[Note: Charlie Martin of the PJ Tattler graciously agrees to have this reprinted here. While he’s taken a bit of artistic license with some claims, such as the “big oil coupon” claim, the gist of it sums up well, but could use some tweaking on details, which I’m sure WUWT readers will enjoy providing. For example, McIntyre and McKittricks’ criticism of the hockey stick math didn’t include full spectrum random numbers, but was red noise. – Anthony]
(I ended up writing this as a lengthy answer to someone on Google+ — might as well let the world see it.)
Here’s what I’ve said so far:
“There are few skeptics (I can’t think of any, and I’ve been reporting on this for two solid years and an interested bystander for several years before that) who don’t believe there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age, or that humans contribute to it, or that additional CO2 or other greenhouse gases aren’t probably part of that contribution.”
Unless one is arguing that humans are the only cause of global warming — in which case I’d have to point to that big glowing thing in the sky during the daytime — what I said explicitly includes a human contribution and even a greenhouse gas contribution.
Now, the IPCC AR4 model is rather stronger than that: it insists that anthropogenic, greenhouse-gas forced warming is the dominant — so dominant that it leads the unthoughtful to turn it into “only” — cause of global warming. For conciseness, call that the AGW model. Reasons I don’t find that hypotheses convincing include:
(1) from the start, it has depended on very sensitive statistical techniques to tease a signal out of an overall warming that has been going on for 500 years. Refer back to the famous “hockey stick” charts and then look for one with actual error bars: even in the papers making the strongest arguments for the AGW hypothesis have very wide error ranges — so wide that the AGW component barely exceeds the limits of the technique.
(2) the specific methods used for some of the dominant studies turn out to be mathematically flawed. in particular, the methods of Mann _et al_ turn out to present a clear hockey stick no matter what the input data is, including pure random numbers.
A method that detects a signal when there is no signal is necessarily suspect. At best.
Other examples of questionable parts of these results include:
- the methods used to select data points in the GCHN data sets — examined carefully, it turns out that the selected points used to compute GAST and regional temps are, to a *very* high probability, the points from the raw data set that lead to the most warming. Carefully read, the descriptions of the analysis even say that’s a selection criterion: they’re selecting data points that fit the models well — but then testing the models by how well they fit the data.
- actual site locations turn out to very commonly have poor site placement and site changes that would add significant warming. This warming has not been appropriately compensated for. [Note: GHCN3 does handle site changes better, Charlie is probably not aware of it since it is relatively new- Anthony]
- odd ad hoc methods to fit together paleoclimate data and actual temperature measurement, including the famous “hide the decline” patching, and contrariwise the exclusion of recent tree ring data that suggests tree rings may not be as strongly correlated with temperature as we think. The explanations for those exclusions end up looking very ad hoc in themselves.
(3) There is actually extensive literature showing anthropogenic components that are not driven by greenhouse gases. These results have been excluded from the IPCC, often in very questionable ways (cf Roger Pielke Sr’s removal from the IPCC editorial board.)
(4) The predictions of further warming are necessarily based on models. Now, it happens I did my PhD work on Federally funded modeling, from which I developed the NBSR Law (named after the group for which I worked): All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding.
Anyone with a unbiased eye who looks into it will find any number of people who have found that a model that predicts more warming gets funded; a model that predicts relatively less warming gets less funding. Pre-tenure researchers in particular are warned away from results that don’t fit orthodoxy.
(5) The models themselves turn out not to be very predictive. Grossly, you could look at Jim Hansen’s prediction from the 80′s that Manhattan Island would be awash by the 2000′s. More technically, there were a number of models that predicted pretty significant warming, and in fact an increased warming rate, increased 2nd derivative, in the span 1990-2010. In fact, the warming was much smaller than predicted, and the second derivative appears even to have turned negative.
These models are often revised so that after the fact that predict what really happened. This isn’t very satisfactory.
In the mean time, actual observation, as eg with Dick Lindzen’s recent paper, simply isn’t fitting the models very well. As Granddaddy used to say “if the bird book and the bird disagree, believe the bird.”
(6) It’s unclear how the AGW hypothesis can be falsified in its current form. Certainly, anecdotally, there are people who predict that unusual warm spells are a sign of global warming, as are unusual cold spells. Should we have a period of unusually small variation, there are people who have suggested that as an effect of global warming. And in any case, simply observing warming doesn’t allow one to infer the truth of AGW as a hypothesis.
