Story submitted by Eric Worrall
How do we prove climate alarmists are wrong? Let us count the ways
If the temperature goes up, this is just what the models predicted – watch out because …
…soon it will get a lot worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change
If the temperature goes down, the deep ocean is swallowing the heat – even though the heat can’t be measured, we know it must be there, because that is what the climate models tell us. Global warming prevails! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pacific-ocean-and-climate-change-pause/
If the global temperature crashes, its because global warming induced melting of arctic ice shut down the ocean currents. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
If the snow disappears, this is just as models predicted – snowfall is a thing of the past. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
If there is an unusually heavy snowfall, this is just as models predicted – global warming is increasing the moisture content of the atmosphere, which results in increased snow cover. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/10/2010-snowmageddon-explained-sans-global-warmingclimate-change/
If there is a drought, that is because of global warming. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/causes-of-midwest-drought-2012_n_1690717.html
Except of course, when global warming causes heavy rainfall. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/13/global-warming-the-incompetent-politicians-excuse/
No matter what the observation, no matter how the world changes, we can never falsify alarmist climate theories. Any possible change, any possible observation, can always be explained by anthropogenic global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/22/occams-razor-and-climate-change/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What do you want the results to be”? is certainly a question I’ve asked many, many times. It was my job (working for the government, natch) to ensure that our answer was correct, in that it could not be easily proven incorrect. It is an art, let me tell you. You simply come up with a reason why you can’t use good data (its too old and irrelevant, its too new and unstudied, etc), sell the reason you are using bad data (its all we have, we have budgetary constraints, etc.). Repeat as needed.
I’m afraid that most civil servants will tell you that the British series “Yes, Minister” (and “Yes, Prime Minister”) is more a training film and documentary than it is a scripted comedy…
BTW, this is a rather large list of what the alarmists will use as proof, much of which are of course due to modelling:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Will Nitschke says:
“His post was vague. Don’t attack what you image he meant. Common courtesy, attack the fairest possible interpretation. Do greenhouse gases warm the planet? Yes? Agreed? Does increasing greenhouse gases warm the planet? Yes? Agreed? Will this therefore alter the energy balance, assuming all else is equal? Yes? Agreed? So why are you claiming his statement is wrong?”
I have to assume by ‘his’, you meant Prof Ryan. Based on that assumption I would respond:
Prof Ryan’s statement (that I do disagree with)
“We know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space. This is observational evidence and of that there is no reasonable doubt.”
Attack the ‘fairest possible interpretation’? Really? Who is the arbiter of what the ‘fairest possible interpretation’ is? You? Me? I’m not sure it is ‘fair’ for you to supply your interpretation of what Prof Ryan meant to be the cause of his proposed ‘imbalance’.
Why do I disagree with his statement? I posted my reason above and will repeat it below.
dccowboy says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:24 am
“We know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space.”
Absolutely we do NOT know that. It is NOT a ‘fact’ of observation. True, last ‘calculation’ of the earth’s ‘energy budget’ I’ve seen showed a .6 w/m^2 ‘excess’. The only problem with that ‘observation’ is the error range that went along with it —– +- 17 w/m^2. Yes, the error range was roughly 28 times the ‘measurement’, which, as far as I’m concerned, makes it no measurement at all.
I disagree with the statement that ‘We know” because we do not ‘know’. Doesn’t have a thing to do with the causes of any imbalance, just the certitude.
Will Nitschke:
Your post at August 15, 2014 at 4:48 am says in total
Will Nitschke, when you distort and misrepresent the words of others then proclaim yourself to be an egregious troll.
I did NOT “start arguing silly semantics”.
I objected to you misrepresenting words of me and of others.
My post at August 15, 2014 at 3:06 am said in total
Your response to my request is additional misrepresentation.
Richard
Konrad says:
August 15, 2014 at 1:39 am
“No matter what the observation, no matter how the world changes, we can never falsify alarmist climate theories”
False
Well, actually it is true – at least in the minds of the Alarmist/Warmists, which I believe is the point of the OP.
