For those too young to remember (such as Jim Hansen’s coal protesters in Washington this past week), Clara Peller, pictured above, started a national catchphrase with “Where’s the beef?” that even made it into the 1984 presidential campaign. Today, the Boston Globe asks: where’s the global warming?
Watch the original commercial that started the catchphrase. It seems applicable today. – Anthony
JEFF JACOBY
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 8, 2009
SUPPOSE the climate landscape in recent weeks looked something like this:
Half the country was experiencing its mildest winter in years, with no sign of snow in many Northern states. Most of the Great Lakes were ice-free. Not a single Canadian province had had a white Christmas. There was a new study discussing a mysterious surge in global temperatures – a warming trend more intense than computer models had predicted. Other scientists admitted that, because of a bug in satellite sensors, they had been vastly overestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice.
If all that were happening on the climate-change front, do you think you’d be hearing about it on the news? Seeing it on Page 1 of your daily paper? Would politicians be exclaiming that global warming was even more of a crisis than they’d thought? Would environmentalists be skewering global-warming “deniers” for clinging to their skepticism despite the growing case against it?
No doubt.
But it isn’t such hints of a planetary warming trend that have been piling up in profusion lately. Just the opposite.
The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.
Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles – an area the size of Spain. In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission. The current global cooling “is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Swanson told Discovery News. Yes, global cooling: 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade – global temperatures have not exceeded the record high measured in 1998, notwithstanding the carbon-dioxide that human beings continue to pump into the atmosphere.
None of this proves conclusively that a period of planetary cooling is irrevocably underway, or that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are not the main driver of global temperatures, or that concerns about a hotter world are overblown. Individual weather episodes, it always bears repeating, are not the same as broad climate trends.
But considering how much attention would have been lavished on a comparable run of hot weather or on a warming trend that was plainly accelerating, shouldn’t the recent cold phenomena and the absence of any global warming during the past 10 years be getting a little more notice? Isn’t it possible that the most apocalyptic voices of global-warming alarmism might not be the only ones worth listening to?
There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth’s ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it. The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. “The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”
But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: “Naughty BBC”
Despite there being no mention of “melting ice” in Pen Hadow’s published diary extracts, the BBC continues to promote it’s AGW agenda with the headline “Arctic diary – The team has a dramatic night on melting Arctic ice”.
The above misleading Arctic Diary headline has been changed to: “Arctic diary
The team has a dramatic night on shifting Arctic ice.”
Perhaps they had some complaints?
Thoth,
“Thus, even a solid demonstration that the average global temperature is decreasing would not actually be a challenge to the hypothesis.”
Of course not, Thoth. How could anything at all EVER actually be a challenge to the hypothesis. Even glaciers moving across the Canadian border would not falsify the hypothesis. That is because the hypothesis is so robust!
KW (00:32:45) :
While I don’t think we should be making much of the recent cool years I have a lot of trouble with your idea that it is “still balmy”. I am freezing my but off up here with snow in the forcast for tonight and sub zero farenheit temperatures to follow. Growing season last year was 15 days shorter than expected and this year is already behind schedule.
Where I live is not the “breadbasket” it is however probably the most productive region for meat, dairy, poultry… certainly the most productive that isn’t supported by federal subsidies on irrigation etc.
If we lose another 10-15% in Ag production like we did last year around here a LOT of people are going to be hungry. As to warming, I can’t come up with a rational argument to support the contention that a net warming of 2 degrees C would be bad. Neither apparently can anyone else; if they could they wouldn’t be wedded to the rediculous fantasy scenarios of catastrophic warming.
Mike Bryant – “Of course not, Thoth. How could anything at all EVER actually be a challenge to the hypothesis. Even glaciers moving across the Canadian border would not falsify the hypothesis. That is because the hypothesis is so robust!”