(7) The arguments against the skeptics turn out to be unscientific, and often unprofessional, in the extreme.
These range from the common — “the consensus is” — to the ad hominem, and even to outright attempts to suppress free inquiry.
“The consensus is” neglects the fact that science isn’t decided by consensus, not permanently at least. (At one time, the consensus was that fire involved a special elemental substance called phlogiston; at another, it was that atoms were indivisible and unchangeable; not so long ago, it was that light was a wave in a literally ethereal substance called the “luminiferous aether.” If consensus precluded further testing, we would still believe those today.)
The ad hominems include the way that anyone who ever received so much at a 10 cents off gas coupon from a service station is accused of being in the pay of Big Oil. Sometimes, the ad hominems are frank lies, but they get out into the AGW enthusiast community and are treated as truth.
And, well, anyone who read the ClimateGate files knows about actual attempts to suppress certain authors and papers. Perhaps it’s not fair to call it “conspiracy”, but the fact is that there is clear and unequivocal evidence of collusion and bullying on authors, reporters, and journal editorial boards.
If the AGW arguments are that strong, they don’t need collusion and bullying.
So, this is a very long piece considering I’m not getting paid to write it; let me summarize.
First of all, what *I* said wasn’t what you supposed I’d said. It would be worth considering what else you _think_ you’ve read recently for other cases.
Second, to the extent that I have a position, as I said, I think warming is unequivocal, a human contribution very probable, and the magnitude of that contribution in the face of feedbacks and homeostasis currently unknown and on the very edge of what we can actually measure.
And third, I don’t think the AGW enthusiasts consider the costs and benefits of AGW amelioration versus the other possibilities. If preventing a sea level rise of one meter means dooming future generations in the Third World to sickness, hunger, and darkness, it’s not worth it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reading the replies here
I must just give a word of caution.
I have been investigating this thing for nearly 2 years now and I have finally come to the conclusion that CO2 may be the cause of some warming,
but in a much different way than I had expected to find!
I am hoping you will try and understand my findings.
Make a print out of all my all tables here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Look carefully at the tables quoted above and take some time to study them. You can easily figure it all out for yourself:
I took the measurements from terrestrial weather stations, randomly chosen, that are standing on land but more biased near to the sea or oceans (since 70% of earth is covered with water) to get a good sample,
Note that
1) first the so-called ” global warming” is not global at all.
In the SH (Southern Hemisphere) there is almost no warming. Clearly, you can see a big difference in the results between NH and SH?
But now, how can that be? We know from real science and experiments that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is distributed everywhere exactly the same. So, if the GHG CO2 were to be blamed, should not the warming be exactly the same everywhere in the world?
So, we conclude it never was the increase in green house gases that caused any extra warming.
2) If you look in Argentina (where there was considerable de-forestation) you find severe cooling. If you look at Norway (where there is much increased forestry) you find warming.
3) the fact that SH has little landmass and that the NH has a lot of landmass is an another indicator that should give a clue.
4) we also know that there have been reports, e.g. most recently from the Helsinki university, that there has been much increased vegetation in the past decades, especially in the NH…..
…..Did you figure it out?
The extra bit of warming (that, which some scientists have identified as being on top of that which is natural) is caused by …… more vegetation!!!
Part of my new “problem” is that this extra vegetation is caused by man wanting forests, trees and gardens, but could also be caused by the increase in carbon dioxide that we put up in the air – plants and trees need both carbon dioxide and warmth to grow – we know the carbon dioxide is acting as a fertilizer and accelerator for growth :
for more proof that earth is greening especially in the northern hemisphere, look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
II am not sure but I think I am the only one who actually has found some strong circumstantial evidence (from measurements) that the extra vegetation is trapping some of the extra natural heat coming to earth, especially in the NH.
Some might argue my sample is still small (15 stations)
I am saying it is big enough (for me), but I agree more stations would be better.
This must become somebody’s job, especially at the universities?
(you can show the horse where to find the water, but you cannot make him drink)
If it is proven that my findings are true,
we have to tell the greenies (& AGW believers) that some of the warming is their own fault.
They wanted more green and trees.
Now, how about that?
