Story submitted by Eric Worrall
How do we prove climate alarmists are wrong? Let us count the ways
If the temperature goes up, this is just what the models predicted – watch out because …
…soon it will get a lot worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change
If the temperature goes down, the deep ocean is swallowing the heat – even though the heat can’t be measured, we know it must be there, because that is what the climate models tell us. Global warming prevails! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pacific-ocean-and-climate-change-pause/
If the global temperature crashes, its because global warming induced melting of arctic ice shut down the ocean currents. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
If the snow disappears, this is just as models predicted – snowfall is a thing of the past. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
If there is an unusually heavy snowfall, this is just as models predicted – global warming is increasing the moisture content of the atmosphere, which results in increased snow cover. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/10/2010-snowmageddon-explained-sans-global-warmingclimate-change/
If there is a drought, that is because of global warming. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/causes-of-midwest-drought-2012_n_1690717.html
Except of course, when global warming causes heavy rainfall. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/13/global-warming-the-incompetent-politicians-excuse/
No matter what the observation, no matter how the world changes, we can never falsify alarmist climate theories. Any possible change, any possible observation, can always be explained by anthropogenic global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/22/occams-razor-and-climate-change/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The models cannot predict frost and are based on a premise of no air circulation and do not model the atmosphere from sea level to 80,000 feet.
An incomplete model is not a model, it is a painting.
You omitted one – “When the temperature remains constant (relatively), that is due to natural cooling offsetting the human induced warming”
Yes it is amazing how ‘lucky’ it is that natural cooling perfectly balanced out AGW. I mean what are the chances of that?
An unvalidated model is an illustration of somebody’s hypothesis. It is not evidence of anything.
Any hypothesis which has no possibility of falsification is not a scientific hypothesis, and is a defacto pile of doggy doos.
Climate alarmists need just enough research funding to complete a “Science 101: The Scientific Method”. course
Whether the climate gets hotter, drier, colder, wetter, according to a model, is merely a contrived result based upon flawed assumptions from a falsified hypothesis coded into a poorly written and incomplete computer model.
In short, here is a simple tip for the climate alarmists… THAT IS NOT REALITY! STOP TREATING IT AS IF IT IS!!!
Spherical chickens in a vacuum. Says it all.
This is REALLY good … thanks !
I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch where a political commentator is saying “well, the election results were pretty much as I had predicted – except that the other party won”.
AWG-believers ought to learn:
In Theories of Science it’s never ever possible to prove a thesis right. Only to falsify a thesisTheories of Science – Basic knowledge
Straight out of Paul Daniel’s Bunco Booth: “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
As Daniels says, “You WILL lose – it’s a CON”
Mr Worrall, Sir.
A rather good synopsis of the conundrum faced in countering the naysayers but may one please direct one to the following by Mr Sean Thomas. I feel this gives a much deeper “feel” for the problem…
.
“First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading. Professor Sutton said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic, and trying to work out whether the current run of inclement European winters will persist.
When pressed on the particular outlook for the British Isles. Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.
Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense, then told the Telegraph: “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”
It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/
I am, as always, ready to listen to alternative viewpoints.
Jones
And of course ALL warming is caused by mankind and all of it is beyond just bad, it is absolutely catastrophic in every way. there is no place for an improvement in ANYTHING if the earth warms.
What will they say when the serious cooling begins?
Interestingly, “great rain god Oonga-Boonga, himfella plenty angry” also fully explains those same phenomena.
Bingo!
Science made to order. A dream for would-be architects of a new social / economic order.
Or as Andrew Montford over at Bishop Hill succinctly put it: “Policy-based evidence-making.”
Murph says;
“You omitted one – “When the temperature remains constant (relatively), that is due to natural cooling offsetting the human induced warming””
Except, of course,when human induced warming is offsetting natural cooling.
In addition to warming and cooling, drought and flood, Global Warming also causes widespread stupidity and gullibility.
