of saying "approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler", the OP had said that the Earth would have had a mean global surface temperature of approximately -18 C (ie, 33 degrees below the current value of approximately 15 C), or -0.4 F (59.4 F below the current value of approximately 59 F).
-
Jonathan Swift at 01:22 AM on 2 March 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
"The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is." Don't misunderstand me---I do think that anthropogenic effects appears to be the dominant factor in global warming--but 33 Celsius is significantly warmer than 59.4 Fahrenheit. A bit over 90 degrees F, actually. Perhaps the author should take another look at his/her calculations.
-
Russ R. at 00:45 AM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Tom Curtis @55,
Continuing with your points:
"Despite my heavy emphasis on observational estimates of ECS in my preceding post, many of which are paleo estimates (for which estimates of anthropogenic aerosol forcing, and thermal inertia are irrelevant), you again focus solely on computer models."
Can we agree on a few things:
- Observational data are preferable to modeled "data".
- Direct measurements more reliable than proxies.
- Longer data periods are preferable to shorter periods.
- Recent data are more relevant to current conditions than ancient data.
- Higher resolution data (both spatially and temporally) is better than lower resolution data.
If you agree with those, you might see why one might give some weight to a study using recent, higher resolution data, that doesn't rely on proxies, with the caveat that some of the data are modeled and the time period (decades) is relatively short.
Taking a step back, your objection to my referencing a peer-reviewed study by an assortment of well-credentialed climate scientists, and your argument that I should instead base my beliefs on other peer-reviewed scientific studies means only one thing... there is no scientific consensus on climate sensitivity. If there were a consensus, you wouldn't have needed to make an argument... the papers would have said effectively the same thing.
But let's look at what the IPCC AR5 says: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
The word "consensus" seems to be thrown around rather freely to mean whatever someone wants it to mean, but one thing it can't possibly mean is "a lack of agreement".
Moderator Response:[JH] Please explain what you mean by "modeled 'data' " and provide an example of such 'data'. Thank you.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:16 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness, as I showed at 2, AGW is a theory that is every bit as falsifiable as pretty much any science where designed experiments are not possible. The caveats that Tom gives are equally applicable to many other sciences. The idea that AGW is not falsifiable is an obvious canard, and you would do better by learning something about the philosopgy of science from Tom.
-
Russ R. at 22:52 PM on 1 March 2014Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
KR,
"Considering that the document in question was anonymously sent to Gleick in hard copy..."
Do you have any evidence to back that up apart from Peter Gleick's own account? He's hardly an objective source. Pardon me for being skeptical.
CBDunkerson,
"If it were provably faked, as you seem to assume, then I'd agree it shouldn't be linked..."
Okay. Then what would, in your opinion, constitute proof?
-
Composer99 at 19:42 PM on 1 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
IMO going on about falsifiability without any other support is just another tired rhetorical argument against the available evidence.
It's the philosophy-of-science version of "pounding the table" as per what I understand is a well-known joke among lawyers. (*)
(*) To whit:
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you don't have either the facts or the law on your side, pound the table. -
Tom Dayton at 15:27 PM on 1 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: You are incorrect that falsifiability is "the very definition of science." That is something you would know if you had gotten past introductory science classes in college. (It is sad that such fundamentals of science are inadequately taught at the introductory course level.) It happens that there is a recent and excellent post on falsifiability of anthropocentric global warming, by Hans Custers.
Prev 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 Next
