Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 Next
Comments 46701 to 46750:
-
Ray at 22:15 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Shoyemore. I think debate is very stimulating ndf very useful but think you have misunderstood what I stated so perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough. You say "It is also a strange attitude from a scientist to say that you "don't believe in climate change" and invite others to supply you with "evidence". Surely as a scientist you should check the evidence BEFORE you make decisions about your beliefs, I did not I didn't believe in climate change but on rereading I can see why you thought I did as I phrased it poorly by saying " And fiinally there are very few scientists including me, that don't believe in climate change." To make it perfectly clear I do believe in climate change but have yet to be convinced that climate change is caused only by humans. But I have to apologise for some very poor phrasing which has created a false impression of my stancer om this topic
-
shoyemore at 21:36 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray,
You are very adept at rounding up the usual suspects.
Firstly, the group of climate scientists you name are one of the few groups you could possibly name in the category, whereas I could name hundreds of groups of four or five scientists who would not see eye to eye. One you get past the Heartland Institute annual jamboree of "climate science", you are at a loss. How about Prof Scott Denning, Prof Richard Alley, Dr Ben Santer and Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan? Kindly enumerate where their "predictions" did not meet your standards.
Secondly, what is your judgment on Dr Roy Spencer's many predictions of imminent cooling, and arctic ice recovery? Does this not suggest his "alternative theory" (if he has one) is falsified. You might care to read some of the slip-ups of climate misinformers by clicking the link on the top left of the page.
I have been trying to emphasise the collegiality of science and its powers of self-correction. I would put by faith in the science as a whole, and not in your "Gang of Five".
You seem uninterested in checking out the assumptions Dr Hansen made in his 1988 paper, despite being supplied with the means to do so. A strange reaction for a scientist.
It is also a strange attitude from a scientist to say that you "don't believe in climate change" and invite others to supply you with "evidence". Surely as a scientist you should check the evidence BEFORE you make decisions about your beliefs, expecially when it contradicts your prior assumptions. I expected you to be as familiar with the evidence as anyone else on the site.
There is evidence out there (a lot of it on this site, if you could rise to checking it out) but few of us are in the business of making up the deficiencies of the intellectually slothful or the closed-minded.
-
shoyemore at 21:14 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
BillEverett @23
Denial fails at 1) because they rarely come forward with alternative hypotheses. Platt's procedure seems to me to be fair enough, but many of these procedures miss out on the "hidden hand" of science - there is a big dependence on replication by more than one experimental group, groups which are often fierce rivals, as much as commercial organisations are rivals.
Science does keep itself honest and self-correcting, though sometimes notorious cases slip through.
My opinion is that long-standing scientific theories are rarely simple enough to stand or fall on a single experiment. A great example is the "neutrinos-faster-than-light" controversy of last year. First of all, no one got over-excited, awaiting replication of the results. Secondly, no one suggested abandoning Einstein's major axiom overnight. Short-cuts through higher-dimensions and other contrivances were suggested to "save the theory". In the end, it turned out to be error in the apparatus.
A Richrd Feynman anecdote tells the same story. Feynman and Gell-Mann put forward a new theory of beta decay. They published and 6 months later, the first experimental test results came in - the theory failed.
Gell-Mann said to Feynmann: "What do we do now?"
Feynman shrugged. "We wait" was all he said.
Another few months, and more results came in - the experimenter admitted a technical hitch, and the new results were confirmatory. it all tends to show that overthrowing a scientific theory is not a simple matter of totting up experimental predictions.
-
Ray at 21:01 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Thanks for the comments although it appears that you are all focussing on some remarks I made about climate science rather than on the scientific method. Many of the comments I made on the scientific method including the "blinkered" comment were first enunciated by Kuhn whose work, incidentally, formed the basis of the subsequent work by Lakatos referred to by others But to revert to the areas that appear to have ignited passions. (-snip-). And fiinally there are very few scientists including me, that don't believe in climate change. That said however, so far as I am aware there has been no direct observational or experimental studies that conclusively that global warming is primarily due to human production of CO2. If there are such studies I would be very grateful for links to them as it is apparent such studies will be very relevant to this discussion of the scientific method
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
shoyemore at 20:58 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
chriskoz @22
Ray is obviously sloganeering as the addition of the C to AGW is always done with pejorative intent. However there is no CAGW theory in the scientific literature so the faux-acronym is out of place in this discussion.
-
barry1487 at 20:58 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Thanks nealjking, that's speaks directly to my question. If you wouldn't mind pointing it out, where above are the equations that account for pressure broadening? I looked up the Beer-Lambert law and wondered if it is included in some form upthread (assuming I'm on the right track - my curiosity far overreaches my ken).