The AGW hypothesis is that the earth is warmer than it would be without human intervention. Since there is no pristine version of the earth available to refer to, that’s entirely a hypothesis based on modeling. “Robustness” is not an issue: if you want to successfully challenge the hypothesis, you need to go after it’s basis – the models. I told you how to do that: produce better atmospheric models. Yes, that’s hard and potentially expensive. It’s also the only way in which a model-based hypothesis can challenged outside of waiting for a few decades.
If you’re interested in public furor and political pressure rather undertaking all the work of making an actual challenge to the AGW hypothesis, then arguments designed to confuse (most easily given the general form “but it’s cold outside!”), attempts to divert attention from what would actually tend to prove or disprove the hypothesis, attacks on the database, and personal attacks against proponents, are likely to be most effective. They won’t have any real effect on the scientists doing the modeling, but – with enough public noise – it may be possible to ensure that the scientists are ignored.
If you’re entirely sure that the current models and projections are badly flawed, the most efficient way to undermine the AGW hypothesis is simply to support additional research and attempts to develop better models. Since the predictions derived from atmospheric models are extremely useful in agriculture, disaster planning, and many other fields, such an effort is likely to pay long-term dividends in any case. That’s why attempts to predict the weather are made.
If you’re most interested in opposing the various “solutions” that have been proposed for the “problem”, then the next easiest route is to attempt to convince other people that the various effects predicted by the current models are desirable, rather than undesirable. To use your own facetious example, if “glaciers were moving across the Canadian border” (depending on which border, which way, and why), then warming predictions might well be regarded as a good thing. A judicious selection of prediction-results from differing models, combined with carefully stressing effects that the audience being addressed will likely see as desirable, might be quite effective.
Of course, a combination strategy – expressing doubts about the modeling process and supporting the development of improved models while exerting political pressure to prevent hasty action based on current models – may well be most effective overall. Such a strategy does tend to render attempts to present AGW as a good thing relatively ineffectual however; if you’re discounting the current models, the only way to really use their projections is in the form “and even if this was to happen, it would hardly be a bad thing!”. That’s doable, but it’s a weak presentation.
Demonstrating a failure to understand the hypothesis that you’re arguing against does not help your case, no matter how much personal emotional satisfaction you may find in it. In fact, it tends to undermine it.
Thoth,
Sorry about misspelling your name.
“If the energy level of a chaotic system increases – regardless of the nature of that system”
Can you please show me how the chaotic system has an energy increase and explain the source? I was under the impression that the TSI has decreased by approximately 1%. Are you telling me it is from a CO2 driven greenhouse effect? I have not seen any credible evidence that it is significant especially since water vapor has a negative forcing effect.
“- you can expect to see greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes.”
Where is the evidence that what we are observing are greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes? Compared to what?
Could not a global cooling just as easily cause the effects we see as the atmosphere cools faster than the oceans causing greater than normal temperature differentials?
That’s not really the AGW hypothesis.
The hypothesis that causes all the commotion states that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to a tipping point at which runaway global warming will be triggered, leading to melting of the polar and Greenland ice caps, steeply rising sea levels, drowning polar bears and an invasion of killer bees.
See, it’s got to be like that, because if the AGW/CO2 hypothesis only predicted that sea levels would rise a couple of inches per century, then there would be no need at all to argue for the enormous tax increases demanded by its conniving promoters. So in order to get at the money, the AGW contingent must engage in alarmism and scaremongering. As we see, that’s exactly what they’re doing 24/7/365.
And suggesting “undertaking all the work of making an actual challenge to the AGW hypothesis” turns the Scientific Method upside down. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that must successfully challenge the mainstream theory that the climate is fluctuating well within its natural and normal parameters. That is the theory that must be falsified, and so far the AGW/CO2 promoters have failed miserably.
The same thing can be said of the climate models. There is no need to falsify models; they falsify themselves. Every model failed to predict the rapid decline in global temperatures over the past 12 months. Every single one of them.
Prediction is the hallmark of a successful hypothesis. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails because it predicted that rising CO2 levels would result in runaway global warming. But as CO2 levels rise, the globe cools — forcing AGW proponents to invent increasingly ridiculous explanations for their failure, such as global heat being in some sort of pipeline, from where it will presumably emerge with catastrophic results too horrible to contemplate.
