Charles Koch: Climate models need to be falsifiable

certaintychannel_IPCC_reality

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Charles Koch has given a rare interview to the [Washington Post]   New York Times, covering a range of issues, including Climate Change.

So what does Koch think about Climate Change?

Q: Are you worried about climate change?

A: Well, I mean I believe it’s been warming some. There’s a big debate on that, because it depends on whether you use satellite measurements, balloon, or you use ground ones that have been adjusted. But there has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that. But they say it’s going to be catastrophic. There is no evidence to that. They have these models that show it, but the models don’t work … To be scientific, it has to be testable and refutable. And so I mean, it has elements of science in it, and then of conjecture, ideology and politics. So do we want to create a catastrophe today in the economy because of some speculation based on models that don’t work? Those are my questions. But believe me, I spent my whole life studying science and the philosophy of science, and our whole company is committed to science. We have all sorts of scientific developments. But I want it to be real science, not politicized science.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/04/charles-koch-on-the-2016-race-climate-change-and-whether-he-has-too-much-power/

Is Koch right about climate models not being falsifiable?

Leaving aside hilariously indefensible ridiculae, such as the predicted the end of snow, predictions of an imminent ice free arctic, the missing global warming fingerprint, and the record busting growth of Antarctic ice, the aspect of alarmist climate science which most offends my sense of scientific propriety, is the shifting statements about the pause.

In 2008, NOAA suggested that Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate..

In 2011, Climategate star Ben Santer extended the deadline to 17 years, stating that the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.”. That 17 year pause came and went.

The Royal Society in a recent meeting with British skeptics shifted the goalpost again, with a suggestion that a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models.

Of course, the alternative is to try to make the pause go away, with highly questionable adjustments.

A few alarmists, such as German climate researcher Hans Von Storch, have broken ranks with their peers, and admitted there are serious problems reconciling climate models and observations. But Von Storch’s frank admission of the issues is more the exception than the norm.

In my opinion, this shameful display of unscientific goal shifting, and the repeated unfounded assertions of certainty, in the face of serious scientific discrepancies, simply isn’t good enough. In my view the shoddy science practiced by climate alarmists more than justifies Charles Koch’s suggestion, that alarmist climate models are not falsifiable science.

Advertisements

264 thoughts on “Charles Koch: Climate models need to be falsifiable

  1. “Charles Kock” is a spelling error in the articles opening sentence.
    [Thanks, fixed. ~mod.]

  2. I believe it is incontrovertible that the whole AGW debate revolves around the increase in temperature caused by a doubling in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide – commonly referred to as climate sensitivity, and that over the past three decades many billions of dollars have been expended via the production of computer games climate models researching this extremely important value. A low value indicates that we have little or nothing to fear from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a high value indicates that we may have a serious problem.
    I doubt anyone on either side of the debate can disagree that this is a very important – in fact THE most important – issue.
    So let us see how much progress has been made over the last few of decades pinning down this extremely important number, upon which the future of our western economies effectively depends
    The IPCC is commonly regarded as the one of the most reputable authorites on such matters, so let us see how estimates of the climate sensitivity have changed over the five IPCC Assessment Reports from 1990 to the present day, a period of some two and a half decades.
    Here are the ranges of value given by the five IPCC Assessment Reports that have been published to date.

    IPCC First assessment report 1.9 to 5.2°C, but states “…hence the models results do not justify altering the previously accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5°C
    IPCC Second Assessment Report 2 to 4.5 C”
    IPCC Third Assessment Report 1.5 to 4.5 °C
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2 to 4.5 °C
    IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 1.5°C to 4.5°C

    So, despite the expenditure of many billions of dollars on research, estimates of the low and high limits of this essential parameter have not changed in 25 years.
    More, in fact as the original 1.5- 4.5°C estimate came from the Charney report in 1979.
    http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

    • “THE most important issue” today is the non-recognition of the Sun’s very real causation of global warming during the modern maximum era that ended in 2003/4, of how lower solar activity since plateaued overall temperature increases during the “pause”, of how current “high” temps are a response to the SC24 maximum, and of THE imminent cooling coming from even lower solar activity going forward for at least the next 15-20 years.
      Climate supersensitivity to solar activity is THE issue, not the bogus CO2 “sensitivity” attribution!!

