The Trenberth article contains so many glaring errors and biased assumptions, it’s hard to know where to start.
First of all, the difference between theory and hypothesis:
The problem is not with dueling hypotheses, it is with dueling theories regarding the processes resulting in observed global warming. One theory states: Observed global warming is the result of human greenhouse gas emissions. Another theory states: Observed global warming is not caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, but is a result of natural geophysical processes.
The statement, “Global warming is the result of human greenhouse gas emissions” is not an hypothesis, it is a proposition, or at best, a simple theory. A theory is an explanation of process based on a body of observation.
Hypotheses, on the other hand, are predictive “if…then” statements used to test a small subset of a theory as an adequate explanation of observations, thus either strengthening or weakening the theory. The results of an individual hypothesis never disprove a theory. A theory can only be weakened and eventually replaced by the accumulation of a body of evidence that contradicts the theories explanation of observations, and the formulation of a new theory that provides a more adequate explanation.
We can test the theory of anthropogenic global warming with the hypothesis: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should find a positive correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise. This is weak test of the theory, since, if we find such a positive correlation, we merely confirm the existing theory. No new information is gained. If we fail to find the positive causal correlation, it may be because we just have not looked hard enough yet, or haven’t looked in the right places. The truth is still out there!
The null hypothesis would be stated as: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should not find a negative correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise. This is a much stronger test of the hypothesis, since it only takes one instance of negative correlation to negate the hypothesis and weaken the theory as an explanation of observations.
This is the process of Science, the Hypothetico-deductive Method of Theory Confirmation.
Secondly, Trenberth repeatedly fails to make a distinction between Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is no question that the average global surface temperature of the Earth has been increasing steadily over the past 20,000 years or so, else, we would still be skirting glaciers on our daily commute. The question is: What is the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to this warming, and, what effect will reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have on this on-going global warming, if any?
Since we do not yet fully understand the natural geophysical processes that result in observed climate variations over geologic time periods, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to fully understand the contribution to global climate variation resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Wild predictions of future catastrophic weather events are simply science fiction prognostications with as much scientific validity as a Star Wars movie.
The periodic reports by the IPCC are not scientific documents, they are produced to give policy-makers estimations of the relevant probabilities of various climate scenarios, as an aid in preparation of national and international policies dealing with climate variation. These statements of probability have been inflated by the world press and by politicians anxious to make a name (and fortune) for themselves. Probability has been turned on its head into certainty and is being used by all manner of organizations and individuals to forward their individual agendae. Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.
At some point, increasing evidence of negative correlations between global average atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperature will falsify the null hypothesis and greatly reduce the adequacy of the anthropogenic global warming theory as an explanation of observed global average surface temperature increase. Environmental organizations, politicians and science policy organizations will find they’ve hitched their wagons to a black hole. Their unceasing drum-beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That about sums it up!
‘… then we should not find a negative correlation..’. I don’t see why this is a stronger prediction as it only says that we should find a zero or positive correlation (or regression). The point is that correlation results from a compound of millions of factors including perhaps a CO2 forcing. A more fruitful question would be how strong the CO2 forcing is, compared with all the others (natural variability). Call it the strength of a signal. Consider the following answer. Non-zero strength implies that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false. Since the latter is true, CO2 forcing must be zero. This is quite simplistic of course, but you may understand what I mean.
“At some point, increasing evidence of negative correlations between global average atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperature will falsify the null hypothesis and greatly reduce the adequacy of the anthropogenic global warming theory as an explanation of observed global average surface temperature increase”.
There have been negative correlations of increasing CO2 with average annual global temperatures within recent decades but this has not convinced the AGW believers nor the policy makers. How many years of negative correlations will be needed to make them see sense?
“The null hypothesis would be stated as: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should not find a negative correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise.”
This is obviously wrong. A strong negative correlation tends to favor causation just as much as a strong positive correlation. (Neither proves, but both would lead us to favor the causation.)