Just one thing is enough for me: If CAGW is so robust that only flat earthers would deny it, why must the proponents bully, lie, deny FOI requests for data, insult, threaten, cook the books, push out propaganda tracts, slay strawmen, worry about aliens punishing earth for denying CAGW, coerce editors from publishing contrary papers, ….. In the past there were numerous gatherings of doomsayers with placards saying the end of the world is drawing nigh (next tuesday). They were prepared to let the evidence speak for itself (so far they have had to disband dejectedly after the appointed time had past) and didn’t feel the need to bully the rest of us to believe in their shtick. Why is it so important for these folks to get a band of flat earthers, and those who haven’t learned opposing thumbs techniques to accept their stuff. If the vast majority of scientists believe in this doomsday scenario and nearly all governments are all in, what’s the point of such expenditure of effort and pain to get unanimity. This bespeaks frailty and uncertainty, not robustness.
otter17 says:
September 3, 2011 at 10:48 am
“Models are able to hindcast…”
The ability to hindcast is necessary for an hypothesis to be accepted as true, but it is not sufficient.
Kevin MacDonald says:
September 3, 2011 at 1:55 am
“isotopic analysis confirms that this increase in anthropogenic in origin”
Not according to Salby.
Kevin MacDonald:
At September 3, 2011 at 1:55 am you say;
“The AGW theory has a latitudinal, atmospheric, seasonal and diurnal fingerprint that differentiate it from solar warming.”
Yes, see Fig 9.1 on page 675 of the IPCC AR4 at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
The unique fingerprint of of the AGW hypothesis (n.b. possibly AGW conjecture but certainly not AGW theory) is the big red blob in Figure 9.1 (c) for “well mixed greenhouse gases” and is known as the ‘hot spot’.
Independent measurements from radiosondes mounted on weather balloons (since 1958) and from microwave sounding units mounted on orbital satelites (since 1979) each show the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
No ‘hot spot’ means no AGW. Case closed.
Richard
chasrmartin,
AGW is not a theory.
To become a theory, a hypothesis must be tested, verified and finally accepted as true after repeated failed attempts at falsification. AGW lacks testability, and there is no empirical, falsifiable evidence of its existence. None. Further, all AGW-based models have been falsified. Not one GCM predicted the past decade and a half of flat to declining temperatures. In any other area of the hard sciences, that failure rate would cause the AGW hypothesis to be abandoned – at least to the extent of claiming a large temperature rise as a result of the ≈40% increase in CO2, which has not happened, as was repeatedly predicted.
There are conjectures based on radiative physics [and I happen to think that CO2 provides some minor warming]. But there is no testable evidence validating AGW, therefore AGW cannot be a scientific theory.
Your casual dismisal of the definitions of hypothesis vs theory vs law is wrong [and your reference to Popper – whom I have read – in German, is simply a pompous appeal to authority]. Popper’s emphasis is on falsification and testability. If you accept Popper’s rules, then you cannot successfully argue that AGW is a theory [or even true science for that matter].
Here is another site that explains the difference between a scientific theory and an unproven hypothesis such as AGW. It says essentially the same thing as the first link I posted. AGW is not a theory because it cannot make consistent, reliable or accurate predictions, which a theory does, eg: the Theory of Relativity, which has never been falsified.
Finally, you are incorrect regarding Newton’s laws, eg: his Laws of Motion. They are accepted as laws even though science has progressed and become more accurate. But Newton’s laws still hold true; they have been tested and remain unfalsified, and engineers use them every day.
The correct use of scientific terms is essential to clear thinking. Unfortunately, the alarmists pushing the AGW hypothesis corrupt the language for their own purposes, trying to alter the meaning of the null hypothesis, changing the rigorous scientific method into “post normal science,” and other rhetorical hijacking of scientific terms. That is not science, it is pseudo-science. For the latest post on these language-corrupting charlatans, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/03/redefining-the-scientific-method-because-climate-change-science-is-special
Smokey, you’re using an idiosyncratic definition of “theory” that has a much more constraining definition than anyone else uses. You’re welcome to do so but I don’t feel constrained by that.