Gripegut/Ryan Welch
“Can you please show me how the chaotic system has an energy increase and explain the source? I was under the impression that the TSI has decreased by approximately 1%. Are you telling me it is from a CO2 driven greenhouse effect? I have not seen any credible evidence that it is significant especially since water vapor has a negative forcing effect.”
The word “If” is important: If the available energy in the system has increased, those are the symptoms that would be expected. As noted, increasing, stable, and decreasing energy levels all lead to differing predications – and the test doesn’t favor any of them. The proposed test does not presuppose data, does not have an expected outcome, and does not even deal with the exact nature of the system in question; it applies equally well to chaotic systems such as the dynamics of satellites, fluid dynamics, and oscillating chemical reactions. The question is confusing opposition to poor methodology with support of a position.
“Where is the evidence that what we are observing are greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes? Compared to what?
Could not a global cooling just as easily cause the effects we see as the atmosphere cools faster than the oceans causing greater than normal temperature differentials?”
A testing mechanism evaluates evidence. It does not provide it. As for “compared to what”, that was stated: the comparison for this test would have to be with the data from previous years. Now, the oceans do act as a thermal reservoir, as does the earth itself. Powerful long-term weather patterns driven by heat from below can be readily observed on Jupiter. Of course, the basic test proposed is of the total amount of energy in the system; as far as such a test goes, the source is irrelevant. The test itself says nothing about the “the effects we see”, since those are data to which the test can be applied.
Smokey
“…the AGW hypothesis, which states that human activity is resulting in a higher average global temperature than would prevail otherwise…
That’s not really the AGW hypothesis.”
Actually, that is the AGW hypothesis.
The competitive attempt to model the behavior of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geology of the earth is founded in a desire to make better predictions. The fact that various models have proven useful in making better – and thus more useful and profitable – predictions is what has led to them being widely used.
Every model – whether economic, orbital, climatic, or psychological (right down to the behavioral model in your brain that attempts to predict “how upset will my spouse get if I do (x)…”) makes predictions as to the probable result of various actions. Models are refined when observed results do not match projected ones.
Mechanical or computer models are in some ways easier to refine; you can feed them historical data and run “projections” of current conditions without fear of knowledge you did not include influencing the results. Such models may thus be tested, compared, and upgraded with relative ease.
Now, the “Tipping Point” argument relies on details of the projections of some of those models. It is not an inherent part of the AGW hypothesis. If you want to challenge models, you need to provide better models.
Proposals for various actions to prevent such predictions from coming to pass rely on a series of value judgements as to whether or not those predicted consequences would be a bad thing. Arguments about actions, or getting money, have nothing to do with the hypothesis. This falls under “objecting to proposed courses of action” not under “objections to the hypothesis”.
“And to suggest “undertaking all the work of making an actual challenge to the AGW hypothesis” turns the Scientific Method upside down. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that must successfully challenge the mainstream theory that the climate is fluctuating well within its natural and normal parameters. That is the theory that must be falsified, and so far the AGW/CO2 promoters have failed miserably.”
Unfortunately, this statement is self-contradictory: The “Scientific Method” can be summarized as the process of gathering information, forming a hypothesis – also known as a model – based on that information, making predictions using that hypothesis, and testing them against reality. If they fit, the hypothesis is good until contradictory results appear. If they do not, either some factor in the test was overlooked of the hypothesis must be either modified or discarded. In the case of a field too complex to be precisely modeled or solved, you look for predictions within a margin of error or not.
Ergo, to overturn the current models, you need to propose new ones. What you are claiming as a “mainstream theory” is not a theory because it fails to make testable predictions: how is “natural and normal” different from “anything that happens”? What predictions does it make? If I give you the initial conditions from a random point in the past, what testable predictions will the “theory” of “natural and normal” make about the weather a few weeks from then? How will they differ from the predictions of the current models? Will they be the same for each proponent of “Natural and Normal”?
