(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

TenPenny,
You ask

Why don't people understand that global pollution affects the global environment?

How can it not?

I truly don't understand that "fact". I've spent a fair bit of my life crossing oceans at 10-15 knots and am truly in awe of how big the planet really is. I was on a nuclear powered ship with two reactors that generated a LOT (on human scale) of waste heat. I was a mechanical operator and one of the things we did was monitor the temperature of the cooling water (sea water) that passed through our condensers. One day we stopped in the deep ocean for 6 hours using our main engines to hold the ship in the same point on the globe during that period (they didn't tell us why). The intakes for the condensers were very close to the outlets. In that 6 hours the awesome heat we generated did not change the cooling water inlet by a single degree. The ocean was simply too big a heat sink for our puny "big" heat load to affect it. That may be a trivial example, but to me it means that while weather reacts on near-human time to climate forces, climate will react on geologic time to imposed forces--we are talking about pushing a super tanker with a chopstick.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TomDOT]

TenPenny,

Two items:

1) You seem to have misplaced the word "temporary" in my comment.

2) Sure, global pollution affects the environment. The argument is over what the effects are, their magnitude and then on into what precisely the secondary, tertiary, etc effects are.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The levels released are not directly dangerous to human health, unless you stick your head pretty darn close into the exhaust stream. That's the primary effect. No directly dangerous consequence.

The AGW argument is over secondary and tertiary effects. What ELSE does carbon dioxide do in the atmosphere? Most of these arguments are based on correlations between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, plus a bunch of models. Correlation does not equal causation. We are pretty sure (since it's easy to set up a small experiment) that the extra CO2 is increasing plant growth rates.

 

[TenPenny]

zdas, I'm not sure how you can suggest that a ship creates pollution on a global scale, but maybe you've been on some bizarre ship that the rest of the world has never heard of.

That being the case, carry on as you were.

 

[Brad1979]

TG4s,

You are reading way to much into things if you think I was thinking of Holocaust deniers when I said deniers. I definitely wasn't. I was thinking more along the lines of evolution denier or general relativity denier.

Anyway, OHIOMatt asked for some predictions and I gave them to him. He is free to check out those links himself and also further explore the data they link to. I'll gladly admit that some people such as yourself think that website is horribly biased even if I think it is usually right on the money. I encourage you to point OHIOMatt to alternate explanations of that data if you think what I pointed him to is in error.

As far as falsification goes, I think falsification is a poor way to judge scientific theories (and here I'm talking about science in general, not just climate science). I don't know how much philosophy of science you've read but I generally agree with Lakatos's theory of competing research programs. He makes much more sense of how science actually works than Popper, in my opinion. A research program isn't falsified by a single piece of data or by a failed prediction or anything like that. What happens is a better, more robust research program comes along and takes it place. It is actually very rare that scientists say ahead of time what will falsify a theory. Why is this? Because if evidence appears that seems to conflict with a theory, there are a number of things that could be wrong ... perhaps the evidence is misinterpreted, perhaps there was something wrong with the test set-up, perhaps there was an error in calculation, perhaps some part of the model is not quite right, perhaps the theory really is wrong, etc. It is almost impossible to say ahead of time which of those things it will be.

So, instead of asking what will falsify climate science as it is currently accepted, a better question in my opinion is whether there is another research program out there that fits the existing data better than the current research program, that makes better predictions than the current one, that is better adaptable to new discoveries, that is more parsimonious, etc., etc. Those are the things that make a research program better than another research program.

 

[TomDOT]

Okay, if you believe in Lakatos, please enumerate what you cosnider the "hard core" of assumptions which cannot be altered before the AGW hypothesis must be given up? Lakatos isn't just "hey, we keep modifying everything."

Continued rising temperature within a certain rate range certainly seems to be part of the "hard core" of the AGW theory.

 

[TGS4]

Brad1979 - the origin of the use of the derogatory term "denier" was about 6 years ago and it was exactly in that term. I appreciate that you may be caught up in the fervour, but the intention of that term is exactly that. No one uses "denier" to describe people who disagree with evolution or relativity.

Unfortunately, falsifiability IS what science is about. Einstein's quote about it doesn't matter how many people agree with him, it only takes one experiment to prove him wrong is what science is all about. If your hypothesis cannot be falsified (proven incorrect), then it's not science. And the goal of each researcher is to figure out what it takes to falsify their hypothesis and try everything they can falsify it.

Case-in-point - general (and special) relativity. There was a whole bunch of excitement last year when it appeared that some subatomic particles exceeded the speed of light limit. They were actively trying to falsify relativity (and no one called them deniers, BTW). There were miscalculations involved so that it turns out that these particles didn't travel faster than light. Nevertheless, the discovery was treated with delight tempered with skepticism - any discovery in science should be a good thing. That each and every attempt to falsify relativity (on many scales from sub-atomic to galactic) has failed indicates that the hypothesis is suitable to be elevated to the status of theory. There is still ongoing research to try to falsify it, because there are definitive terms which would falsify the theory. This is actively encouraged by the science community because this is how science acts. Even though there is a current "consensus" that relativity is correct, that is not hindering research to disprove it.