How does one falsify the theory of evolution?
============
the theory of evolution predicts certain things that can be tested. For example, if we add a low level toxin to the environment, the theory predicts that over time the population under study will adapt to the toxin such that it is increasingly less harmful to the population. And that is in fact what is observed, which is evidence (not proof) that the theory might be correct.
however, if evolution predicted that the toxin might become more harmful or less harmful over time, the theory might well be correct, but it has no scientific value because a coin toss tells us the same thing.
“Will Nitschke says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:54 am
@Bill Marsh
“No one is ‘attacking’ Prof Ryan, what people are doing is taking issue with his definitive statement that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting and that we KNOW this to be true based on observational evidence.”
So you don’t believe CO2 warms the atmosphere? Because you’re either on the side of science, or you’re a crank.”
It is true that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that alone does cause an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules of the atmosphere, i. e. warming, but that in no way requires that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting. There are many other factors on both sides of the energy imbalance equation that contribute to the energy balance of the earth. All of them are in flux, and since the atmospheric temperatures are not warming, then it is quite obvious that these other factors are at least as influential and having an opposite affect as increasing CO2.
One can certainly be on the side of science, believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and believe that, at the moment, the earth is not absorbing more energy than it is emitting. None of these statements are mutually exclusive. Suggesting that they are is illogical. Suggesting that someone is a ‘crank’ is an ad hominem attack.
You can do better.
The idea that the ‘extra’ heat must be in the oceans, can only be maintained by imagining wild energy transfer processes that have never been observed in nature, while ignoring the many natural processes of climate regulation that are continually being observed. This willful ignorance is not only endemic at the IPCC, it is actually implied by their Charter. The human influences on climate can not be quantified without a thorough understanding of the natural influences on climate, but the IPCC is tasked to do just that: quantify the human influence while pretending the natural influence is inconsequential (despite all evidence to the contrary).
Will Nitschke says:
August 15, 2014 at 5:57 am
@Eric Worrall
“Also, I want you another question since it’s premised in your topic heading and relevant to the issue. How does one falsify the theory of evolution?”
Well the null hypothesis is it was the work of a creator, much like a mosaic tile or other art. The difficulty with this is that it might be argued that a more creative creator created life with a built in adapter to survive changes to the environment by diversifying and changing itself…er…. evolution. Also, you are faced with the problem of falsifying the existence of God. Yes it is difficult. It’s difficult also to falsify general relativity – this theory was hated so much at the beginning that trying to falsify it was the main occupation of physicists for some time.
Re climate science, it has falsified itself. It has predicted nothing that has come to pass and all it has predicted has been wrong. The point of the article is that climate science keeps moving over to stomp on falsifying events in contradictory fashion. The remarkable thing to me about the science is that there are so relatively few questioners and hoards of believers. We have now had a non-warming period about as long as the so-called anthropogenic warming period was, even though the gatekeepers keep fiddling an upward slope to the temperature record.
That’s why I call it Climastrology. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard “it’s not entirely inconsistent with…….”. Therefore I ask what would be inconsistent with AGW? There is usually great silence.
That’s exactly what I would expect God to have done. The mere existence of the moth says nothing about it’s origin. Theory that is not subject to experimentation can never be proven scientifically. Would the absence of the moth have disproven evolution? Falsifiability, the point of this article, is the key. Without experimentation there will always be a way to explain away any observation or to make any observation fit the “theory”.
Jim Clarke:
In your post at August 15, 2014 at 6:27 am you say to Will Nitschke
Really?! He “can do better”? I am willing to accept your word that he can, but so far I have yet to see any evidence of it. On the contrary, the evidence I have is his posts directed at me which indicate he is an egregious, abusive and illogical troll so – having been refuted – he should be ignored.
Richard
AGW is in large part based on the notion that recovery from the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. That temperature increases BEFORE 1850 were due to recovery from the LIA, while temperature increases AFTER 1850 must be due either to humans or natural variability. AGW rests on the assumption that long term, temperatures should not change, except for human causes.