The models are mainstream simply because they are the best theories available. If they weren’t mainstream, there wouldn’t be a debate in the first place outside of scientific journals.
“Prediction is the hallmark of a successful hypothesis. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails because it predicted that rising CO2 levels would result in runaway global warming. But as CO2 levels rise, the globe cools — forcing AGW proponents to invent increasingly ridiculous explanations for their failure, such as global heat being in some sort of pipeline, from where it will presumably emerge with catastrophic results too horrible to contemplate.”
Unfortunately, this compounds several different elements:
AGW states that human activities have (and probably will continue to ) result in a net rise in average global temperatures over the values which would prevail if humans did not exist.
The CO2 hypothesis states that average global temperatures tend ro be strongly correlated with CO2 concentrations and postulates this as a possible like to current human activities.
“As CO2 levels rise, the globe cools”. This suffers from several presumptions: that the only variable is CO2 (for example, if the sun was to disappear tomorrow, there are no models that suggest that high levels of CO2 would compensate for setting the solar constant to zero), and that there is no disagreement here about the actual data (from a quick look around, there does seem to be). Fortunately, it’s also irrelevant to the test proposed – which is only related to whether or not the average temperature is increasing, staying the same, or decreasing, and has nothing to do with CO2 or speculative forms of heat storage.
The point remains. If you want to overthrow the current theories about preserving food, develop and demonstrate better ones. If you want to overthrow the currently-dominant type of flat-screen video display, develop and demonstrate a better one. If you want to replace current climatic models, develop and demonstrate better ones.
Complaining that such a requirement is “unfair” sort of misses the point.
Thoth:
If someone builds a car and it doesn’t start, you don’t have to build a better car to demonstrate that their car doesn’t work.
If GCM model predictions are demonstrated to be useless, one does not need a better model to point out that they should be discarded. All that is needed to falsify a model is to demonstrate that its predictions fail. There is no need to build a better model to falsify a current one.
Thoth, I regret making my original comment, accurate as it was. I tried to get through your giant, overly detailed reply, but I just couldn’t do it. Sorry. But lots of words don’t make an argument convincing.
I did notice upthread where you said something about a closed system gaining heat [I’m paraphrasing] will tend toward more violent weather events. In that case, history shows that the globe isn’t warming: click
Oh, and BTW, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is every bit as alarmist as I’ve described it, for the obvious reasons given: if AGW proponents didn’t have their scary [and repeatedly falsified] AGW/CO2 hypothesis to frighten the public with, it would only rate a few footnotes in an obscure journal or two.
The AGW hypothesis must be scary. There’s no money in it otherwise.
Jeez:
“If someone builds a car and it doesn’t start, you don’t have to build a better car to demonstrate that their car doesn’t work.
If GCM model predictions are demonstrated to be useless, one does not need a better model to point out that they should be discarded. All that is needed to falsify a model is to demonstrate that its predictions fail. There is no need to build a better model to falsify a current one.”
Unfortunately, that presupposes what you want to demonstrate – and presumes that the atmospheric models are wholly unsuccessful. They have been, and continue to be, quite useful in weather prediction. All theories / models have limitations. Newtonian gravity was and is an excellent model for how the universe behaved under a limited set of conditions. It was recognized that it had limitations well before Einstein’s theory supplanted it – but, since it had a high predictive value in many circumstances, it remained in use despite acknowledgment of those limitations. It is still in use. The models in question are the product of quite a lot of development: they are not perfect – but they have demonstrated considerable predictive value. Perfection is not possible (for some information on “why not” you might want to look up Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem and the Uncertainty Principle).
Your comparison essentially attempts to generalize from “this car does not work” to “Someone’s car does not work as well as is desired. Therefore the basic design of all cars is faulty, and all cars should be discarded”.
That might even be true, but the argument does not demonstrate it.
Now, the earth may or may not be becoming warmer or cooler on the average; that is why I proposed a test.