Contrast that work to what's happening in climate science. Here is one hypothesis, that (to the best of my knowledge) hasn't even defined falsifiable limits. However, when any shred of evidence, regardless of how slim, is presented that contradicts the hypothesis, that researcher is crucified (figuratively) and labelled a "denier". Tell me, is that really how science works? And remember, models are not data/evidence (and this goes both ways, too - I have equally derisive things to say to modelers in both camps).

 

[Brad1979]

"Unfortunately, falsifiability IS what science is about. "

Quite frankly, you are wrong. The history and philosophy of science has shown time and again that this isn't true. Popperian philosophy of science is outdated. Take this claim of yours: "If your hypothesis cannot be falsified (proven incorrect), then it's not science." Here is an interesting paper from Nobel Laureate in physics Frank Wilczek. He basically describes how he came about an important theory. Here is the conclusion to his story:

"This little episode, it seems to me, is 179 degrees or so out of phase from Popper’s idea that we make progress by falsifying theories. Rather in many cases, including some of the most important, we suddenly decide our theories might be true, by realizing that we should strategically ignore glaring problems.

I'm not saying falsification is unimportant, BTW, just that it isn't necessary for something to be science. Very often sticking with a theory to iron out all its problems is more important than dropping a theory at the first sight of an anomaly.

I will also point out that you still haven't given anybody any good reason why my links on prediction are wrong (other than that you don't trust the source).

I have 2 questions for you. 1) What exactly do you think is wrong with the current state of climate science? 2) Which scientists do you think are being ignored that shouldn't be (and how would climate science change if they were listened to)?

 

[TGS4]

There's a difference between falsifiability and falsifying theories. My perspective is that if whatever you are proposing cannot be falsified, it isn't science. For example, global warming has been "blamed" for:
- extreme high temperatures and extreme low temperatures
- increased precipitation and decreased precipitation
- increased cyclonic activity and decreased cyclonic activity
- increased ENSO activity and decreased ENSO activity

Do you really want to call that science?

If I come up with what appears to be a rational explanation for some phenomenon, but there is absolutely no way that I could be proven wrong, is that any different from, say, astrology? Phrenology?

As far as your links on prediction - you have my answer. I will not provide them one additional visit to look at what you have linked to. Provide the sources. And I don't care what others' failed predictions are, what is the "consensus" prediction and what is reality. The entire rationale for this port what the two have diverged substantially - as stated by the UK Met Office.

Since you won't answer my questions, I'll answer yours:
1) The reliance on models, the lack of searching for natural causes (argumentum ad ignorantiam), the extremely short timeframes we're dealing with (the bulk of late 20-th century warming took place in the 1975-2000 range - and none since), the "adjusting" of the temperature data post-facto, the appalling treatment of statistics by the paleoclimatologists, the reliance on models, and the reliance on models to start with.
2) Spencer, Christy, Curry, Maue, Lindzen, Svensmark to name a few. We could be looking at natural causes of climate change vs solely anthropogenic.

Note, I am not and have not ruled out any anthropogenic contribution. Undoubtedly, through our land use changes, CO2 emissions, soot/ash/fine particulate emissions, etc, we are making changes to our environment. It's the magnitude that I argue that we don't know.

 

[JohnRBaker]

In my humble opinion, the biggest 'problem' with all of this so-called 'Global Warming' rhetoric is the term 'Global Warming'. The proper scientific, albeit less dramatic term, is 'Climate Change'.

And to make my point, take the litneny of apparent 'absurdities' that TGS4 just posted. If we replaced the term 'global warming' with 'climate change'...

For example, climate change has been "blamed" for:
- extreme high temperatures and extreme low temperatures
- increased precipitation and decreased precipitation
- increased cyclonic activity and decreased cyclonic activity
- increased ENSO activity and decreased ENSO activity

...well you get the point, it sort of blows the whole idea that somehow these claims are absurd on their face. After all, if we were to accept that Climate Change was the real issue, then TGS4's statement would be seen as SUPPORTING the scientific claims being made and NOT as an attempt to descredit them.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[TGS4]

John, John, John... Of course the climate changes. That been about the only constant since the accretion of the earth. All of it natural, but somehow the change in the last 30 years is humans' fault.

No, the hypothesis is that human emissions of CO2 cause warming. It was always AGW. That is, until is stopped warming. Then the meme change to climate change. Change the goal posts much?

Sorry - try again.

 

[JohnRBaker]

I stand by what I wrote...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[2dye4]

""There's a difference between falsifiability and falsifying theories. My perspective is that if whatever you are proposing cannot be falsified, it isn't science.""

The CO2 warming hypothesis is a one off experiment. If a century later the climate remains stable and no other factors have intervened then the hypothesis could be said to be proven wrong.

I assume you accept experiments that can only be done once??

