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.
Note, too, that the IPCC actually attached numbers to the terms “likely” et al. without any exposition of where those numbers came from. In other words, they guessed.
Mark
It would seem to me that, apart from the last item, all of these are symptoms of a warming world. Since it’s generally accepted that the world has been warming (since the Little Ice Age, or, going back to the original post, since the last ice age), then the hypothesis that what we’re seeing is part of natural cycles would explain all of the above apart from the last item.
Where things get critical is in the actual numbers. To be precise, we need to know what is the amount of current warming from natural cycles, and what is the amount of warming due to human activity. That’s where AGW seems to be weakest.
I wasn’t aware of this last point. Can you please provide some links to where this has been shown? I haven’t been able to find anything along these lines.
The objective of science is to create useful tools. For example, we don’t like being at the mercy of Nature, so it is useful to be able to predict what Nature will do.
A theory is a model of reality. We use a theory to be able to predict the behavior of a system under certain conditions. Since theories are models, they are always “wrong”. Eventually, they are replaced by a more accurate theory as the need arises. Graviation is a good example. Ptolemy-> Newton-> Einstein.
Many years ago chemist Glenn Seaborg (UC Berkeley) told us, “some theories are too good to be true and others are too true to be good”. The point is, you use what you need at the appropriate level of accuracy. I don’t think you need to use relativistic quantum mechanics to say whether it will rain tomorrow or not.
You don’t have to prove your theory is “right”. It is always wrong in fact. But is it useful? Can it predict system behavior within a range of parameter values? GCMs have no demonstrated predictive value. By that measure, they are no good at all – scientifically. However, they do have a lot of political value.
Throughout human history the earth’s climate has been pretty stable.
That’s false. Most of the major oil fields can be shown to be from periods of “global warming”. Plus throughout the past 500my glacial periods like we are in now were rare.
When temperatures were a lot hotter than they are now, that’s when dinosaurs ruled the earth and the only mammals were small rodents.
The last great global warmer period, 55mya, is when the major mammalian clades emerged all around the same period.
Mike Haseler writes:
“- 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.”
And what is wrong with that? I find that to be very interesting science. Of course, you must face the temptation to explain what they were doing with that beautiful phallic shaped object and you are off into sociology, psychology, you name it. Also, there are great rewards. If you write popular books and do not claim that they are science, or strict science, no one should complain. From what you have said, you pulled back from the edge long ago, you defeated the temptation of hubris, and you are doing ever so well. Kudos to you.
By contrast, the Warmista have gone over to the side of hubris.
Roger Otip,
Can’t you find something more recent? That paper is eleven years out of date.
No one is arguing against radiative physics. But the magnitude of the effect is much smaller than you want to accept. Prof Richard Lindzen says sensitivity is <1°C. Anything under 1°C is a non-problem, in fact it is a net benefit to the biosphere, as is more CO2.
And from your 2001 link:
“But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood”
Pointless to tackle a conjecture that isn’t well understood. [And as pointed out before, AGW not a ‘theory’, as has been explained to you with several citations. Words matter – unless you’re Humpty Dumpty.]
Mark T says:
January 16, 2011 at 1:31 pm
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
______
You and others are welcome to provide an alternative theory that describes the existence of all the phenomenon in question. You are simply wrong on every one of your responses, and the data are quite clear on that. If you go back to my original post, and look at the important dates, one date and one name in particular should stand out to you, and that is 1965 and Lorentz. The combination of chaos theory and climate models. I suggest you go and read this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm
And then perhaps we can discuss why, even though AGW Theory might be correct about the general nature of what it happening, (i.e. warming stratosphere, melting sea ice, etc.) it is impossible to predict specifics as there are tipping points that are quite unpredictable with systems undergoing change at the edge of chaos. Any truly intelligent discussion of the possible accuracy of AGW without a dicussion of chaos theory is pretty meaningless.
I all respect to those who have developed the AGW Theory over the years, I’m amazed how many things it has gotten correct so far considering they are dealing with a system undergoing change on the edge of chaos.
Mike Haseler gave me an idea. If James Hansen were to write a popular book about the future of Earth, it would most likely be so over the top, so uber-Boschian (Hieronymus), that the surrealists would hail it as another curtain removed, another leap forward for surrealism.
Roger Otip says:
January 16, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Anyone going to tackle this one?