Go have a look at some of the common devfinitions and get back to me: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+theory#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=theory&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=F2ZiTsnILoPSiALP0bHACg&ved=0CCIQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=17d332deb5615e0d&biw=1348&bih=994
Similarly you’re mistaken about Newton’s Laws: they’re a good approximation that is certainly useful to engineers, but they’re not completely correct. The missing term of v^2/c^2 simply disappears at low velocities so it’s not observable.
chasrmartin says:
“…you’re using an idiosyncratic definition of “theory” that has a much more constraining definition than anyone else uses.”
‘Than anyone else uses’?? That tells me all I need to know: your mind is made up and closed tight. Go ahead, believe that AGW is a scientific “theory”, when of course it is not.
I’ve provided detailed, independent citations [ie: ‘anyone else’] showing beyond any doubt that to be a scientific theory, AGW must be testable and falsifiable, and it must make accurate, consistent predictions. AGW can do none of those things, therefore it is an evidence-free belief system; a conjecture, possibly a hypothesis. Wake me when AGW is testable and falsifiable, which it must be to be a scientific theory. By your own source – Karl Popper – AGW is not even science. Go argue with the people who explained the definition of a scientific theory, hypothesis and law, if you don’t like their definitions. I would rather accept real scientists’ definitions, than the opinions of lunatics or believers in “post-normal science”.
And of course, your googlism covers the gamut of non-science, which is what you’re purveying. You can have a “theory” that ghosts exist. But it’s only a “theory” in your own mind. In the real world, it’s a conjecture. As is AGW – and the even more risible and repeatedly falsified ‘catastrophic AGW’ [CAGW] wild-eyed conjecture that started the whole climate alarmism scam.
This isn’t the censoring blog realclimate, or Skeptical Pseudo-Science, where they lap up anti-science terms like AGW “theory.” The is the internet’s “Best Science” site, where there is no censorship, so you can call a cat a cow and believe it. As for me, I’m moving on. You get the last word because I’m not arguing with someone who can’t accept the plain fact that AGW is not a scientific theory, and it never was.
Smokey, you’re just being a ninny.One citation of one guy doesn’t make a “beyond any doubt” assertion, and a collection of many examples of a definition of “theory” suffices to show that your definition, with its added constraints, is indiosyncratic. No one is asserting that AGW is scientifically “proven” under Popper’s criteria — I said the opposite, that the AGW hypothesis (by the way, most sources consider “hypothesis” a synonym or near-synonym for “theory”) doesn’t appear to be falsifiable and so isn’t scientifically supportable.
And no one is trying to censor you, least of all me — I don’t even have the keys to the site, I couldn’t if I wanted to.
I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong.
chasrmartin says:
September 3, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“Similarly you’re mistaken about Newton’s Laws: they’re a good approximation that is certainly useful to engineers, but they’re not completely correct.”
No. They are completely correct within an instantaneous rest frame. Special Relativity is concerned with determining the transformation law (Lorentz Transformation) between successive rest frames. Relativistic mechanics follows from there.
No. They are completely correct within an instantaneous rest frame.
Thereby reducing what you’re saying to what I said from the start.
“Thereby reducing what you’re saying to what I said from the start.”
Wha… huh? That’s not even… Oh, forget about it. I’m not sure why this argument merits so much space in this thread anyway. My $0.02: Smokey is right as to the general interpretation of the terminology in a scientific setting. And, that is all I care to say on the matter.
Look back at what I said: that Newtonian mechanics was a good approximation but broke down as v^2/c^2 gets larger. In an instantaneous rest frame, v^2/c^2 = 0.
“v” relative to what? You are being very sloppy. This is why you got it wrong.
Bart says:
“Smokey is right as to the general interpretation of the terminology in a scientific setting.”
As usual, Bart is correct. Right about the ” ‘v’ relative to what?”, too.
You know guys, you’re absolutely right: I’m not using theory consistently with your definition.
Sorry, CM. I recognize we are more or less on the same side. I just always get a burr under my saddle when I see people claim that Einstein overturned Newton. He didn’t. He extended Newton. But, Newton’s laws are still the foundation. That is why they are, indeed, laws.