If the earth is becoming warmer or colder, the various atmospheric models may or may not be correct in their descriptions of why that is happening. Models are inherently limited.
If you want to overthrow current theories, and the models built on them, you need to produce better and more predictive theories and models.
In practice, our current modeling of the universe is usually good enough that more predictive theories and models are variations on the old ones, rather than entirely new ones. That’s not a rule however, it’s simply a general observation. Based on a quick search, there seem to be several downloadable models available which can be modified to test various assumptions.
If you want to be taken seriously by scientists, do the science.
If you want to be taken seriously by political groups, exert political pressure.
If you want to be taken seriously by the general population, exert economic and emotional pressure.
Regardless of the issue in question, if you’re sure that you are correct, doing the science is best, politics is second best, and attempting to manipulate the general populace is a distant third. If you are unsure as to who is correct, political pressure is probably best: if you cannot convince yourself, convincing the general population or doing the science will be nearly impossible. If you are sure that the other side is actually correct, but would prefer to avoid dealing with that, trying to manipulate the general population is best, the politicians are secondary, and attempting to manipulate the scientists is likely to be counterproductive. Still, all of them are potentially workable strategies for attaining a goal.
Thoth:
No it doesn’t. Read what I wrote again.
Yes, presuppositions like, do the GCMs accurately predict and track the current Global metrics? And guess what? The answer is demonstrated to be no in many “scientific” ways.
You are very very verbose, but actually you don’t make that many points. Your wandering off about subjects like Newtonian physics being good enough for everyday use or Godel’s theorem are completely irrelevant. If a model says we will get .2C warming per decade and in fact there is no warming or even cooling over a statistically significant period, then that model is not a good enough approximation. At a certain point, these prediction failures accumulate to what is known as falsification. No competing model need apply.
No one must build a better model to falsify the existing models. The existing models have been repeatedly falsified…
“Mike Bryant
No one must build a better model to falsify the existing models. The existing models have been repeatedly falsified…”
Sorry, but incorrect. As already noted. In modeling, “falsification” is a measure of relative predictive values. No model is, or can be, perfect – and they are neither expected nor required to be. Falsifying a model involves building another model that produces better predictions.
AGW – with its various extensions – may or may not be valid. A valid scientific case against it must, however, present a testable theory with differing predictions. Such theories and models do exist. All that is needed is to find one that, when applied to known past conditions, yields better descriptions of current conditions.
Personally, I would find that delightful. Destroying an old theory is a marvelous opportunity; who knows what wonderful new theory will replace it?
Thoth,
I will repeat this as many times as someone posts this kind of misinformation:
Wrong.
It is those who are putting forth a new hypothesis who have the burden of falsifying the current theory — it is not the other way around.
As Dr. Roy Spencer said, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
The burden is entirely on the proponents of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis to show convincingly that it explains reality better than the current theory of natural climate variability. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails because natural variability, [which is the result of many external forces such as the oceans, the sun, the tides, the diurnal effect, the Earth’s annual orbit, aerosols, clouds, etc., etc.], has not been falsified.
Only by turning the Scientific Method on its head can an argument be made that the AGW/CO2 alarmism is valid.
In the mean time, the planet continues to cool even as CO2 continues to rise. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that is being falsified.
“Smokey
I will repeat this as many times as someone posts this kind of misinformation:
“Falsifying a model involves building another model that produces better predictions.”
Wrong.
It is those who are putting forth a new hypothesis who have the burden of falsifying the current theory — it is not the other way around.
As Dr. Roy Spencer said, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”“
And I suppose I will have to answer until the logic of the responses improves.
Unfortunately, as already pointed out Dr Roy Spencer’s “Hypothesis” – along with the “theory of natural climate variability” – make no testable predictions, and thus have nothing to do with science. It is not possible to falsify the proposition that unspecified natural phenomena might be responsible for any possible observation.