-
BillEverett at 19:07 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
An alternative to the four steps of scientific method listed in the post is the notion of "strong inference" discussed by John R. Platt:
Strong inference consists of applying the following steps to every problem in science, formally and explicitly and regularly:
1) Devising alternative hypotheses;
2) Devising a crucial experiment (or several of them), with alternative possible outcomes, each of which will, as nearly as possible, exclude one or more of the hypotheses;
3) Carrying out the experiment so as to get a clean result;
1') Recycling the procedure, making subhypotheses or sequential hypotheses to refine the possibilities that remain; and so on.
Incidentally, the paper following Platt's paper in Science in 1964 might also have historical interest to some: "Glacier Geophysics" by Barclay Kamb: "Dynamic response of glaciers to changing climate may shed light on processes in the earth's interior."
-
chriskoz at 18:47 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
shoyemor@20,
Although the first hit on google translated said acronym as:
Citizens Against Government Waste
but I also found:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
and that's almost certainly (I guess at least 3sigma) what Ray meant.
-
Matt Bennett at 18:40 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Sorry Ray, false balance there my friend. Just because you can name three or four contrarian climate scientists (whose opinions are notably fringe in their field) who have at least managed to be published, doesn't mean the other three or four you pluck out of the consensus field should share equal billing with this mob and that'is all there is to it..... Oh no! Have a look at Hansen et al and at their publishing record and their citation indices etc then get back to me. It's like selecting a representative of EACH of the many and varied theories as to who wrote Shakespeare's plays and then chucking a single historian amidst this crowd who believes the evidence suggests that, hey, actually Shakespeare himself wrote them. This is not a fair representation of the 'expert historical opinion' out there and is a very contemporary phenomenon - as I said, false balance. It's the very crime I've been accusing the Murdoch press of above, esp The Oz. -
shoyemore at 18:28 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray,
Dr Hansen's scenarios are discussed here.
Science is not a game with two teams and "victory" going to the team that "scores" more accurate predictions. It is seldom that simple, and then only with very sketchy theories like caloric, the lumeniferous aether or the Steady State Universe. The last two were demolished by a single set of observations - but a complex set of observations and hypothesis like the Standard Model of Particle Physics could not be overthrown by a single experiment - though it might be modified.
Dr Hansen's paper has to evaluated on the basis of the assumptions made, or the "auxiliary hypotheses" described by Tom Curtis in #7. You will find it emerges as far stronger than you give it credit.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
The outcome is no reason to abandon AGW as a theory.
The failure's of Newton's theory to predict the orbit of Jupiter did not lead to its abandonment - it led to the discovery of Neptune. Newton's theories had made two many successful predictions to be given up lightly. Scientists are instinctively conservative and will not abandon a complex and sussessful scientific theory overnight - indeed Max Planck said they wait until followers of the old theory die out!
PS AGW is a handy shorthand. What is CAGW? C standing for what, exactly?
-
Ray at 17:32 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
I'm sorry scaddenp but having re-read the topic posted I can't quite follow the points you are making. The article under dicusssion is on the scientific method and the comments I make on the scientific method are, as far as I can see, entirely relevant. I presume therefore you are referring to my comment "However in the field of climate science this discussion is severely hampered by the entrenched positions on both sides of the debate." Is this inaccurate? There are discussions on climate science between Dr Pielke Snr, Dr Pielke Jnr, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr John Christie and Dr Judith Curry who have some reservations about CAGW and Dr Gavin Schmidt, Dr Phil Jones, Dr Michael Mann, Dr Kevin Trenberth and Dr Eric Steig who have few reservations about of CAGW. All of these are clmate scientists and it his hard to see how Drs. Christy, Spencer, Curry et al fall into your category "However, the "discussion" is between non-climate scientists, (ideologically-driven for most part), trying to fool the public with misinformation;. Similarly I wonder if Drs. Schmidt, Jones, Mann et all would be flattered by your comment "real scientists who on the whole are inept in public communication." All of these scientists publish and comment on the publications of others which seems to cover your point that " If there was real debate, then it would be reflected in the exchange in scientific papers." It is my opinion that there are entrenched positions but I accept that you don't consider this to be the case. I respect yoiur opinion. (-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
Kevin C at 17:16 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
An article on the scientific method without a mention of Popper is a startling development. However it maybe no bad thing.
Ray brings up Thomas Kuhn, but is already trumped by Tom's Imre Lakatos further up the thread. For anyone wanting to understand how normal science really works I'd definately recommend reading at least as far a Lakatos - in particular the distinction between progressive and degenerate scientific programs is particularly revealing with respect to climate science.