Why don’t you pay the $32.00 for us.
The closest thing to a hypothesis that Warmista have produced is: “Increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans will cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures and, in turn, that will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere and, in turn, those clouds will cause increased temperatures in the atmosphere.” The latter part, about what clouds cause, is the “forcing” beyond what is caused by CO2 alone. This so-called hypothesis must be restated in a rigorous form that embodies some measurement regime. That has not been done. Then the hypothesis can be tested against observations in nature. Of course, as time passes, if the hypothesis is not always and everywhere falsified then it will have a record of confirmations and can be taken seriously. At this time, no such record exists for this hypothesis. Actually, the first step should be to create a new temperature measurement regime that is acceptable to all parties to the debate. After some years of refinement, this hypothesis might lead the way to the climate science that the Warmista believe they have in hand today.
As regards chaos theory, it is a total Red Herring in this debate. Everything is a chaotic system. Introduce the wrong tiny little germ cell into a human body and the result can be chaotic destruction of that body and the particular path of destruction can be totally unpredictable. The fire in my fireplace is a chaotic system. Introduce too much fuel and the house burns down; introduce the wrong fuel and the neighborhood burns down. Everything is a chaotic system.
Thank you, Michael. Thanks VERY much.
I’ve printed (and will copy with all appropriate credit to you being the source, here on Watts Up, too) and will distribute your article to folks who ‘need a refresher’ on the
Scientific Method and how Truth is dealt with ‘after’ it is – purportedly – observed.
I find it’s often beneficial to ‘blow the smoke away’ (forgive the pun, as I especially enjoy cigar smoke) every once in a while – to see an issue for ‘what it is’ and then – of course – thus being best able to more easily decipher exactly what went wrong and where.
You did that for me with crisp & ‘simply succinct’ words – so, this ‘s’cientist and fellow thinker, applauds you for your effort.
*While I do NOT subscribe to any benefit in ‘cloning’… I do ask that all of you ‘clear thinkers’ make certain ‘somehow’ to – in some manner – ‘reproduce’ yourselves in the lives of others… so that clear and glorious thought may continue to go on with the least amount of ‘stumbling’ as is possible… so that it may best be able to remain unencumbered/unfettered in the years to come…
For, I am concerned that ‘clear rational thought’ is being demeaned by political and psychological ‘s’cience within the Field of the Sciences ~ and Truth is what is at stake.
C.L. Thorpe
Hoser says:
January 16, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I understand your drift and you are on the right path. However, a theory (a collection of hypotheses deserving an honorific) and a model are far from the same. A model is a set of equations that specifies one or more sets of ordered pairs (n-tuples) and each set of ordered pairs is what is called an interpretation of the model. In simplest terms, a model specifies the relationships between the inputs and outputs of a computer run.
By contrast, a theory is a set of statements in English, or some natural language, that specifies an infinity of observation conditionals, statements such as “If it is a raven then it is black.” The statements of the theory, hypotheses, actually describe some regularity in nature and are true or else false. Models are neither true nor false.
The clearest account of hypotheses and scientific method for a beginner is in Thomas Kuhn’s Copernican Revolution, which was written before he decided that no statements are true or false. You want to read the parts about the transition from Copernicus to Kepler and about the contributions of Galileo and Newton. If that is a bit much, Google Kepler’s Laws and there are many good accounts of them on the internet.
Uh, I did that. Actually, the burden of proof is on you to connect these “phenomenon” (should be phenomena, but you knew that, correct?) to AGW, not natural occurrences. I also noted that most of your “predictions” have absolutely nothing to do with AGW but are simply facts of either warming or an increase of CO2. You can read, right?
Let’s be real, are you really trying to say that AGW is why there is more CO2 in the ocean not just “rising CO2 in the atmosphere?” Are you really trying to say that the only way ice can melt is because of AGW, not just “it got warmer?” Are you really THAT clueless?
Mark
Going back to the original post I think it is making it all a bit complicated.
A hypothesis is tentative, a theory is more deeply grounded, but I can hypotheses that a theory is correct.
The IPCC hypothesis (and I think we do agree this is a hypothesis) is that “man made GHGs caused the majority of the recent warming of the globe”. If this were incorporated into a theory one would change the language a bit to reflect its less tentative nature, but I think hypotheses build to theories (which is after all why we bother doing this).