In this case the fact that disproves the attempted hypothesis is not a correlation as such, but a time-shift. Over the millenia, CO2 and temperature have some correlations, but in the periods where we can see the correlation, CO2 is the lagging variable.
Phase and frequency are relevant here, correlation is not.
‘Their unceasing drum-beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth.’
And that is the reason that some people are so concerned about the miss-handling and miss-use of AGW, and oddly why some will defend the theory until death. As all eco-issue have become linked to AGW in the public mind , through the deliberate actions of WWF Greenpeace etc, should AGW fall the real danger is it takes everything else with it. After all why would you trust the same people and organisation on anything after they were caught out massively lying over AGW?
Most people experiences of this issues has been the hectoring they been getting, the diet of doom they been feed and increases prices they had to pay, in its name.
And they will not forget that in a hurry.
Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.
For some reason, I got the impression that the scare stories were being used to justify de-industrialization and de-development, not continued human growth and development. And while I won’t argue that air, water and soil pollution occur, I don’t think adding CO2 (the GHG Villain of the Decade) to the atmosphere counts as increasing air pollution.
Sounds to me that Dr. Trenberth is trying to cover his own back without actually acknowledging his crass errors in his theories. Theories they will remain.
This comment may be off target here but I’m asking WUWT contributors to help me clarify my thoughts.
I’m sure this has been debated before but I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so please correct me where necessary.
What’s been occupying my mind, lately, is human contribution to global warming. I’m a CAGW sceptic. I do accept a human contribution, but, on balance, I don’t believe it’s significant.
When I first started to seriously investigate something that seemed counter-intuitive to me, I came across the IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy Makers. It showed a number of very impressive ‘hockey stick’ graphs (at that stage I hadn’t yet learned the significance of the term ‘hockey stick’!), showing CO2 and temperature growth.
One day, in my Internet perambulations, I noticed another ‘hockey stick’ graph. This was one graph that I believed. It showed human population growth, and looked remarkably like the IPCC graphs – indeed you could superimpose it seamlessly. What it showed is that, in 1950, world population was 1.5 billion people. Today, we are nearly 7 billion – more than FOUR times in ONLY SIXTY years.
We sceptics talk a lot about Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) – primarily as an artefact that is used to correct a highly artificial metric called ‘Annual Global Average Temperature’ (an artefact in itself). We talk about the reflective effect of tarmac and so on.
But it seems to me that UHI is more than that. UHI has a reflective component and a generative component.
If we talk about the temperature at the surface of the Earth, we needed to consider four things:
Heat incoming from the Sun,
Heat reflected from the Earth’s surface and associated feedbacks,
Heat emanating from the Earth’s core, and
Heat being generated at the surface.
Accepting that all animals (human and otherwise) are in a closed CO2 atmospheric loop, and ignoring the ‘greenhouse effect’, we need to consider that what sets us apart as humans – indeed the essence of our humanity – is that, as opposed to animals that adapt to their environment, we change our environment to suit ourselves. This means, at the most basic level, that we do things to keep ourselves warm – we burn stuff and generate heat. As we advance we burn more stuff to make our food more palatable. Then we generate more heat to make things, like musical instruments, that we don’t really need for basic survival. Now we have automobiles and aircraft and TV to make our lives even more enjoyable. They all generate heat.
THAT’S A LOT OF HEAT!
Is it being considered in the IPCC models?
Michael Lewis
“We can test the theory of anthropogenic global warming with the hypothesis: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should find a positive correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise.”
Let us do that!
As shown in the following data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre:
http://bit.ly/gIkojx
1) Average consumption of fossil fuel per year from 1910 to 1940 was about 1 Billion metric tones
2) Average consumption of fossil fuel per year from 1970 to 2000 was about 5 Billion metric tones (an increase by 5-times compared to the period from 1910 to 1940)
b) As shown in the following data from the Climate Research Unit:
http://bit.ly/bUZsBe
1) Increase in global mean temperature from 1910 to 1940 was about 0.45 deg C
2) Increase in global mean temperature from 1970 to 2000 was about 0.45 deg C (no increase compared to the period from 1910 to 1940)
From the results above, the increase in human use of fossil fuels by 5-times has resulted in no change in the global mean temperature.
