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.
R. Gates
This would seem to be the fingerprint of an enhanced greenhouse effect and so would be a toughie for any hypothesis that denies there is such an effect, and it surely falsifies any hypothesis postulating that the warming is down to the sun since then you would expect to observe stratospheric warming, not cooling.
Foo on foil. Epee forever.
Roger Otip says:
“…the current rate of warming is, when compared with previous changes, very rapid, such that if we experience warming of more than a couple of degrees C before the end of this century…”
Rapid warming [+27°F in a decade] has happened before. [Got more charts if you want them.]
“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.”
“otherwise worthwhile” ?
That statement is as scary as any forecasted catastrophes.
We know, as evidenced in Europe and the U.S., that economic growth reduces populations without having to restrict/control human reproduction through government edict. Additionally, these reduced populations pollute less. Compare the West to the East . Playing Mr. Wizard by flipping levers and pushing buttons in an attempt to direct humanity is a Fool’s errand and leads to idiotic constructs in thought like this:
Smokey
Untrue. The theory predicts that human emissions of greenhouse gases will have a warming effect on the planet. This has been observed. The anthropogenic warming signal is clear above the noise of natural variation.
The theory predicts that we should observe a cooling in the stratosphere. This has been observed.
The theory predicts that we should see a reduction in outgoing radiation at the wavelengths that CO2 and methane absorb energy. This has been observed and measured.
The theory predicts an increase in ocean heat content. This has been observed.
Smokey
You linked to a blog. Do you have any links to peer-reviewed science that back up your assertion that the last decade was not the warmest decade ever recorded, something upon which all of the major global temperature records (satellite and surface) are in agreement?
dp says: “I expect archeologists to map the locations of the findings and endeavor to place them on an historical timeline, and to associate them with other similar finds. Is that a wrong notion?”
Having spent most of the day on the “theory of archaeology” I’ve not come across anyone who doesn’t think that archaeology isn’t primarily about the people and society of the past. Even a group led by Binford in the 1960s who coined a term called “scientific archaeology” or processualism, thought archaeology was “anthropology of nothing”.
Worse still, it is proving very difficult to pin down what they mean by “science” e.g. one website states: “In archaeology and the social sciences more generally, the term “theory” has a greater diversity of meanings than is usual in the natural sciences and the philosophy of science. Usually it means any kind of discourse that is abstract”.
(Theory In Archaeology – Theory as Abstract Discourse, Theory as Explanatory Structure, The Postmodern Challenge http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6562/Theory-In-Archaeology.html)
The interesting thing is I’m beginning to here the same terms and criticisms of the climate science community. E.g. I read here someone criticising the climategate people for being “post modernist”
“Skeptical postmodernists have challenged modern theory and nearly all of the key foundational assumptions that underlie research programs in archaeology. This critique follows from their rejection of modern views of truth, objectivity, a materialist reality, reason, history, and science, among many other concepts that are integral components of modern inquiry.
Now, if you begin to realise that this idea of “most modernism” or “laise-faire science” as it might better be called, came via the social sciences and movements such as “feminist archaeology” and “Marxist archaeology”, and you realise the left-wing “anti-nuclear” philosophy of the climategate scientists, it seems to me I’m beginning to know where this rot in science that allows people like Trenberth to spout the rubbish they do came from.
rbateman
True, all other things being equal (which they never are in practice of course).
False. Where did you get that idea? The theory simply states that human activity (our emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, from agriculature and from changes in land use such as deforestation) will have a warming effect on our planet’s climate.
Smokey, it is of no use presenting Otip and Gates with anything. They do not read what you post. That much is clear. A civil debate is useless. They aren’t smart enough to wrap their head around anything other than Co2 has caused dramatic and extreme weather (NOT) and look at the paleo record (not just the parts that suit them and what didn’t suit them they tried to change, i.e. hockey stick ). The possibility that there might be another explanation is lost on them, investing their limited capacity on a losing horse. Now Trenberth, who is playing a devious game by pretending to be disconnected from the scam and appear neutral yet is right at the heart of it all, is trying to apply “post-normal science” to climate because he cannot defend his position!! Thankfully the general public is refusing to drink the kool-aid, but will it be enough to stop this civilization killing juggernaut?
Roger Otip claims that:
Ocean heat content is rising.
No, it’s not. That assumption has been thoroughly debunked.
And AGW is not a “theory.” It is an unproven hypothesis. AGW “theory” can’t make accurate predictions about ocean heat content. And the link by Roger Otip says:
The ARGO buoys are empirical evidence, as opposed to climate models, which are not evidence They are programmed by people who get more taxpayer funds when they report something that supports the AGW hypothesis. In this case, real world evidence trumps their AGW models.
And despite the arm-waving, AGW models cannot make accurate predictions. The Greenhouse Model Scorecard shows models made one right prediction out of 32 attempts.
It appears that Roger is turning into the Barrie Harrop of WUWT.☺
D. King
Education is an equally important factor, particularly the education of women, as evidenced by the state of Kerala in India:
Roger Otip says:
January 16, 2011 at 11:57 am
This post clearly shows the blinders that Otip has on. He is completely ignoring so much important climate information, it is laughable. Why waste any breath on someone who has gone so far down the wrong road, he cannot hear anyone any more. Using only the modern record to base his weak ass conjecture on. Fail.