      • More one looks in the sun – earth events connections more fascinating they are. I may be wrong, but the climate sensitivity to the solar activity is only one aspect to the relationship, and for that matter it could be just indirect one. Complete understanding of the effects on the climate change may not be adequate while understanding of the rest is neglected. It may take decades but I believe that the science will eventually get there.

      • Vukcevic: Solar radiation and particles effects are direct and cumulative. They appear indirect most of the time due to their influence being both time-dependent and layered.
        Felix: There is no chance CO2 “sensitivity” will ever overpower variable solar activity, or change the Earth’s sensitivity to variable solar activity to any degree of significance.
        Tell us how and why SST anomalies fell below zero from 1963.5 to 1979, during a period of increasing CO2 concentrations. Explain how and why during each solar minimum and shortly thereafter, the SSTs drop, while during the solar cycle maximums SSTs go up.
        Only warmist dolts believe that CO2 is capable of providing heat all by itself without an external source of energy (photons). Radioactive substances can do that, but the CO2 we are talking about isn’t radioactive.
        Try this, store some compressed CO2 in a bottle, to a high concentration, put that bottle in a calorimeter, and see if your CO2 bottle heats up and stays warm perpetually into the future. It won’t. It can’t. Neither can CO2 in the atmosphere.
        There cannot be any temperature increase without an increase in absorbed energy (photons). The only place to find the evidence of that increased energy is in the solar record.
        http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
        Somebody’s bottom line financial interests as you suggested, are not relevant to the subject, unless we are talking about all those careers and investments supported by the faulty unproven AGW thesis.

      • Bob Weber.
        Your chart shows SSTs increasing independently of changing sunspot numbers.

      • The evidence seems to be leading us to this conclusion. The “warmest” however will spew forth their bilge wearing jackets in August on the Thames….. The “Gore Effect’ will most likely become quite pronounced within the next 15-20 years if the evidence stands the test of time.

    • Right. So, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100. But that won’t help Koch’s bottom line, will it? So, just ignore the science. Maybe Charlie will share his fortune with you! Maybe he will let you stay in his climate controlled mansion. You know how to polish silverware, right? 😉

      • That sensitivity rate certainly has not been tested or verified and definitely not proven.
        Nor have any scenarios been devised that solidly test proposed sensitivities.
        Now, how many years of provable ‘pause’ does it take to wake up the alarum fanatics that anthropomorphic CO2 is well down amongst the secondary, tertiary or minimal forcing effects not forgetting being definitively temporary atmospheric impacts?
        Maybe if you grovel nicely, one of the super rich alarmists will hire you to lick their tires clean for being so devoted; just don’t be surprised if Manniacal, Gleeck or Lewserandumbsky have dibs on those choice manservant roles.

      • I find it fascinating how you assume that the only reason Koch disagrees is for money.
        It couldn’t have anything to do with the lack of warming for over 18 years?
        It couldn’t have anything to do with the ridiculous claims that have been made by various warmistas?
        It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the only thing that suggests that CO2 is a problem are the computer models, the same ones that predicted that today’s temperatures should be much warmer than they are, and that have failed to accurately predict historical temperatures when fed historical data.
        Oh no, it must be because Koch cares more about money than people.

      • But that won’t help Koch’s bottom line, will it?
        How about we talk about all the taxpayer funds (tens of billions yearly? More?) worldwide that are going towards the “bottom lines” of all those making money off climate alarmism? [I would mention all the taxes the Koch companies payout but that would just result in some sneering about “whatever it is, it’s not enough”, “but what about externalities”, “mumble…subsidies…mumble”.]

      • Thank you Felix.
        A spectacular demonstration of how to completely and utterly miss the point.
        Tell me, is it a talent you were born with, or have perfected it with long and arduous practice?

      • That the climate sensitivity has this numerical value or that is one of those claims of global warming climatology that is non-falsifiable hence unscientific.