As a result, the data contradicts the theory of man-made global warming.
IF if if if . The question is , would it be so bad for our Earth to be warmer than today when we know that in the past Earth nearly always has been warmer than today. I can´t imagine cooler would be better.
Robert
“After all why would you trust the same people and organisation on anything after they were caught out massively lying over AGW? ”
KnR
January 16, 2011 at 3:26 am
Because they are in power. Look at the economic crisis .The people that didn´t see it coming now tell us what to do to get out of it. You trust them? But don´t protest because then YOU get arrested not the real criminals.
I think there should be some kind of negative in there. Something like “… have been used to justify halting human growth …”
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, though.
First I think your distinction between theory and hypothesis (whilst in common use) is a bit like that between climate and weather — there is no real difference other than one or others tends to be used to cover phenomena in one or other area in a continuous range. Likewise theory and hypothesis really mean the same thing, but theory is used in a broader way than hypothesis.
Still, this is an interesting article, because I’m right this moment struggling with the same lack of rigour in the area of “experimental” archaeology. The problems I have are:
– many use “experiment” interchangeably with “try out” as in “experiment with a recipe”. The idea of controls, testability etc. are not even considered.
– many archaeological “experiments” are neither intended to be scientific nor would they provide the same useful information if they were conducted that way. A good example is the way an archaeologist learnt to form glass vases and by learning the process they could determine that some features suggested as being an artistic choice by the ancients, were actually a natural limit to what could be achieved practically.
– if archaeologists did use the “beyond all reasonable doubt” test of science, then most of history would consist of statements of this or that artefact having been discovered and no concept of how they were actually used less what society looked like.
– finally, how can you apply the “scientific method” to history? History isn’t repeatable, and therefore is not testable – and often there is a very limited number of artefacts which cannot simply be destroyed for “science”.
So, I have some sympathy with the climate “scientists” because in many ways they suffer from the same problems of archaeologists, (although archaeologists are honest and don’t call themselves “scientists”)
– How do you conduct an “experiment” on the atmosphere to test whether CO2 leads to warming.
-How do you have a control?
-How do you make use of historic data from the past in “experiments” which cannot be repeated and where there is huge doubt about the validity of the measurements.
The two share a very common theme, both archaeology and climate science struggle to be more rigorous in their approach and desperately wish to be “scientific” whilst simultaneously dealing with data/experiments which cannot be conducted in a scientific way due to the historic nature of data and the limited scope for meaningful testing of their hypothesis.
There other common theme is that neither climate scientists nor “experimental” archaeologists seem to have a clue about even the basics of the scientific method.
Sorry — should have added that both archaeologists and climate scientists are being pushed to provide information “beyond the facts”. They both have a public pushing them to go further than the scientific method allows. It’s quite understandable why, but in both cases scientific rigour is sacrificed to allow some kind of answer (aka speculation) … except of course climate “scientists” claim their speculation is science!
Katherine says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:35 am
I concur with Katherine’s question and comment.
Politicians (and scientists?) should be careful what they classify as pollutants, especially if they intend to take action. Already the path to global warming mitigation is strewn with unintended consequences. Forcing inappropriate applications of natural gas, ethanol, CO2 sequestration, windmills, solar panels are producing negative consequences which overshadow any measureable positive result.
JER0ME says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:51 am
“‘.. used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources ‘
I think there should be some kind of negative in there. Something like “… have been used to justify halting human growth …””
Yes, it does read as if there’s a word missing here, especially since the whole scam is designed to reduce growth and development, vilifying it rather than justifying it.
This is so extreme that it may finally be seen as such by other scientists, they may finally see that the Emperor has no clothes…time will tell.
A negative correlation between temperature and C02 concentration would not definitely rule out AGW. It could mean that the onset of natural cooling mechanisms masked the AGW effect. The corollary is that in periods of natural warming any greenhouse effect would amplify the effect.