A very brief stufy of the sceptic literature reveals that there is no skeptic scientific program, but merely a collection of inconsistent claims supposedly refuting the consensus program. At the same time there are constant challenges from within the progressive program re-evaluating parts of that program - a hallmark of a progressive program. While the greenhouse effect is clearly a part of that hard core, GCMs clearly aren't, which is where Climate4All misunderstands the shape of the program.
Having said that, I think to fully understand the situation in climate science we need to go beyond Lakatos and understand not just the philosophy but the sociology of science.
-
nealjking at 17:15 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
barry:
The basic equations are radiative-transfer equations, that describe how the intensity of a radiation beam changes along its path. These are equations relating integrals of the absorption coefficient, whicih depend on frequency and also on the local pressure because of the pressure broadening. So in principle, the general picture is unchanged, but the real calculations have to be done for one frequency at aa time (line by line). Also, the description in terms of the equation of local radiative spectral density with local gas dynamics is approximate, because there is a "delay".
-
Matt Bennett at 16:51 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Well put scaddenp. And further to that Ray, if you'd actually done your homework and understood what's known with relative certainty and what remains to be pinned down with better precision, there's no way you'd be so easily mislead into thinking James Hansen had experienced some epiphany whereby he'd changed his thinking in some major way. Keep reading. As scaddenp said, the illusion of some great argument among the true experts is exactly that, a delusion born of ignorance. It is even more telling that you think that this imaginary 'blinkered' scientific thinking is somehow peculiar to climate science, a convenience of politics perhaps? MModerator Response: [DB] Fixed name spelling. -
scaddenp at 16:41 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Ray, your comments would make sense if there was some scientific debate actually in progress. However, the "discussion" is between non-climate scientists, (ideologically-driven for most part), trying to fool the public with misinformation; and real scientists who on the whole are inept in public communication. If there was real debate, then it would be reflected in the exchange in scientific papers. There isnt. The "entrenched" position is a preference for reality over distortion.
By all means discussion alternative hypotheses backed by data and published papers but good luck finding them.
Hansen's comments by the way represent no change in climate theory at all - merely a wondering about the actual value of a poorly measured forcing. Not a single equation in climate science is changed.
-
barry1487 at 15:14 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Would it be worth including the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning in scientific theories? The notion of 'proof' is often misapplied.
Moderator Response:In the new textbook, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, deductive and inductive reasoning are discussed, pp 38-40.
-
Bert from Eltham at 15:05 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
I work on a different level.
I just do not know.
I find out what is known.
I then pull apart all that I have found out.
If I have new information or insights I then publish to see what others think.
The others will soon let me know how far wrong I am.
When morons doubt the findings of this method because of their ignorance I wonder why I bother.
I should just make definitive statements about a subject I have no idea about and defend this position with even more definitive statements without foundation.
Bert
-
barry1487 at 15:03 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
KR,
I'm sure that 'pressure broadening' is taken into account in detailed studies, but my question was prompted by the simplified equations above (not so simple to me, though) in relation to what I've read about the importance of the effects of pressure on absorption, a breakthrough in understanding, as far as I can make out from having read the realclimate articles (among others) on saturation;
The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s... the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements... Among other things, the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements. Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened and overlap to a considerable extent. Even at sea level pressure, the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes, but the gaps between the spikes are fairly narrow and the "valleys" between the spikes are not terribly deep. None of this was known a century ago... Measurements done for the US Air Force drew scientists’ attention to the details of the absorption, and especially at high altitudes. At low pressure the spikes become much more sharply defined, like a picket fence.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that pressure effects on absorption are a significant factor, and I just wanted to know if this effect is included in the equations above, and if not, does it make much difference to the consequent surface temperature reasult. It's not a crucial question for the discussion, just a point of interest for me.
-
Matt Bennett at 14:00 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Speaking of the scientific method, could somebody please point out how it works again to The Australian's invaluable (sarc) 'Environmental Editor', Graham Lloyd? My jaw just drops every time I come across his articles - and he's the one charged with bringing a 'balanced' editorial view to the paper's supposedly more sophisticated readership.The scientific method does not involve trawling the literature for the odd paper which can be spun, using cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context analysis, to make it appear as if the science is contentious or that those silly old scientists can't make up their minds.... This week, yet again, he misrepresents the surface air temps as representative of global warming, repeats the likely misquoting (via indirect quotes) of the IPCC Chairman (and James Hansen to boot!) and alleges that modeling completely mismatches reality.I know this is slightly OT but I am truly appalled at the kindergarten coverage provided by an Env Ed. on such an important issue. Does he actually care about the truth? -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:23 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
"Theories are tested not by single crucial experiments but by continued failure."