As for misrepresentation, the various AGW predictions are based on extensions of the models used to predict the weather, which have been steadily refined for years and in no way represent a new hypothesis. In turn, those models are based on rules of physics and chemistry which are very well established indeed.
“Alarmism” may or may not be justified: that depends on personal attitudes, and is not a part of the science.
Now, if you want to object to AGW on scientific grounds, your objections need to be scientific. Whatever theory you present needs to make testable projections which are better than those of the existing theories. Similarly, if you wish to support it, your supporting theory needs to make better projections than those of the theories that do not. In either case, I am in favor of sound logic, as well as careful separation of facts, theories, projections, and evidence and a sound appreciation of the roles of all of them.
If you want to either support or object to the theory on theological grounds, that could be interesting, but it is less subject to logical debate.
Political, economic, and social support or objections have nothing to do with the scientific side of the hypothesis: they’re based on competing value judgements. Value judgements aren’t really rationally debatable, but basic strategic considerations for implementing such judgements have already been addressed in earlier comments.
Thoth wrote:
“AGW – with its various extensions – may or may not be valid. A valid scientific case against it must, however, present a testable theory with differing predictions.”
SORRY BRO BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGW “THEORISTS”….NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
And so far…I won’t name names (MICHAEL “BROKEN HOCKEYSTICK” MANN ….JAMES “PROTEST AGW IN A MARCH DC SNOWSTORM” HANSEN…ET AL…..their burden of proof ain’t so good.
Thoth….
Trust me dude….your long dissertations of sophistry…..ARE NOT READ.
Even my response above….I was just able to point my finger in one of your “dissertations” and zero in on one sentence, and find a flaw.
“Sophistry” is exactly what it is.
If you want to get a real audience, then limit your verbage to a few sentences.
If you can not do that, then you have nothing to say.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
“Unfortunately, as already pointed out Dr Roy Spencer’s “Hypothesis” – along with the “theory of natural climate variability” – make no testable predictions, and thus have nothing to do with science.”
Utter tosh! The prediction it makes is that nothing we experience weather-wise is outside the range we’ve experienced before.
Any claim to find a ‘trend’ in essentially chaotic data requires prove. As the data gathers to prove no correlation between CO2 ‘forcing’ global temps, we now have to explain to the Greens that the colour they wear is to honour the enzyme that uses CO2 to drive Life on Earth.
“savethesharks
SORRY BRO BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGW “THEORISTS”….NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.”
Sorry, both incorrect and already covered above.
“Trust me dude….your long dissertations of sophistry…..ARE NOT READ.
Even my response above….I was just able to point my finger in one of your “dissertations” and zero in on one sentence, and find a flaw.”
Anyone who can’t manage to read and understand something as short as this page is unlikely to actually come up with an interesting argument. Dull, repetitive, or unsupported arguments will not be missed.
If you want to actually contribute to a discussion, present a through analysis. Anything else is a waste of time.
Oh, another one while I was writing the last one…
“Sandy
Utter tosh! The prediction it makes is that nothing we experience weather-wise is outside the range we’ve experienced before.
Any claim to find a ‘trend’ in essentially chaotic data requires prove. As the data gathers to prove no correlation between CO2 ‘forcing’ global temps, we now have to explain to the Greens that the colour they wear is to honour the enzyme that uses CO2 to drive Life on Earth.”
Hm. And how is that “prediction” to be tested? How can it be falsified? It remains an article of faith, not science. Asking for “proof” is a dead giveaway in that respect: it is not possible to “prove” the objective existence of the universe.
Thoth (18:44:29) :
As i understand it the models are non linear, each event effects the next. So if a model fails to predict the observations, it is clearly showing that the quantification’s used are wrong, or factors have been missed. The fact they can replicate known data is irrelevant(a five year old can figure out that a cube goes in the square shaped hole in a puzzle box) This is because we dont know what is causing the inaccuracies, are the assumed forcing parameters exaggerated? Is there a negative feed back that is being missed? Is there some unknown mechanism at play?
But the fact they fail to match the observations proves they are flawed.