      • Conspiracy theories which suggest big oil majors would somehow be against carbon pricing are nonsense, when you look at how many big oil majors are involved in trying to push carbon pricing.
        A price on carbon would allow big oil companies to collect vast amounts of government money for pumping CO2 into depleted and otherwise worthless oil wells. The CO2 sequestration might actually be worth more than the oil, in some cases. They would basically go from paying minimal tax, to receiving a direct subsidy from governments.
        Big oil majors would also control both the supply and demand for carbon credits – their giant cash reserves would allow them to game the market and squeeze it in ways even the banks would have trouble matching.

      • In many places, the big oil companies are already pumping CO2 into the ground, in order to force more oil out of the fields.

      • … 6C is a real possibility …

        I have noticed that no (none, nada, zip) virgins in our neighborhood have been devoured by dragons since we got our (fairly vicious) cat. It is a real possibility that the lack of dragons is due to the cat.

      • The history of planet earth shows that there is zero possibility of 6 C. Same goes for 5 C, 4 C and the supposedly canonical 3 C. Zip. Nada. Even 2 C is a statistically signifcantly remote possibility.

      • “I have noticed that no (none, nada, zip) virgins in our neighborhood have been devoured by dragons since we got our (fairly vicious) cat. It is a real possibility that the lack of dragons is due to the cat.”
        You mean Felix the Cat?

      • Felix August 8, 2015 at 9:38 am says:
        ” … the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100.”
        Complete nonsense. An increase in CO2 will have no influence on doubling of warming,and the true sensitivity is zero. In case you haven’t noticed, it has been zero for the last 18 years, ever since the current hiatus started in 1997. It is not a secret that during the hiatus carbon dioxide keeps increasing but temperature stays the same. The reason you don’t know this is your inability to make use of scientific information.At this rate, no amount of increase of carbon dioxide will cause any warming – definition of zero sensitivity. A few other things also change. Greenhouse warming, for instance becomes impossible. AGW which is dependent on it also dies. Good riddance, for it was cooked up just to justify the existence of the IPCC. Proof of that is due to the greenhouse theory comes from yhe Hungarian scientist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi. According to MGT, his greenhouse theory, water vapor and carbon dioxide form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR as expected. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. This prevents the Arrhenius warming, alleged cause of greenhouse warming, from being expressed. Exactly as happens right now thanks to the hiatus. As to these people writing anti-hiatus papers, there is one more hiatus for them to comquer. This is the one that happened in the eighties and nineties. It completely stopped warming from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. The reason you don’t see it on official temperature curves is that it has been covered up by a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” The co-conspirators responsible for this scientific crime are HadCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC. If you keep thinking about it you can probably find other related changes happening. All of which means that the fight over the existence or not of the hiatus going on right now is a fight over the life or death of the anthropogenic global warming. There are several dozen articles out trying to prove that there is no hiatus, motivated no doubt by the danger to their illusions I have pointed out. Among the authors are some looking for the lost heat on the ocean bottom. That is not the same lost heat as Trenberth’s lost heat that was caused by Trenberth not knowing how the Argo floats work.

        • Tomer:
          In climatological mythology the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) has a point value that, however, is uncertain. This value has a posterior probability density function (PDF) whose shape is determined by the applicable prior probability density function, observational data and Bayes’ theorem.
          The process of determining this shape is called “Bayesian parameter estimation.” The catch is that prior PDFs are of infinite number. Each yields a different posterior PDF. In this way Bayesian parameter estimation violates the law of non-contradiction. This law is one of the classical laws of thought. The range of values for TECS to which you make reference is a product of the posterior PDF which, however, it not unique.

      • Felix August 8, 2015 at 9:38 am
        Right. So, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100.