‘If the temperature goes down, the deep ocean is swallowing the heat – even though the heat can’t be measured, we know it must be there, because that is what the climate models tell us. Global warming prevails! ‘. Not quite true I’m afraid. We know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space. This is observational evidence and of that there is no reasonable doubt. By the law of the conservation of energy it is going somewhere. If it is not showing up as atmospheric warming then it’s either being stored in the land or the oceans. The oceans have vastly more heat capacity than the land. So somehow it’s the oceans. None of this explains the reason for the energy imbalance – that’s the attribution problem. Climate science is riddled with bad science, poor method and bad manners but that doesn’t disguise the fact that there is a real issue.
professor ryan do you have any measurement of energy balance precise enough to support your claim …and the global warming?
I think if we d have this measurment it would be the dirst thing to show sceptic!
I am more prone to believe that even the models are not able to deal with energy balance by themselve and need to ne force to be balanced excpet for some part like albedo reaction wich is suposed to be a right way to unbalance the system at a given time.
Professor Bob Ryan:
I quote all of your post at August 15, 2014 at 12:50 am so it is clear that I am replying in context.
Yes, there is a real issue and you have misrepresented it.
We do NOT ” know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space.” We interpret observations by means of existing theory and hypothesis. If the observations do not agree – as they don’t concerning the Earth’s energy balance – then one or more of the observations, theory and hypotheses is flawed. Of this there is no doubt.
Your lack of doubt in the observations, theory and hypotheses is superstitious belief which rejects the scientific method.
And in science empiricism trumps theory. Therefore, the existing scientific indication is that ‘missing’ energy is NOT “being stored in the land or the oceans”. Until you can provide evidence that the energy storage is occurring then the scientific conclusion is that the theory and/or hypothesis requires amendment.
As you say,”there is a real issue”. I agree, and I think it is a serious problem, but you do not mention it so I shall.
You say you are a Professor; i.e. you teach. The problem is that many teachers are attempting to indoctrinate the young with superstitious nonsense of the kind you have posted here.
Richard
Is there an energy balance? Is it at all times balanced? Is it always uniformly in balance or are there places of under and over energy?
I thought that a model always had use make-up
“Any possible change, any possible observation, can always be explained by anthropogenic global warming.”
Well, except for:
(1) The lack of temperature rise that was predicted by the IPCC
(2) The absence of anomalous global sea level rise predicted by the IPCC
Whatever shall we do?
David Schofield says:
August 15, 2014 at 12:22 am
“Spherical chickens in a vacuum. Says it all”
——————————————————–
Ah ze old phyzics joke…
Chickens do become spherical when exposed to the hard vacuum of space. They just don’t stay that way for long…
It’s high time climastrologists stopped searching for their chickens and took note of the pink ice crystals on their space suit visors.
AGW only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum? Not even then…
Imagine if you were a stockbroker and you told your client that a stock called CAGW, at $100 a share, was a steal. It’s sure to go up. So your client invests $10,000 and it stays at $100 for 18 years. During that period you give your client 30 different excuses for why the stock has stagnated. You point your client to the SkepticalStock website and they have a running blog on the stock, claiming that despite what the stock price shows in the market, it has actually gone up in price. The people who look at the selling price just don’t get it. They then start attacking your client for daring to doubt their integrity.
It’s essentially the same idea. But in the financial markets people would be taking a huge risk, the policing is very strict. In the CAGW community there is little or no risk, the government and media have your back. Cherchez d’argent.
“No matter what the observation, no matter how the world changes, we can never falsify alarmist climate theories”
False.
The very foundation of the global warming hoax depends on the calculation that the surface of the planet would be at 255K in the absence of an atmosphere. The simplest empirical experiments proves this absurd claim utterly false.
So what’s the problem? Fearful little quisling lukerwarmers, that’s what.
Do you believe CO2 will cause “some” warming? Have you personally empirically checked? No you haven’t, have you? Therein lays the problem…
Professor Ryan;
The energy imbalance you describe can come about because incoming energy has risen or because outgoing energy has fallen (or of course both). Outgoing energy is measured as Outgoing Longwave Radiation or OLR for short. The CAGW hypothesis claims earth is warming becuase rising CO2 is acting as a “blanket” reducing OLR. NOAA publish a historical record of OLR from 1970 to 2010 and this shows OLR has been on average rising. It seems to me this entirely by itself falsifies the CAGW hypothesis. If there is an energy imbalance and OLR has been rising then incoming energy must have been rising even faster and that is either due to solar changes or changes in Earth’s albedo. The latter is of course in line with the Svensmark theory.