Thank you Tom for this most valuable reminder.
-
IsaFB at 12:59 PM on 1 April 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
It’s good to hear some good news. It seems that every-where I look, I see the situation becoming more and more dire. It’s good to know that people in power ARE paying attention and are implementing policy changes.
But I wonder if this is enough
These issues are immediate and their consequences frightening. The timescale for drastic action is now. At the current rate of progress, I fear that we will fail.
I hold on to hope.
-
Rob Painting at 12:21 PM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate4all - yours is a common misunderstanding about ENSO. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on how it will evolve in the future. Whether it will intensify or weaken, or whether we may see a shift to either more El Nino's or more La Nina's. The climate models are equivocal in this respect.
But warming of the planet means the atmosphere warms and can therefore hold and redistribute more water vapour - intensifying the global water (hydrological) cycle. This occurs because the increased water holding/redistribution capacity increases at a rate faster than the warming (the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). So, when moisture is converged in a warmer atmosphere there is simply more of it, relative to areas where moisture diverges. The end result is more intense downpours (convergence), and more intense droughts (divergence).
La Nina & El Nino represent two extremes of the global weather, which is why they exert such a dominant influence on year-to-year sea level fluctuations - see the recent SkS post: Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on Road to Higher Sea Level. La Nina & El Nino are part of Earth's circulatory system. Even if warming does not cause this circulatory system to change in any significant manner, the warming will continue to intensify the global water cycle because of the enhanced capacity to transport moisture.
SkS will have some posts on this, showing some of the modelling results, in the near-future - it's on my to-do list. But the point here is that there is no discrepancy between what NOAA and the Real Climate post say - it simply boils down to a misunderstanding on your part. A common misunderstanding to be sure.
-
KR at 12:00 PM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
barry - Changing air pressures do not (within human-tolerable limits, at least) directly change gaseous absorption. What directly affects absorption is, rather, the number of IR absorbing/emitting greenhouse gas molecules in each volume of air, a product of both concentration (which may be altitude dependent, as in the case of H2O) and pressure.
And yes, amounts due to pressure and concentration for the various GHG's are accounted for in the line-by-line multiple layer radiative transfer calculations. See Myhre et al 1998 for the application of such calculations to CO2 sensitivity.
-
barry1487 at 11:36 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Are the effects of different air pressures changing absorptive properties included in the equations above describing the greenhouse effect? My physics is beyond weak: I guess I'm asking if this is accounted for, and if not, what difference it might make for calculating a change in temperature from a significant increase of CO2 (ignoring feedbacks)?
-
Climate4All at 10:57 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
@chrsikoz #9
You write,"Please do your little homework and make sure you understand the basics before you blame the climate scientists..."
You obviously wrote that before my second comment, otherwise I doubt you would had not made such an ill conceived notion as to my understanding.
I don't make this stuff up.
How can tis broader audience be educated to which rockytom emphasizes, when there are contradictory responses among the (-snip-)?
NOAA scientists suggest that,"higher global temperatures might be increasing evaporation from land and adding moisture to the air, thus intensifying the storms and floods associated with El Niño," while other scientists that RC post that ENSO may enter an average state. This is two completely different hypothesis from well-respected climatologists.
(-snip-), that Climate Change is not the same as weather, you may want to ask the climatologists that are blaming recent weather patterns on AGW. Skeptics aren't blaming ENSO on Climate Change, the Climatoligists are. The Skeptics aren't blaming record snowfall on AGW. Climatologists are. So says the news.
Please don't detract from the discussion on the Scientific Method please. Lets stick to the discussion of how to improve communication on the practice. (-snip-).
If I bring up any doubt, its only because if we can improve the method, we must first point out the flaws. Not the theory. The results of a correct prediction formulated on models will be all the facts I need.
Moderator Response: [DB] If you cannot take this model-centric discussion to one of the pages devoted to models here, then you will force the moderation staff to intervene more stringently. Inflammatory tone snipped. -
chriskoz at 10:30 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Climate4All@3, you said:
In order to strengthen the predictions of their hypothesis, the anomalies [ jet stream currents, ENSO, UHI, and Illuminosity] previously omitted from GCMs, should be concluded(sic).
Assuming sic is just typos (you mean "included", otherwise your sentence does not make sense), your very basic misunderstanding of climate science concepts is that you confuse climate with weather. You look at any single weather event and don't try to understand the big picture, as if you looked at a single tree and did not try to understand the tree is part of the forest.