        Well…
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
        22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2, equivalent to CO2 forcing = 3.46 ln (C/C0)
        You can paint whatever picture you want but the measured forcing would imply about a 1.05 W/m2 forcing increase since 1900. There is no comparable study to refute this. The measurements were made in Alaska and Oklahoma so this is a solid result that doesn’t have a lot of latitude dependence.
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth
        The first time CO2 increased more than 2.00 PPM/Y was 1977 with 2.10 PPM.
        Last year was 2.13 PPM//Y, this year looks to be about the same.
        Fossil fuel emissions in 1977 were about 5.03 GT/Y. Fossil fuel emissions last year were around 9.86 GT/Y.
        You need to explain why the doubling in CO2 emissions didn’t cause a doubling in atmospheric CO2. In fact the highest CO2 increase on record was in 1998, when emissions were only 6.64 GT/Y. Despite a 50% emissions increase and 17 years time that record hasn’t been broken.
        It is foolish and improbable to claim future emissions will go into the atmosphere when the majority of current emissions are going elsewhere – and the amount absorbed is steadily increasing.
        Given the 76 year supply of fossil fuel at current consumption rates it is almost impossible to create any scenario that produces more than a 1°C. The likely 480 PPM in 2100 will result in 0.63 W/m2 (0.17°C), a little less than the 1.05 W/m2 (0.284°C) since 1900 .
        I’m not sure where estimates like 6°C come from. 6°C is about as likely as another hit by a Mars sized impactor (Nibiru), or winning the lottery. 6°C isn’t wild exaggeration, it is out-and-out fantasy.

      • Right. So, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100.

        That is 100% pure nonsense. Never is 600 Million with an M has CO2 caused that kind of warming, and it has been as high at 7000 ppm, or nearly 20x what it is today. Doubling CO2 results in about a 1W/M^2 near the surface, and that impact is overwhelmed by H2O. One simply needs to look at the oceans. 1W/M^2 simply “ain’t” enough to warm them. Clearly the sun is warming the oceans, which in turn warm the atmosphere.
        http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg

      • Felix writes “and the warming will not stop in 2100.”
        This is another major assumption that was made early on and nobody really gave it a second thought. The equilibrium climate sensitivity doesn’t have to be greater than the transient climate sensitivity.
        Put simply, the so called heat in the pipeline is not a guaranteed result.
        There are plenty of real world examples where a change results in a quick overshoot followed by a return towards the original start and that makes ECS potentially less the TCS. If that’s the case for CO2 then the so called 2C danger limit becomes overstated too.
        CAGW theory has so many holes its not funny.

      • Same old politically correct nonsense. Some people must hold the party line right up to the end.
        Meanwhile because of the pause, “scientists” in the Ministry of Truth are rewriting climate history by fudging, deleting, manipulating, homogenizing historical records as their masters demand.

      • Felix, Can you even imagine how many people, scientists especially, would be financially ruined….if AGW was ever proven not to be valid? Think about it next time you acuse critical thinkers of AGW as just financially motivated. Maybe someday you will become a critical thinker yourself, where you don’t just take what you hear from one side as Gospel delivered by the Righteous.

    • Well there is a problem with the ” climate sensitivity ” issue of CO2 doubling.
      The CO2 effect is an EM radiation effect. The internal energy of a CO2 molecule is increased by an LWIR photon in a time that makes a millisecond look like an eternity.
      It is in the overall scheme of things, an instantaneous event. It doesn’t take 30 years for a CO2 abundance increase to register in the internal energy of the CO2 molecules.
      Next, (according to the experts) comes thermalization of that energy, which is simply distributing it to the ordinary components of the atmosphere as ” heat “.
      That too is essentially an instantaneous phenomenon.
      The atmosphere warms and cools by very large measurable amounts every single day, and the thermal inertia of the atmosphere is negligible, compared to the process of long term energy storage as heat in the deep oceans, resulting from the daily insolation of solar spectrum radiant energy that propagates deep into the ocean. Now you are talking about something with a potentially observable thermal time constant.
      So, for the life of me, I can’t see why people search for a 30 year climate effect from a physical process, that is far too sudden to even qualify as a weather event.
      Any physical change due to the radiant energy effect of CO2, has to show up instantaneously; not in 30 years.
      Well I’ve never seen any published experimental evidence, of any instantaneous tracking of atmospheric CO2 abundance changes, and observed atmospheric Temperature changes. They simply don’t correlate on any short time scales, which is the only time scales on which they can have any effect.
      And if you can’t even observe it in the atmospheric Temperature, then it certainly can’t affect the more thermally massive global Temperature.
      So I consider the concept of ” climate sensitivity ” to be total nonsense, rather than the most important aspect of climate science.
      g Just my (considered) opinion of course.