Smokey
Have you read Robust warming of the global upper ocean by Lyman et al (2010)?
Smokey
Please try to avoid personal name calling and stick to the issues.
Otto,
My advise: Don’t bother with Smokey too much. In his mind, he can only be right. For example, he said:
“But AGW cannot make accurate predictions.”
Of which I outlined several that AGW Theory made and have proven accurate and any competing theory would have to predict the same occurances and explain the dynamics behind them. AGW Theory does all this, and accurately, and it drives the skeptics nuts…as you can see.
I’m willing to conjecture that R. Gates is in for some pretty rough sledding over the coming year …
What are you talking about Gates? You guys (all of you alarmists) have been predicting runaway greenhouse warming and catastrophic weather (hurricanes as an example hahahahaha) and now you’re still trying to claim that model predictions have been accurate? The northern hemisphere is covered in effing snow!!! Have you stopped taking your meds again? A shotgun at 50 paces is bound to hit something. How many model runs have been done? I have never seen such spinning. It is an insult.
polistra says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:22 am
“Phase and frequency are relevant here, correlation is not.”
Actually, the coherence–which is the cross-spectral analog of correlation–matters very profoundly along with the cross-spectral phase. And this is precisely where the CO2-regulated theory of global temperatures fall apart. At quasi-centennial scales the coherence simply isn’t there, wheras at geological time scales the CO2 signal significantly lags that of temperature when the proxy data are examined closely. The charlatanism of compressing the time scale of both series so that the multi-century lag is concealed and only the coherent variation (due to oceanic outgassing) is evident stands out as the hallmark of pseudoscientific AGW alarmists.
Roger Otip says:
“You linked to a blog.”
No, I linked to a chart derived from empirical evidence. The blog was simply the messenger. Recall the adage: “When you can’t argue the facts, attack the source.”
And I would have though you’d take it as a compliment being compared with Barrie Harrop. There are close similarities.
Next, you ask:
“Have you read Robust warming of the global upper ocean by Lyman et al (2010)?”
Sorry, no. I’m allergic to the word “robust.”☺ Anyway, I see you’re responding to the ARGO deep sea network with something about the “upper ocean.” Apple/Orange.
R Gates,
Still clinging to your conjectures and models? The model scorecard shows how pathetic model predictions are. Because GCMs can’t predict accurately, AGW cannot be a theory. And for lack of any redeeming science, CAGW has been reduced to a conjecture; an opinion.
BTW – who is “Otto?”
The GAT has been warming since the little ice age (in fits and starts since the last ice age really). To show that the oceans have been warming does little to back up the leap that the warming oceans is due to Co2. Take your blinders off Otto.
Anyone going to tackle this one?
What predictions has AGW theory made that are not already explained by the null? Really, R. Gates, I question your sanity. As for your list:
* Declining sea ice (seasonal and decade to decade)
Global sea ice has remained fairly constant, if not increasing. Even IF you could somehow wiggle the numbers in your favor, it would not be a surprise since we have warmed since the end of the little ice age. In fact, it is rather baffling that global ice is not dropping.
* Increasing ocean heat content
Not according to those that are measuring it.
* Increasing atmosphereic temperatures (decade to decade)
Uh, it has been flat for more than a decade, and furthermore, the hypothesis is that this is correlated to CO2. The correlation is really poor so there’s not much of a victory here.
* Decreasing stratospheric temperatures (decade to decade)
Looks pretty flat the last 15 years to me and nobody seems to know understand why this would be an expected consequence of GHG warming anyway. This is seemingly something people like you postulate after the fact in order to get something in the win column anyway. “Hey, look, [something is happening], let’s say it is the result of AGW and then claim we predicted this!”
* Melting permafrost
That’s a prediction from simply being warmer, not of AGW.
* Acclerations in the hydrologcial cycle
What?
* Increasing atmospheric water vapor levels
Again, a function of warmth, not a specific AGW prediction. Duh.
* Increasing ocean acidity
The ocean is basic and will always be basic, therefore it cannot be more acidic, only less basic. This is also a direct consequence of increased CO2, not AGW hypotheses. Duh.
Try coming up with some real predictions based on a real hypothesis, Gates. Do you even understand how that works? For example, AGW will result in X degrees C of warming in the coming decade. Any time we pin you Einsteins down to real predictions based on your actual theories/hypotheses (conjectures,) the results make you look very bad.
Mark
Smokey
Please stick to the issues and try to avoid any personal attacks or name calling, even if you genuinely believe the subject may take it as a compliment.
R Gates, merely writing the word “theory” in all capital letters doesn’t make something a theory. You have provided no proof that any of the items you claim are theories are really legitimate theories.
The IPCC said most of the warming over the last 50 years is very likely due to human activity.
What an oxymoronic double-speak statement. The words “likely” and “most” have no meaning in science That’s like saying at least half of climate change is likely not attributable to human emissions of CO2. Both mean nothing with out numbers that are not pulled out of the air.
Hell, even polsters back up their claims with the words “19 times out of 20” when refering to their doubious stats. What’s the IPCC’s definintion of “most” and “likely”?