A better analogy would be the description of termodynamic properties of gas in a cylinder. You don't look at what each particle is doing (it's velocity, exact paths, how often it comes in contact with other particles, etc) when you want to describe the overall properties of gas: temperature, pressure, saturation. You can only say, that say the average velocity of particles increase with temperature.
The exactly same distinction aplies between climate science and weather events. Climate scienists never say that that "these weather anomalies is a result of a [climate change] theory". They actually say that "probability of weather anomalies changes as the result of climate change".
Please do your little homework and make sure you understand the basics before you blame the climate scientists and their models for misrepresenting the reality. They actually understand the reality far better than you because they can see the world through both larger/longer (average conditions) and shorter (weather events) perspectives. For example, climate models already know the influence of ENSO and can predict the effects. But you cannot, because all you do with your current attitude is look for one tree and deny the existence of a forrest.
-
Climate4All at 10:18 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
@John Russell #6
Once again, please don't put words in my mouth that I do not utter. As the post suggest, Scientific research includes GCMs, but there is no mention of reformulation of them. But that is the Scientific Method. If not a large part as rockytom said,"mainly."
From IPCC DCC, this disclaimer is stated:
"Moreover, many physical processes, such as those related to clouds, also occur at smaller scales and cannot be properly modelled. Instead, their known properties must be averaged over the larger scale in a technique known as parameterization. This is one source of uncertainty in GCM-based simulations of future climate."
RC posted on the subject of GCMs and the problematic behavior of ENSO:
"...the question about how ENSO will respond to a global warming is still not settled. However, it seems that one common trait among some climate models is the indication that a global warming may result in a more a general El Niño-type average state."
Peterson et.al. 2003 also stated, a leading climatologist for the IPCC also wrote:
“Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.” This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas)."
So pardon me for engaging in a thought analysis that is part of the scientific method.
There is no agenda here other than drawing out some conclusions regarding the scientific method. As the previous quotes I highlighted above, which by the way is sources derived from either, The IPCC or the authors that participated in the Assesment Report. They as much claim, as indicated, to the enherit difficulty predicting the exact anomalies I posted in a previous message.
Why is it considered poor taste if i remotely cast doubt on climatology, when the authors of climatology express the same doubt, but you and others feel it necessary i do so for some agenda. Why dont you ask the authors of climate science why they are not complete sure of their predictions, rather than attack me?
I only suggest this to open communication on the scientific method and just made reference to the posters on admission of GCMs as the main predictive factor in the method in how it applies.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
One important step omitted from the "preliminary look" is the checking of auxilliary hypotheses. As noted by Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, scientific hypotheses cannot be used in isolation to make emperical predictions. Rather, you need a conjunction of emperical hypothesesis to make such predictions. That is, you need the primary hypothesis, and the first auxilliary hypothesis, and the second auxilliary hypothesis etc. When the prediction fails, you know that one of clauses of the complex conjunction (set of sentences connected by the logical operator "and") is false, but you do not know which one is false.
Checking auxilliary hypothesis has led to some of the greate scientific discoveries. For instance, Ole Romer made carefull observations of the moons of Io in the seventeenth century to test Newton's hypothesis of universal gravitation. When he noticed a discrepancy, he did not consider himself to have falsified Newton's law of gravitation, but rather the auxilliary hypothesis that Light travelled at infinite speed (which till then was also accepted by Newton).
In an (oddly) more famous intance, Urbain Jean-Joseph Le Verrier predicted the location and mass of Neptune based on disturbances in the orbit of Uranus. The search for, and discovery of Neptune at the correct location by Johann Gottfried Galle confirmed Le Verrier's auxilliary hypothesis (the existance of another planet) which saved Newton's hypothesis (universal gravitation) from falsification.
Auxilliary hypotheses extend to such things as the correct calibration of instruments. The history of the UAH temperature record is one of the repeated checking and adjustment of auxilliary hypotheses so that a record originally touted as falsifying AGW turns out merely to have had many false auxilliary hypothesis. Once these were corrected the record confirmed global warming.
As Imre Lakatos has explained, the fact that hypotheses never face refutation alone means that scientists are rightly resistant to concluding that core hypotheses are falsified. Theories are tested not by single crucial experiments but by continued failure. In particular, a "scientific research program" (see line above) is not abandoned until it is clear that the adjustments to auxilliary hypotheses involved in retaining it are increasingly ad hoc, ie, that the predict no novel emperical content. Newton's law of universal gravitation survived many apparent falsifying instances because the revised auxilliary hypotheses required to save it resulted in novel, and successful predictions. Eventually, however, it was supplanted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity because Newtonian auxilliary hypotheses to explain discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury were were either falsified, or unfalsifiable; whereas General Relativity not only explained the discrepancy but predicted novel empirical content (the bending of light near the sun).