      • “So I consider the concept of ” climate sensitivity ” to be total nonsense, rather than the most important aspect of climate science.”
        So just think how nice it must be to be able to spend one’s entire career being paid to look for it – in all probability knowing all along that it isn’t actually there!

    • In the art of salesmanship, is a technique called ‘the assumptive close’
      Instead of convincing the mark that he needs the product, you start a negotiation about its price on the assumption the sale will take place.
      The important thing then becomes not the sale, but the closing price.
      If you cant see where this is going, I feel sorry for you.

      • Very good, Leo. Well put. Internally, the hardball salesman justifies everything: “He wouldn’t be here if he didn’t want to buy a car.” or “I wouldn’t be here doing this research if climate change wasn’t happening”.

    • Actually, I think it is more important to understand feedbacks than it is CO2 sensitivity. The former is many orders of magnitude more difficult to understand than the latter.

      • That is a distinction without a difference. The sensitivity is net, after the feedbacks. The null hypothesis for the sensitivity is about 1C to 1.2C. If the net feedbacks are negative the sensitivity is less, if the net feedbacks are positive then the sensitivity is greater. But keep in mind that the sensitivity will be different for forcings with different couplings to the climate system, the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is unlikely to the same as for variation in solar activity or aerosols, given their different vertical and horizontal distributions and radiation spectra.

        • The notion that Earth’s climate has a “sensitivity” to the CO2 concentration possessing a point value is not falsifiable as it is the ratio of two quantities, one of which is not observable. Thus, this is among the notions that would have to be abandoned if global warming climatology were to transition from pseudoscience to science.

  3. Charles Kock has given a rare interview to the New York Times
    ………………………………………..
    Great post and link to an interesting interview, thanks. First line needs editing. Koch. Washingpost.
    [Done. .mod]

    • Non Nomen,
      Agreed!
      Hans von Storch is one of the few non-alarmists within Climate Science who frequently clashes with the Schelnhuber’s and other alarmists in Germany of the PIK (Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung – Potsadam Institute for Climate Impact Research) which advised Angela Merkel into the “Energiwende” disaster. Schelnhuber was also the recent advisor of the Pope…
      Coincidence or not, the climate model used by the group of Hans von Storch is one with the lower (2°C for 2xCO2) sensitivity for CO2. Even that model is over reality, but that is no problem for him to admit that their model needs a fundamental revision as you linked to.
      Here an interview of Hans von Storch in Der Spiegel, where he shows what he thinks about global warming, PIK, and a lot of other items…:
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

      • For all with a reasonable command of the german spoken language, Swiss Radio had Hans von Storch interviewed here:

      • Very interesting interview! My respect for Hans von Storch only increased and his counterpoint of ETH Zürich was quite realistic too.
        Seems that I need to buy HvS new book “Die Klimafalle” (The Climate Trap)…

    • Please note the wording at the bottom of that NOAA graph:

      Three-dimensional representation of the lattitudinal distribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the marine boundary layer.

  4. Either increased CO2 causes no detectable warming or fossil fuels just prevented another LIA. Those are the choices.

  5. That spaghetti graph tells it all. Thanks Roy Spencer.
    Now another graphic that needs widespread circulation was shown as a global satellite representation of CO2 indicating the highest concentrations of CO2 are over central Africa and central South America where there would be little if any industrialization. Sorry I don’t have a link but maybe others will provide it.
    I just can’t see how the CAGW/CO2 scam has gotten this far but it will collapse on itself sooner or later. The sooner the better.