What is remarkable about 1850 is that it marks the beginning of the modern temperature records. What are the chances that recovery from the LIA actually did end at the exact same time we started recording temperatures? Realistically, the odds are zero. It would be a fantastic coincidence.
Yet, Climate Science believes that recovery from the LIA ended at the exact same time (+/- 10 years) we started recording temperatures, and has built a large body of science on this single assumption. In spite of the fantastically long odds against the assumption being correct..
Professor Bob Ryan Says:
”We know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space. This is observational evidence and of that there is no reasonable doubt.”
In “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations” Stephens et al. puts the surface imbalance at 0.6 … (wait for it) … +/- 17 W/m^2. LOL.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
”That said, the Stephens et al. analysis highlights the uncertainties in our ability to observe and simulate the global mean surface energy balance.” — Judith Curry
But more to the point Stephens et al. also puts the TOA imbalance at 0.4 +/- 0.2 W/m^2, which agrees with what Prof. Ryan said, although “reasonable doubt” is somewhat subjective and I would characterized it as “little” as opposed to “no”. (But I digress) Such a tiny energy imbalance over a snippet of time is hardly reason to automatically assume from the Law of Conservation of Energy that we have a global problem. For one thing the internal energy of a system includes chemical energy such as the energy converted from sunlight (radiant energy) into sugar (chemical energy), one could just as easily assume that due to the increase in CO2 that plant life had gained biomass thus increased chemical energy stored in the system inducing the tiny radiant energy imbalance temporarily or a myriad of other possibilities that have been ignored in favor of the one that aligns with certain political agendas.
Professor Bob Ryan says: August 15, 2014 at 12:50 am
‘If the temperature goes down, the deep ocean is swallowing the heat – even though the heat can’t be measured, we know it must be there, because that is what the climate models tell us. Global warming prevails! ‘. Not quite true I’m afraid. We know the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space.
How do we know this?? We know the TSI at TOA. We have a vague idea of LW back to space. We really have no idea what amount of SW reaches the surface to be converted to LW. That is calculated by “models” as well.
We don’t know that there is any “Missing Heat”, as for all we know, that missing heat never got converted to missing heat, but was reflected back to space as SW by clouds.
The problem is assumptions.
“Any possible change, any possible observation, can always be explained by anthropogenic global warming.” This is so comforting, like a warm blanket one can pull over one’s head on a stormy Monday!
Here is a interesting observation from 2011 and covered on wuwt recently.
Professor, dig into this link, very interesting observations.
Richard Wright
By using the theory to make non-trivial predictions, and validating the predictions with observations. … there must exist a moth which had evolved a 12 inch tongue.
That’s exactly what I would expect God to have done. The mere existence of the moth says nothing about it’s origin. Theory that is not subject to experimentation can never be proven scientifically. Would the absence of the moth have disproven evolution? Falsifiability, the point of this article, is the key. Without experimentation there will always be a way to explain away any observation or to make any observation fit the “theory”.
The problem with the god theory is it doesn’t lead anywhere. If God personally assigns tasks to every particle in the universe at every moment of existence, then order is an illusion, and our experience of the universe is the whim of a power we can never hope to comprehend.
Of course, if God created the universe as a more hands off affair, then God becomes almost irrelevant to the physical explanation of Darwin’s moth – God may have laid the foundation of physical laws from which evolution arose, but he didn’t make the moth – the laws by which the moth evolved are equally valid, whether God laid down the laws, or whether the fundamental laws which constrain our universe arose from something more spontaneous.
As an atheist I tend towards the theory that there is no need for a god particle to explain any physical phenomena yet encountered, regardless of the underlying reality, the universe behaves in many ways as a predictable artefact, and even the unpredictable appears to be constrained in predictable ways – but there are certainly questions to which I don’t have the answers.
I once heard a beautiful logical argument that we all live in a computer simulation, like the film The Matrix. If you imagine that computers will grow ever more powerful into the future, then eventually World of Warcraft will develop into a simulation which is indistinguishable from reality, populated with fantasy characters which are indistinguishable from living beings, which are fully conscious, and which believe in the reality and integrity of their environment. Since there are likely to be an enormous number of computer simulations built on the computers of the future, but there is only one real world, probability suggests that we are more likely to inhabit one of the untold myriad of fabulous simulations, than the one in a billion possibility that we inhabit the real world.