Now if you look at what I have characteristic as the IPCC hypothesis I think it is totally well behaved as a testable/falsifiable hypothesis provided we have a measure of “causality”. As I’ve commented elsewhere on this blog this is where the issue lies, not whether it is a hypothesis or theory.
(I note in passing that the “if … then” construction used by Micheal Lewis in the original post doesn’t form part of the hypothesis, it applies at the meta (scientific method) level. “[There exists] a positive correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise.” is the hypothesis. The antecedent isn’t required. If we falsify this we increase the support for the alternate hypothesis.)
Anyway in practice it probably matters little what exact terms we use, because we end up in the same place. A need to unpick what “causality” means in an empirically testable sense. This leads to a series of sub-hypotheses that each need to be demonstrated (Wikipedia on causality took me back to the good old days of learning what Hume had to say etc).
For these reasons I’d welcome with open arms the suggestion that Dr T is talking about AGW being a hypothesis and put real effort into helping identify the series of empirically testable sub-hypotheses that lead to being able to test it.
Only good can come from it IMHO.
How am I wrong on any one of my responses? Seriously.
The data are not clear on anything related to cause, btw, nor can they be. Data are just numbers, i.e., rate of ice melting, rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, etc. Data have nothing to do with causality so I’m not sure what you are attempting to imply that the data are clear on. They do not tell you why ice is melting or why CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and/or oceans.
I’m pretty certain you do not understand what it is you just stated, nor do you understand what I wrote.
Mark
Of course you do, just like cultists respect what their leaders have done for their cult. Those Heaven’s Gate folks really respected their leader, in fact.
So, in other words, it does not take anything to amaze you?
Seriously, I don’t think you have a grasp of what the actual predictions of AGW theory are, or, for that matter, what a prediction based on hypothesis consists of. Each of your “predictions,” except one, is a consequence of processes related to the whole AGW issue, but not tied to it, i.e., they are not predictions of AGW, they are predictions (nay, consequences) of basic physics (or common sense.)
Mark
James Sexton says:
January 16, 2011 at 8:19 am
James, thank you for your response to my comment. Just to make myself clear, I am not trying to vilify humans. Or to, in any way, imply that I accept the ‘hockey stick’ temperature graphs. It just seems to me that the heat we generate is a NET addition to atmospheric temperature and would be a more likely anthropogenic contribution to any putative ‘global warming’ than CO2 emissions.
Being chaotic with the introduction of a perturbance though normally existing within the bounds of a stable equilibrium state, e.g., the body is not falling apart, is completely different than the chaotic climate system argument. In the latter, chaos rules its pseudo-equlibrium state, which is far different than your example of the body and a germ. In the latter, it is difficult to predict what will happen tomorrow, and harder still to predict what will happen farther into the future. It is easy to predict, from a position of statistics, how long a person will live given just a few starting conditions. Similarly, the odds of picking up that harmful little germ are not difficult to derive using frequentist statistics.
Mark
Mark T writes:
“It is easy to predict, from a position of statistics, how long a person will live given just a few starting conditions. Similarly, the odds of picking up that harmful little germ are not difficult to derive using frequentist statistics.”
You are assuming that the germ has been encountered before.
Finally, I’m beginning to understand how someone like Trenberth could possibly call himself a scientist and come out with the nonsense he does. It seems that there has been a movement called “post-modernism” which objects to the concept that science derives truth by using the scientific method or to quote:
“The science wars were a series of intellectual battles in the 1990s, between scientific realists and postmodernist critics, about the nature of scientific theory. The postmodernists questioned scientific objectivity, and undertook a wide-ranging critique of the scientific method and of scientific knowledge,…The scientific realists countered that objective scientific knowledge is real, and accused postmodernist critics of having little understanding of the science they were criticising.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
As post-modernism was particularly endemic in the left-of-centre and politically active groups at a key time in the formation of the global warming scare, it seems pretty clear to be the present “climate war” is not so much a struggle about the interpretation of climate data, but much more fundamental: a struggle about the nature of science and the application of the scientific method.
Because they hold a very loose interpretation of science based on these post-modernist philosophies, they simply don’t understand us when we insist that the scientific method is key to science, and that is why no matter how ridiculous they look in our eyes, such criticism that they are not following the scientific method is shrugged off them like water off a ducks back, because they simply don’t believe the scientific method is important!