The stumbling block with determing the temperature effect attibutable to AGW is we do not know what the temperatures would have been had we not produced CO2 or hadn’t decimated the world’s forests. Model’s are not proof as they can be tweeked to represent the known historical conditions.
We already have a negative correlation, about 15 years so far of no statistically significant rise in global temperatures while CO2 concentrations continue to climb. If the next three decades resemble the predictions of Joe Bastardi & Piers Corbyn, temperatures will decline (Bastardi says to 1970s levels), while CO2 continues its relentless climb. We shall then have quite a window of negative correlation!
Will it be enough?
Katherine, JERoME, and Bob Barker offer a correction.
With that correction, I agree with this useful critique.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
I there a typo somwhere?
Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.
Specifically, what resources are dwindling?
============
We Must Preserve The Earth’s Dwindling Resources For My Five Children
By Brenda Melford
June 28, 2006
As we move into the 21st century, it is our responsibility to think of the future of the earth—not for ourselves, but for those who will inherit what my husband and I leave behind when we’re gone.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-must-preserve-the-earths-dwindling-resources-fo,11239/
============
🙂
The growing abundance of natural resources (Paul Ehrlich loses $1000 on a famous bet.)
While technically true, I think calling AGW a ‘theory’ gives it way too much credibility. And in fact, the previous theories surrounding the existence of Roman and Medieval Warming periods that IPCC ‘scientists’ attempted to debunk with shoddy tree ring data. In fact the recent divergence from the reality of modern temperature records proves the tree ring analysis was shoddy and ripe with uncertainty, therefore the IPCC hypothesis that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods were lesser than today’s warm period were weak and proven wrong.
Moreover, the IPCC and others did hypothesize that CO2 increases would lead to a myriad of results. One of which was a .3°C increase in global warming per decade – a hypothesis which has never come to pass. The others were sea level rises, increased hurricanes, droughts and the loss of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
The fact is as you stated it – the Earth has been warming for many millennium, and recently for centuries since the Little Ice Age. What has the IPCC proven?
Nothing except they don’t have the data and mathematical analysis to make any claims whatsoever. What we have learned since Climategate is the uncertainty in their past, current and future temperature records and analysis results dwarfs the claimed decadal and century rises. We know there is no way to determine a global average temperature index within a fraction of a degree even today, with the world surrounded by temperature sensors of various types and quality. The idea that the record of global temperature in 1850 is .15°C less accurate than today is mind boggling naive. I would suggest that kind of claim would require a person to return their PhD due to credibility abuse.
If the current definitions of theory, hypothesis and simply wild eyed concept allow what the IPCC passes off as being tested and credible, then science needs to take back science and begin raising the bar back up again. The entire domain of global warming ‘science’ as applied by the IPCC and Al Gore is an affront to real scientific investigation and methods. Hiding a divergence in the data that proves a key proxy is incapable of accurately reflecting even local temps, let alone global ones seems to be a clear case of fraud in my book – and NASA’s.
If that hidden data was engineering data predicting the strength of Shuttle tile or foam to hits by ice chunks, and it was later found out that someone covered up the portion of the data that showed in certain flight regimes there could be catastrophic damage, they would be fired and up on criminal charges.
Since the data hidden by Mann, CRU, Jones, Briffa, et al was about the dangers of CO2 to humanity, it seems the potential impact on the world’s entire population verses a crew of 7 people would make the fraud even worse. But no – no one is looking at the cover up which created the Hockey Stick, which was supposedly proof there has NEVER been warming like this ever before.
We now know all those claims to be false, since Mann, CRU and the IPCC have all had to walk them back in the face of real analysis and the discovery of the cover up of diverging tree ring data. Yet here we have the desperate AGW Klingons still peddling false and misleading claims. When will society hold them to the same standard as a TV commercial? When will society investigate these charlatans – after another 30 years of disproved hypotheses?
The US Congress has an opportunity to correct this mess through fair and balanced and educational hearings. A lot of them. To bring the populace up to speed on the complexity of climate and the falsifying of data will take a long time.
But it will be time well spent.