Say equipment aboard the mars lander. The question 'does it work on mars' is unknown at launch, but yet a lot of effort and money goes into this venture based on likely outcomes derived from known science.
Greenhouse gas theory is 150 years old.

""John, if the hypothesis that humans' release of CO2 were the sole cause of the warming since some arbitrary point were indeed true""

No credible scientist ever made that claim.

""the lack of searching for natural causes ""
What makes you think natural causes are not factored into the scientific thinking ??

I could add a dozen more, but these poorly thought out talking points puts you into a denier camp and not a scientific observer.

 

[TomDOT]

Brad,

Not only have you failed to defend your claim you follow Lakatos, you have blatantly misinterpreted Wilczek's statement by conflating two entirely separate items:

Scientific theories must be falsifiable

with

Scientific progress is primarily made by falsifying existing theories.

Wilczek is a "leap into the unknown" kind of scientist, rather than basing his progress on falsifying existing theories. He's right - that's where a lot of the really groundbreaking stuff happens, like Einstein with Relativity.

An example of Wilczek's interesting hypothesizing with "time crystals"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/?p=156334

 

[rb1957]

IMHO there are two problems with climate "science" ...

1) it is all extrapolation. sure we know some influences are predictable (solar orbits) but most aren't (solar black spots).

2) there's only one experiment (which we are all really invested in); so the argument goes "we can't afford to be wrong".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[2dye4]

rb1957

Really everything in science is extrapolation, something happened before and many times since so it is reasonable to conclude it will always happen.

Prove that an apple will ALWAYS fall to the ground. You can't we just correctly assume that since we have never witnessed a levitating apple that it must fall to the ground.

There is only one experiment with climate, true but this is not avoidable.

There is only one possible incident of a massive earthquake in San Francisco that would topple an average building. There is no 100% proof that such an Earthquake will strike the building in its lifetime, yet we go to great expense to build them extra strong just in case.

 

[rb1957]

apples falling ... i think that since we understand the causality then we can predict that in the presence of that causality the apple will respond in the same way. observational "scientists" drew conclusions from what they saw, and made incorrect extrapolations 'cause they didn't understand the causality.

yes, we do go to great expense to design earthquake (and hurricane) resistant structures 'cause we see them as reasonably frequent events that cause significant loss of life. once tested (by reality) we can see if the expense was worth it. if we spend a ton (or tonne) of money reducing CO2 emitted/released, will that have any appreciable impact on the climate ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Isen't it a bigger issue that our current energy usage is so high, and with China, and India striving to reach our economic levels will also be expected to strive to reach our energy usage levels? Unless we can develop techonolgy that is cleaner and more fuel efficent, then energy prices will rise, and our living standard will drop at the same time.

I get this, and I agree we should reduce our consumption, or add new fuel sources. I also get that automation has replaced so many basic jobs that educating our work force is very important.

However, there are limits on how much cyclical energy sources we can use (like wind and solar, even tidal). We do need all of these in the mix, but we need to quit giving tax breaks as we reach that limit. Agreed there are debates on what that limit is, and I believe we are already seeing problems in some area with the current saturation of cyclical energy sources.

I also don't understand the current forced reduction in our current standard of living. Not that conserving is bad, but when they bring about possible health problems long term, is it really worth it? Or the question of is conserving worth paying 10 times more for the device?

The problem is in the long term these devices are worth it, but if you are of the lower economic area, the first cost is just too high.

Global change is not the issue to me, but the increased consumption of energy globaly is.

 

[2dye4]

""I also don't understand the current forced reduction in our current standard of living. ""

What do you envision are the worst facets of reducing our energy usage with respect to standard of living?

What possible health concerns are necessarily caused by reducing energy consumption at the least important sinks?

 

[TGS4]

John, then I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Would you please tell me then, what your understanding of the "consensus" science is, as it related to man-made emissions of CO2.

2dye4 - so you subscribe to the view that in the absence of human interference, the climate is unfailingly stable, too. In the face of overwhelming evidence of historical natural climate change, you appear to be the one who is the denier, and not me. I may disagree with the output of computer models, yet it is you who deny actual historical data.

I agree that greenhouse gas theory has been around a long time. I don't disagree with it. Accordingly, if we were to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, all else being equal the temperature would rise about 1 degree C. That makes perfect sense to me and I have no bones with it - I certainly don't deny it. However, the two things that I disagree with are the all else being equal part and the fact that such a small degree of warming does not equate to a catastrophe. There are feedbacks in the system that prevent run-away warming/cooling as evidenced by the lack if such over 4.5+ billion years.

Experiments done once are anecdotes. Your example of the Mars lander is incorrect for two reasons: one it is an engineering problem, not basic science, and two the basic science was verified by experiments hundreds of times on the ground on earth.

No credible scientist ever made that statement

Agreed. And yet, that is what the "consensus" as described by the IPCC says.

 

[cranky108]

If you look at the goverments procedures for cleaning up broken florsent bulbs, it tend to lead one to believe they are a health risk. And these are the bulbs that are being pushed as energy efficent.