Thoth,
I refer you to Langmuir’s Laws of bad science:
Others have encountered similar tactics in the past; there is nothing new under the sun.
Thoth wrote…..”Anyone who can’t manage to read and understand something as short as this page is unlikely to actually come up with an interesting argument.”
NO THE REALITY IS THAT YOUR “ARGUMENT” WILL NOT BE READ.
“INTERESTING” DOES NOT NECESSARILY = VERBOSE (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT EQUALS “SOPHISTRY”).
“Dull, repetitive, or unsupported arguments will not be missed.”
WELL IF THAT AIN’T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. LOL
THANKS FOR BEING CANNON FODDER FOR US, THOTH.
“MikeE
As i understand it the models are non linear, each event effects the next. So if a model fails to predict the observations, it is clearly showing that the quantification’s used are wrong, or factors have been missed. The fact they can replicate known data is irrelevant(a five year old can figure out that a cube goes in the square shaped hole in a puzzle box) This is because we dont know what is causing the inaccuracies, are the assumed forcing parameters exaggerated? Is there a negative feed back that is being missed? Is there some unknown mechanism at play?
But the fact they fail to match the observations proves they are flawed.”
Yes. All models are. That’s why there are lots of competing models, rather than one, and why the evaluation of computer models is a statistical matter, rather than a yes/no scenario. The method of testing such models against each other is simple: input initial parameters from some point in the past, add known variations in external factors (such as solar input) to the database, and run the model forward. Models that produce results that often closely match developments from after the input point have good predictive value. Models that do not produce good projections, are discarded. The same system is used for models of a wide variety of phenomena.
That is why we need to create better models, to identify additional parameters, and to look for items that are being missed. There is certainly room for improvement in all existing models – and improved models might well reveal that the current models are inadequate.
The next step is to create a model incorporating such factors and to start testing and developing it. When it’s predictive value exceeds that of older models, you will have a new theory.
And congratulations: you are the first person to reply here who has not obviously missed the point that I am not supporting the AGW hypothesis. I am supporting applying sufficient logical and scientific rigor to any opposing hypothesis to ensure an entertaining scientific debate.
Now, from
“Smokey
I refer you to Langmuir’s Laws of bad science:
1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. [think AGW]
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results. [think AGW]
3. There are claims of great accuracy. [think AGW]
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. [think AGW]
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. [think AGW]
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero. [think AGW]
Others have encountered similar tactics in the past; there is nothing new under the sun.”
Ah, Langmuir. Lets see now:
1) The various models depend on readily detectable quantities, and the results do vary with the level of those quantities. Sorry, but not applicable.
2) As pointed out earlier, the AGW hypothesis depends on modeling – the outputs of which are readily measurable. The inputs – the solar constant, gas ratios in the atmosphere, and many other elements – are also readily measurable. Again, not applicable.
3) As last I checked, many of the different models produce wildly different results. There is no claim of “great accuracy”. Once again, not applicable.
4) The models are consistent with a great deal of experience: they rely on well established rules of physics and chemistry, as pointed out earlier. Again, not applicable.
5) Unfortunately, a good theory – for example, the equations of electromagnetism – also answer all readily raised questions. The difference lies in whether or those answers can be considered “Ad Hoc” answers – constructed to suit specific situations without reference to the underlying rules of the system. Since the theories in question are computer models of physical systems, and without purpose in themselves, we can be sure that they do not produce Ad Hoc answers. Their programmers may, but that is what the Peer Review process is designed to spot. This will not, of course, satisfy the objection, since it relies on a personal value judgement. Of course, that value judgement also means that – on its own – this rule cannot yield an objective judgement – and it is unsupported so far. Sorry, but there’s still rule #6 to look at.
6) This rule states that supporters should peak near 50%. Unfortunately, surveys of climatologists and scientists indicate peak support far above 50% for the AGW hypothesis. Given that scientific success consists of overthrowing old theories in favor of your own, support at the 90%+ level – as many surveys have reported – seems unlikely to be an artifact. Again, not applicable.