The existance of auxilliary hypotheses needs to be urgently learnt by so-called "skeptics" of the IPCC concensus. They repeatedly, and absurdly assert the falsification of AGW because they ignore auxilliary hypotheses about the temperature record. Most recently, the ignore the effect of ENSO on that record in the short term. Of course, they can easilly falsify AGW (if it is indeed false) by showing the auxilliary hypothesis (that El Ninos warm the Earth in the short term, and La Ninas cool it) is false.
Good luck with that.
-
John Russell at 08:35 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
@Climate4All
You're making unreferenced assertions that lack any basis in reality.
Global climate models are not, as you so accusingly describe them, "to prove the hypothesis of AGW ". They were firstly created to enable meteorologists to provide more accurate weather forecasts. Their use in making long term climate projections has been a secondary development. All factors considered, they are remarkably accurate and getting better all the time, though, of course, increased resolution, enhanced computing power and further research will always improve their accuracy.
To suggest that climate scientists wilfully choose to ignore 'anomalies' such as you describe, indicates a lack of understanding—and your agenda. There's nothing any climate scientist wants more than to improve the accuracy of their models.
Here's more reading. And more; and more.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:09 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
Here are some entertaining and often enlightening quotes on scientific method.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:01 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
A good riff on "science is what scientists do" is by Dan Berger.
-
John Hartz at 07:57 AM on 1 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
This discussion has been cited by Andrew Revkin in his Dot Earth post, Fresh Thoughts from Authors of a Paper on 11,300 Years of Global Temperature Changes
-
Climate4All at 07:45 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
You write, "..what good is it if no one knows of the results?" The reality is the result.
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself.
This specific attribute regarding the scientific method sets it apart from all the other sciences.
GCMs are the creations of necessity to prove the hypothesis of AGW. The results of those models fall short of actual reality, concluding in a less than certain hypothesis. If the GCMs can't accurately predict the resulting evidence of actuality, maybe the models need to take into consideration other phenomena previously omitted from them.
Climatologists, in defense of their models, either blame weather patterns for less than perfect predictions, or others simply confess that these weather anomalies is a result of a theory, despite their hypothesis.
In order to strengthen the predictions of their hypothesis, these anomalies previously omitted from GCMs, should be concluded.
Those anomalies are jet stream currents, ENSO, UHI, and possibly Illuminosity.
Climatologists need to change their hypothesis to allow predictions prove true, in order to mirror reality, rather than make excuses as to why their models failed in comparison to empirical data.
Moderator Response: [DB] As an addendum to John Russell's comment below, please take further discussion of Climate models (it is noted you conflate weather models and climate models) to a more appropriate thread. Weather models are off-topic. -
nealjking at 07:31 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
MA Rodger:
If you consider the simplest case, in which there is just one spectral band of interest for greenhouse functionality, the ΔT corresponds to the change in temperature due to the change in altitude of the OP=1 point; and the ΔF corresponds to the same temperature change, but restricted to the GH spectral band.
Thus, if the altitudinal change is Δz and the adiabatic lapse rate is A:
ΔT = A*Δz
ΔF = [B(f,To) - B(f, To-ΔT)]*Δf
where
To = temperature at original OD=1 point
f = center frequency of band
Δf = width of band
B(f, T) = Blackbody spectral density at frequency f and temperature T
Now if Δf = infinity, the ΔF becomes the integral of [B(f, To) - B(f, To-ΔT)] and this would give the result you're proposing. But since Δf is just one IR subband, ΔF is much smaller than that.
If you add more subbands, the situation becomes a bit more complicated, because the Δz for each subband will be in general different. So that will not bring the situation closer to what you're proposing.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:46 AM on 1 April 2013David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming
David Rose is at it again. Same arguments, except maybe this time he attacked hindcasting more than he did the previous times; I don't remember. He says hindcasting tailors the models to the temperatures. I submitted a corrective comment, but don't know if it will survive moderation over there.
-
Tom Dayton at 05:54 AM on 1 April 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Marcott et al. have responded to their critics with an FAQ.
-
MA Rodger at 04:54 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking @76.
I have a feeling another look at what was said @65 and particularly its reference to comment@57 could be useful to this interchange we are having.