But like many beautiful theories, the logical argument I just described lacks the one ingredient which it should require to become an accepted part of our experience – some solid evidence to support it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/why-a-compelling-theory-is-not-enough/
It is very difficult to find a feedback mechanism in nature that is positive. Virtually every one is negative which stops runaway anything. Yet every one of the climate models has a positive feedback variable. Start there if you want to make models that actually model the planet.
You take a look?
The process is called ‘rationalization’, and it leans heavily on rhetorical skills – the ability to persuade with words regardless of their veracity or lack thereof – and also on the absence of critical thinking skills in the audience. Fact-checking and empirical verification are strictly forbidden.
Stephens’ diagram shows an input (at the top of the atmosphere) of 340.2±0.1 and outputs of 100.0±2 for reflected solar and 239.7±3.3 for longwave radiation. That does not support a radiation imbalance of 0.6±0.4. There are a couple of ways to deal with the errors but the easiest is just to add them. Thus we get a radiation imbalance of 0.6±5.4. The error is about ten times as great as the claimed imbalance.
Cold in Wisconsin, a partial answer that also deals with some misinterpretations in other posts.
Since Earth is bounded by the vacuum of space, planetary energy can only be gained or lost via radiation (not convection or conduction). Incoming is mostly shortwave SLR (visible and ultraviolet frequencies) from the sun. Outgoing is whatever portion of SLR is reflected by net albedo, plus whatever OLR (infrared) is generated at and then radiates away from the top of the atmospheric ‘fog’ caused mainly by water vapor and CO2. OLR transparency increases with altutude because Water vapor quantity declines with temperature, and because CO2 quantity declines with pressure.
Both inbound and outbound radiation are measured by satellite radiometers above ‘TOA’ top of atmosphere. The present imbalance is indeed about 0.6 W/m^2 +/- 0.4 more incoming than outgoing. That is less imbalance than climate models predict.
That net energy gain can go three general places. 1. Warming the atmosphere. Since about 2000 it has not. 2. Warming the oceans, or equivalently melting icecaps. ARGO, ice mass, and sea level rise suggest there has been some, but not as much as models predict. Hence Trenberth’s deep ocean missing heat speculation without a mechanism. 3. Into stored energy in the biosphere ( e.g. Increased wood mass, increased seafloor kerogen from marine algae,…). The unexpected greening of the Sahel thanks to beneficial rising CO2 impact on C3 plants indicates that some of this is also certainly happening. I have seen no studies attempting a quantitative estimate.
The most recent planetary energy budget (Stephens et. al. An Update on Earth’s energy balance…, Nat, Geos.5: 691-696 (2012)) attempts to reconcile estimated planetary processes to the TOA measurement, and comes up with a surface imbalance of 0.6 +/- 17. The biggest individual uncertainties are atmospheric absorption (SLR and OLR) and latent heat, both related to water vapor, clouds, and precipitation. Hence the feedback uncertainties, and therefor the sensitivity uncertainty.
If they had actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to keep writing consensus papers.
Regarding energy imbalance…. just because energy out does not equal energy in doesnt mean the earth must be warming. If more work is being done by the energy coming in, then the measurement can be true without warming. Since the earth is 11% greener now than before, and possibly a thousand other “unkonwn” or not accounted for effects, this would be consistent more energy in, less energy out… and zero temperature change.
A model is falsified when the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of the events fail to match the observed relative frequencies. In AR4 and prior assessment reports, there were no events or relative frequencies making it impossible to falsify (or to validate) the models. In AR5, this has changed. Chapter 11 of the report of Working Group I describes events and outcomes (called “bins”) and compares the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of one of the outcomes.
All is not well however. Global warming climatology faces a severe shortage of statistically independent observed events but this is not reflected in the results that are presented in Chapter 11.