A True Inquiry Into Climate & Weather (2/2): The Plot Thickens
by Kim Greenhouse on November 14, 2009
Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and climatologist Dr. David Legates (University of Delaware) brief us on key scientific data that cannot be overlooked or dismissed.
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2009/climate-part2/
maybe some of the people responding should listen.
Mark T says:
R. Gates said: “You are simply wrong on every one of your responses, and the data are quite clear on that.”
How am I wrong on any one of my responses? Seriously.
_____
* Declining sea ice (seasonal and decade to decade)
Global sea ice has remained fairly constant, if not increasing. WRONG. Global Sea ice has displayed a slow decline as the Arctic component has been falling more rapidly (year-to-year) than the Antarctic has been rising. Currently, they are both below normal, and hence the global sea ice is far below normal. See: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
* Increasing ocean heat content. Not according to those that are measuring it.WRONG. As measured since the mid-70’s, OHC has increased greatly. See http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
* 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. WRONG. I said decade to decade. 2000-2009 was the warmest on record. No one ever said CO2 should correlate every single year with temperatures and it wouldn’t as there is too many other short term forcings going on.
* 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!” WRONG. Strato temps have fallen in general during this time period and the physics as to why is clearly understood as more GHG reflect more LW back to the surface and prevent it from warming the stratosphere.
* Melting permafrost
That’s a prediction from simply being warmer, not of AGW. WRONG and a big DUH to you. If x causes y and y causes z, then x causes z indirectly, and so z can be predicted from the existence of x.
* Acclerations in the hydrologcial cycle
What?
Yeah, I thought so. Might want to research this a bit (a BIG bit), beginning with this introduction:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/10/global-warming-river-flows-oceans-climate-disruption.html
* Increasing atmospheric water vapor levels
Again, a function of warmth, not a specific AGW prediction. WRONG. See comment on permafrost above and also refer to the article on the acceleration of the hydrological cycle.
* 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. You have a point here, sort of. Though increased levels of acidity may affect plankton, which do seem to affect the climate, so it could be an x causes y causes z event. See: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Hays_2005_TrendEcolEvol.pdf
R. Gates says:
“You are simply wrong on every one of your responses, and the data are quite clear on that.”
R. Gates wrote that in response to Mark T asking him: What predictions has AGW theory made that are not already explained by the null? Gates responded with a list of putative “predictions.”
So let’s see if, as Gates claims, Mark was “simply wrong” in each and every one of his responses. Folks here can make up their own mind on Gates’ ‘predictions’, and whether Mark T is “wrong” on every response.
Predictions & responses:
Gates: “Declining sea ice (seasonal and decade to decade)”
Mark’s response: 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. Right? Or wrong?
Gates: “Increasing ocean heat content”
Mark: Not according to those that are measuring it. Right? Or wrong?
Gates: “Increasing atmosphereic temperatures (decade to decade)”
Mark: 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. Right? Or wrong?
Gates’ assertion: “Decreasing stratospheric temperatures (decade to decade)”
Mark’s response: Looks pretty flat the last 15 years to me, and nobody seems to 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!” Right? Or wrong?
Gates’ assertion: “Melting permafrost”
Mark’s response: That’s a prediction from simply being warmer, not of AGW. Right? Or wrong?
Gates’ assertion: “Acclerations (sic) in the hydrologcial cycle”
Mark’s response: “What?” [According to R., that is “wrong.”☺]
Gates’ assertion: “Increasing atmospheric water vapor levels”
Mark’s response: Again, a function of warmth, not a specific AGW prediction. Duh. Right? Or wrong?
Gates’ response: “Increasing ocean acidity”
Mark’s reply: 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. Right? Or wrong?
Mr Gates likes to announce that he is “25% skeptic.” That is simply doublethink; George Orwell’s term for holding two contradictory ideas at the same time, AKA: cognitive dissonance. The way Gates deals with his cognitive dissonance is to tell anyone disagreeing with him that they are “wrong.” That’s how True Believers handle their CD.
I also read that theory and data must conform with each other always. If they contradict each other, data must prevail, theory must give way and revert back to being a mere hypothesis to be subbjected to another round of tests.
Theo Goodwin says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm
No, not at all, but I think you are missing the point. What the germ is, or does, is immaterial to the point.
Mark