-
nealjking at 03:52 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
MA Rodgers:
The Stefan-Boltzmann formula is the integral of the Planck spectral energy distribution over frequency (with no weighting). But the issues that give rise to the greenhouse effect (different absorption coefficients in different frequency bands) are frequency-specific. So the treatment in terms of S-B does not have nearly the specificity to explain the GHE.
Here's another way to see the point: The constants in the S-B equation, and therefore in your ΔF/ΔT equation, do NOT depend in any way on the composition of the atmosphere. So if the equation were valid, it would be valid for any value of the concentrations; including 0 for the GHGs. But then there would be forcing with no GHGs, which is a contradiction.
What determines the loss of radiated flux are the temperature differences at specific frequency absorption bands (due to the change in altitude of the critical point where optical depth = 1); using the Planck distribution, this gives the change in spectral density, which is integrated over the region of the spectrum that is absorbed by the GHGs. But the temperature difference for a particular band will depend on the GHG's absorption frequencies and concentration, and will differ from band to band. The total change in flux determines the radiative forcing.
-
ubrew12 at 03:35 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking@69: I would still like Sks readers to be open to the possibility that the Economist article is a subtle kind of 'hit piece' designed to leverage the magazines well-known reputation for balance on behalf of climate deniers. As I detailed, the author makes the point he wants to leave readers with in his first sentence. His LAST sentence is just there for 'plausible deniability': so he can claim 'balance' when confronted. Maybe I'm innacurate in this, but I've seen it done before. The overall tone of the piece is to project doubt about climate science. But as I've said elsewhere the REAL remaining doubt about global warming is in the costs of mitigation, damage, and adaptation. This is not trivial: if the cost of mitigation is as low as I've seen it estimated, then it frankly DOESN'T MATTER whether the climate sensitivity is 2C or 4C: we should mitigate. Can 'The Economist' tackle that ECONOMIC issue? As it is, it seems to have a serious case of pointing out the grain in someone elses eye while missing the log in its own eye.
-
helenavargas at 03:09 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
When I introduced undergrads to the scientific method, I used to emphasize the iterative nature of the process: tests of hypotheses may lead to theories, but the testing continues. That in turn may require reformulated hypotheses, but even those aren't worth much if they can't be tested and survive testing. I wanted to emphasize that science isn't an ideology (accepted for faith once and for all time) but a process of approaching the best representations of facts in nature. Pseudo-skeptics accuse scientists of the same kind of faith that religionists praise, and I tried to do my bit to defuse that idea.
-
MA Rodger at 01:49 AM on 1 April 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
nealjking @70
You say "...the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for total blackbody radiation power is not applicable in the context of the enhanced greenhouse effect."Yet:-
(1) Temperature increases in a zero-feedback-world are said to be easier to quantify.
(2) That zero-feedback quantification appears to me to utilise the S-B formula, but for some reason that use is not very apparent. (I'm sure it used to be more apparent but now a search of the web turns up pages of denialists saying S-B is no good with zero reference to who it is they are having a go at for thinking otherwise.)
(1) Non-feedback sensitivity is easier. According to AR4 - "While the direct temperature change that results from greenhouse gas forcing can be calculated in a relatively straightforward manner, uncertain atmospheric feedbacks (Section 8.6) lead to uncertainties in estimates of future climate change."
And TAR - "In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes."
A value of ECS-with-feedback ±10% is something we can today only dream of and this being so, I would suggest that, whatever the method which yields this non-feedback sensitivity, it should be more widely known, if for no other reason than to bash denialists with.
(2) Does that method use the S-B formula? The S-B formula does give a ~1°C which is encouraging. And dodging all the denialists, I did find Roe & Baker 2007 who have a Suppliment where they use S-B to enumerate λo for use in a model which includes feedbacks.
And the RF emissions from Earth are of the form of blackbody radiation, although highly motheaten. If a GHG increases to take another bite, I see no fundamental problem why the RF reaction wouldn't be as a blackbody all the way down to surface temperature.
Of course this is nowhere definitive but I feel there is enough weight to counter your assertion of 'S-B non-applicability' by saying - The planet may not be a blackbody but it apparently behaves enough like one for ΔTs with zero-feedback to be derived from S-B and so it is likely that is how it is derived.
-
David Kirtley at 01:44 AM on 1 April 2013Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Also, the link at Oct 19, 2007: IPC projection falsified is actually for Oct 19, 2008.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed; thanks! -
jsam at 01:35 AM on 1 April 2013The Scientific Method
The link to the textbook fails and there's a font problem with "The four steps above form the basis of a scientific inquiry; they constitute a simple model for the scientific method. One possible sequence is 1, 2, 3, and 4. If 2 is true, what are the consequences? Testing (4) should include considering the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. If 2 can be disproved, then start again with step 1."