No worries, Bart. We’re vehemently saying the same thing: Newton is a good approximation that only fails under what we would consider unusual conditions. The difference between the approximations is a term sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which turns out in our usual conditions to be very very close to 1, so it disappears. Smokey’s source said that laws are everywhere true, and then cites classical Newton as an example; we know that classical Newton as stated is only true under special conditions, so it fails the “everywhere true” criterion. The article Smokey cited falls over on several other similar cases: it states as dogma things that are either incorrect or controversial. I don’t think the resulting definitions are very useful for reasons I’d be happy to expound upon at length in another venue, but if he wants to use those definitions I’m fine with it. Under those definitions, he’s probably right that the conventional AGW idea is not a theory.
“We’re vehemently saying the same thing:”
No, we really aren’t. Newton’s laws are “everywhere true”. And, “everywhen true”. If you wish to make physical calculations from the point of view of a preferred observer, you need more. But, that does not make the laws less universal. It does not reduce them from laws to suggestions. They are laws.
Bart, we’re saying that Newton’s statement is incomplete. F=ma isn’t the same as F=γ(v)a. From the standpoint of mathematical logic, you were quite precise in saying that relativistic mechanics represents an extension of Newtonian mechanics; the system of relativistic mechanics extends — or includes — all of Newtonian mechanics, and thereby provides a better correspondence with observations in experiments in which relative velocities differ by a large quantity with the predictions of Newtonian mechanics.
Damn I wish Anthony had preview. F=mγ(v)a.
REPLY: So do I, I’m hosted on wordpress.com and they don’t allow that plugin
Anthony
The CA Assistant script for the FF Greasemonkey add-on provides Preview, plus B, I, [link], quote, superscript, subscript, <,
strikeout, Underline, sourcecode, La Tex code, and [image] icons. The last few aren’t implemented, but the rest are.Actually, it seems that superscript, subscript, and underline are also not implemented. The first 2 show up in Preview, but don’t actually display in the post.
chasrmartin says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Kevin, you’re being silly, and confounding “warming” with anthropogenic warming in the bargain. With no Sun, no amount of anthropogenic CO2 would make a lot of difference.”
This is something of a strawman, I accept that the sun is the source of the energy within the earth’s climate system, but it does not follow that it is responsible for the movement of that energy within the system. My point stands; Simply pointing out the existence Sol does not demonstrate anything in itself.
chasrmartin says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Kevin, are you at all familiar with how this stuff is done? First of all, you’re point about the case not depending on statistics or modeling is simply wrong — the data you’re mentioning are inherently statistical. CO2 concentration varies from place to place, and over time; the increase — which I don’t question — can only be measured by applying statistical techniques to a large collection of actual measurements. On the other end, measurements of radiativity themselves use instruments with significant measurement error; statistical techniques are used to estimate the “real” values and eliminate measurement error. And the IPCC’s estimates of expected future warming are necessarily the product of modeling”.
If the collating of observations and measurements is the problem then the article should be titled “Reasons to be a Science Skeptic”, because all scientific disciplines do this.
chasrmartin says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:32 am
“You’re right: it could be. That doesn’t mean it is.”
I’m not saying it is, merely that either conclusion is worthless without supporting evidence.
chasrmartin says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Yes it is. If it were clear, well, the fact is that several of the items you mention haven’t behaved according to the original predictions would have already served as a falsification.”
Many of the predictions made by AGW theory are coming to fruition, eg; the diurnal warming pattern and faster warming in the arctic.
Kevin MacDonald:
I see you have not replied to my post at September 3, 2011 at 2:42 pm that refuted one of your assertions.
But, at September 5, 2011 at 5:58 am you address several points by chasrmartin and conclude that post by saying;
“Many of the predictions made by AGW theory are coming to fruition, eg; the diurnal warming pattern and faster warming in the arctic.”
AGW is a hypothesis at best. It is certainly NOT a theory.
A conjecture, hypothesis or theory can be disproved by a single item it gets wrong. It is not proved by innumerable things it gets right.
So, please explain:
1.
Lack of faster warming in the Antarctic (the AGW hypothesis predicts fastest warming near the poles, both of them).
2.
The missing ‘hot spot’ that IPCC AR4 says is the ‘fingerprint’ of warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases” (see my post above at September 3, 2011 at 2:42 pm).
3.
The missing “committed warming” that IPCC AR4 predicted from the AGW hypothesis.
4.
Trenberth’s “missing heat”.
Any one of those alone is damning of the AGW hypothesis (and there are other things the hypothesis gets wrong, too). And when called on one of them you have already failed to answer.
Richard