On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results. Practical results are the opposite of pathological science.
As far as the AGW/Anti-AGW argument goes, I would expect anyone who sincerely believes that the science is inaccurate to welcome objective tests such as I originally proposed – and to be willing to subject their own arguments and theories to a through analysis. A flawed argument is not going to get very far scientifically, which is dull.
Ah, and another one…
“savethesharks
NO THE REALITY IS THAT YOUR “ARGUMENT” WILL NOT BE READ.
“INTERESTING” DOES NOT NECESSARILY = VERBOSE (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT EQUALS “SOPHISTRY”).
“Dull, repetitive, or unsupported arguments will not be missed.”
WELL IF THAT AIN’T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. LOL
THANKS FOR BEING CANNON FODDER FOR US, THOTH.”
Sorry, personal assaults as arguments were dealt with earlier. You are, however, welcome to continue demonstrating your lack of an argument.
Thoth wrote: “Sorry, personal assaults as arguments were dealt with earlier. You are, however, welcome to continue demonstrating your lack of an argument.”
Haha this is so fun. My argument is…that you have none at all, bro.
I realize this is casting blog-pearls before blog-swine.
I maintain if you can not say it in a few words, you can not say it in 1000.
Trust me….your material is ignored. It is pure, unbounded sophistry [Google it]. Guys like you are why Socrates took his life.
You introduce so much NOISE and detritus into your argument, then you thnk, by force, it will make sense.
Well it does not….and i am going to bed.,
Gald to have not read your jibberish…and will look forward to some more rational discourse on the morrow.
Chris
savethesharks
You’ll notice he did not reply to my last post refuting him.
“savethesharks
Haha this is so fun. My argument is…that you have none at all, bro.
I realize this is casting blog-pearls before blog-swine.
I maintain if you can not say it in a few words, you can not say it in 1000.
Trust me….your material is ignored. It is pure, unbounded sophistry [Google it]. Guys like you are why Socrates took his life.
You introduce so much NOISE and detritus into your argument, then you thnk, by force, it will make sense.
Well it does not….and i am going to bed.,
Gald to have not read your jibberish…and will look forward to some more rational discourse on the morrow.
Chris”
I take it you have never bothered with reading anything about any complex subject then? Still no actual argument here – although an admission to attempting to argue about posts that you have not read demonstrates that there isn’t likely to be one either.
Jeez:
Sorry, I missed this one, since currently virtually all comments seem to be replies to mine and I only check back in between other projects.
“Yes, presuppositions like, do the GCMs accurately predict and track the current Global metrics? And guess what? The answer is demonstrated to be no in many “scientific” ways.
You are very very verbose, but actually you don’t make that many points. Your wandering off about subjects like Newtonian physics being good enough for everyday use or Godel’s theorem are completely irrelevant. If a model says we will get .2C warming per decade and in fact there is no warming or even cooling over a statistically significant period, then that model is not a good enough approximation. At a certain point, these prediction failures accumulate to what is known as falsification. No competing model need apply.”
Sorry, comparison and evaluation of models was already dealt with: attempting to evade evaluation of a model by labeling it “common sense” or “natural” doesn’t mean that you aren’t using one. It’s simply claiming to have a better model without being willing to demonstrate it. If you don’t want an explanation of basic material, do not demonstrate a need for it.
Shall I make it very simple?
1) To unseat a current model that has demonstrated practical value, you need a better one.
2) The current models are used in weather prediction, and have demonstrated practical value.
3) If you want to actually answer criticism, you must answer every point.
Thoth:
Hmm..I didn’t label anything common sense or natural. I described a simplified scientific process for falsification of models in a particular use and that use was not weather prediction. To address 3 above, no you need only to address pertinent points. You addressed not a single one of mine. My original post stands completely unanswered. You have the ability to write a lot, but I’m afraid you are demonstrating more of an ability to type than an ability for logical thinking. This is not a political debate where sound bites lead to scoring points.