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed; thanks! -
John Hartz at 01:12 AM on 1 April 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13
chriskoz:
Also check out the Climate Institute's report, Global Climate Leadership Review 2013, for addtional details about the LCCI.
Note: The article, Asia cuts its carbon faster than Europe summarizes the findings of this report.
-
John Hartz at 01:01 AM on 1 April 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13
chirskoz:
The article, Asia cuts its carbon faster than Europe, contains the following paragraph:
The report, the Climate Institute/GE Low-Carbon Competitiveness Index, published by the Climate Institute, was first released in 2009. This year’s edition relies on data from 2010.
I have quickly perused the website of the Carbon Institute for a definition of the Low-Carbon Competitiveness Index (LCCI). The definition I found is embedded in the news release, Australia alone in low-carbon competitiveness slide posted on Mach 19, 2012.
The (LCCI) index measures carbon competitiveness through the examination of nearly 20 indicators in three areas: sectoral composition (historical snapshot of current economy – e.g. transport, trade emissions intensity); early preparedness (e.g. investment in clean energy, growth in emissions); and future prosperity (e.g. investment in education and infrastructure).
The compilation of the LCCI is a joint effort between the Carbon Institute and GE Australia and New Zealand.
-
DSL at 22:58 PM on 31 March 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
Using a generous and simple 30-year linear for thickness (PIOMAS/CTSIA), I have winter max eventually moving to mid-February with ice finally disappearing on February 11th, 2076. The 10-year linear has it in 2047 on March the 12th. No, I'm not putting money on either. I just can't see an ice-free Arctic year-round, unless we hit 600ppm and stay there for a while. Yet I speak from within the momentum of my own culture. It's hard to imagine what general circulation changes will occur when ice is just beginning to form in December, and harder to imagine what those changes will mean for the further (lack of) development of the ice.
-
chriskoz at 22:54 PM on 31 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13
The first article just mentions that China overtook Germany & UK in "Low-Carbon Competitiveness Index" and is placed third while Germany and UK fell to places 6 & 5. And that US rates bad: no score, apparently out of competition.
I cannot find what that LCCI means, so I have no perspective on this rather surprising news, because the popular believe is to blame China on increased emissions, that grow still faster than the renewables, period. I would like to see some analysis of that LCCI, particularly the most interesting numbers: what dent it makes in each contry's emissions now and/or how does it influence the prognosis of future emissions.
-
chriskoz at 22:02 PM on 31 March 2013Earth Encounters Giant Speed Bump on the Road to Higher Sea Level
CraigD@21
Iteresting question, I haven't heard any prognosis about zero WIM. Looking at PIOMAS death spiral, with full rotation of 36y, it will have taken ~40y for the summer ice to reach zero (I agree with you and Maslowski on that). By that time, it looks like WIM will be at the point where summer min has started. So my wild guess is: it'll take another ~40y if the process continues at the same speed.
So my wild, uneducated guess for zero WIM is: 50y. Interesting indeed, as it may be within the lifetime of some of us. Anyone wants to make another/better guess?
How does it influence the IS melting? Does it make sense in context of SLR rate? Yes IS melt should increase (some 10 times on average from their current contribution of 1mm/y), to fullfil the predistion of ~1m SLR by 2100 the semi-empirical models. Such increase makes sense to me.
-
nealjking at 20:57 PM on 31 March 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
shoyemore:
The most explicit derivation of the EGHE that I have seen personally is at the end of John Houghton's The Physics of Atmospheres; however, the derivation is effectively scattered through the book, partially in exercises.
The explanation I gave above is from Pierrehumbert's book, but since I have only an early draft of the book, I don't know if he derives the entire formula explicitly; but he probably does.
It's unfortunate that Weart's website, The Discovery of Global Warming, side-steps the derivation: I think he decided it was too hard to present.
-
shoyemore at 20:04 PM on 31 March 2013Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
MA Rodger,
The equation cited (in some form or other) goes all the way back to Svante Arrhenius (1896), who wrote (see his bio on Wikipedia): If the quantity of carbonic acid ... increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
I underlined "nearly" so I presume Arrhenius derived the relationship from his observations, and knew it was only approximately true.
The place I encountered the equation was on page 36 of David Archer's Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast , where he stated it applied to long-term equilibrium changes only. Nielson-Gammon used it in a short-term context with a "transient" value for K.
Most websites dealing with this topic, like Science of Doom, go straight to the radiation physics.
Is there a way to derive this approximate relationship from the radiative transfer laws?
Prev 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 Next