      • I had not seen this data previously and it raises just as many questions as the first 6 weeks of data.
        – Why did they not show all 12 weeks in the NBC article.
        – Why does the southern extent go to 60° but the northern extent gets cut off at 55° over land and 45° over the oceans.
        – Why the high CO2 only over what is likely to be snow covered land
        – Why the high CO2 over the tropics.
        The longer they hide the recent data, the more it looks like it does not support “the cause”.

      • Unless I’m wrong, these OCO images are inaccurate. Notice the color coding and scale value in and around Hawaii.

      • I am beginning to suspect smudged grid values are getting used in the CO2 emission calculations.
        That mysterious point source in South America is still there, but now:
        Northern hemisphere high latitudes are emitting large amounts of CO2.
        – Yet, there is no similar emissions for Southern hemisphere near polar latitudes.
        – Several of the areas represented are desert areas, other areas coincide with snowfall regions for that time of year.
        The scale runs from deep blue through cherry red for roughly 20ppm of CO2, leaving differences of only a few ppm being the difference from moderate to maximum.
        There is a cut-out to the North West of North America that appears to be primarily dark blue, 387 +/- a few ppm:
        – Is this area cut out to skew the apparent results?
        – Located near where the warm blob of water lingered, is the ocean absorbing CO2 counter to expectation?
        – Similarly, the English Channel, (and perhaps the Thames) appears to me emitting CO2; while Sweden and Denmark are packing CO2 away.
        – The jungle, forests and rain forests in either hemisphere appear completely neutral to CO2 absorption/emission; completely unlike the first image released.
        The areas where El-Nino was/is building during the period under observation do not show any effects on CO2 from the warming ocean.
        For some odd reason, South Korea is being depicted as absolutely the highest civilized CO2 emissions.
        Definitely looks like a model run gone bad and once again shown to the world before someone realized what is actually depicted.
        Much of the world, especially the industrialized world is under 400ppm CO2. The highest levels of CO2 are in definitively low industrialization, low population areas of the world.
        And what effects on atmospheric CO2 are we pretending is caused by mankind?
        Thank you Bill Illis and AJB.

      • I’m glad my last comment began with “unless I’m wrong”. I checked the monthly data from Mauna Loa Observatory. CO2 MLO 10/2014 – 395.67, 11/2014 – 397.50, 12/2014 – 399.25.
        I then realized the OCO images have different scales and the scale ranges are very small. Scale range Oct. 1 – Nov. 11 is 387 – 402.5 ppm; 15.5 ppm range. Nov. 1 – Dec. 27 is 387 – 407.25 ppm; 20.25 ppm range.
        The problem graphically is color selection. Choose 25 contrasting colors, round the ppm values, and map the observed values. The images should be high contrast maps not low contrast photographic images.
        Also, colors below and above observed values need to be added to reflect what was not found.

      • If I remember well, the OCO-2 satellite uses reflected sunlight to measure CO2 and chlorophyll bands, I suppose that this is the reason for no signal from the upper NH latitudes in winter, or the signal may be too weak in the few daylight hours. The oceans reflect sunlight below a certain angle away from the satellite, thus making it impossible for the satellite to measure anything…
        Winter CO2 is highest at the high altitudes until spring (be it partly blown in from the mid-latitudes by the Ferrel atmospheric circulation cells):
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
        Even under snow the release of CO2 from organic decay goes on, but I suppose most comes from the mid-latitudes.

      • AJB,
        Great and amazing data over LA but the technical communications work with the graphics is childish. Programmers always want to show all the data and it never translates in graphics.
        What countries are part of the A-Team satellite system?
        Love the resolution if used properly but hate the graphics.
        Q: any idea what they mean by column CO2?

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen:
        The higher CO2 readings are blown in from the mid-latitudes?
        Forgetting the prevailing Northerly winds, why would low population density areas average higher CO2 levels than high density population areas with greater industrialization?
        Or are you proposing that the higher latitudes collect and concentrate CO2?
        Meanwhile, study the graphic and ask yourself why; just why are CO2 averages shown over land while the same latitude CO2 averages over water blocked out?
        The graphic is fudged. A year of averages for those alarmists means nothing when they’re doctoring the evidence.

      • AJB, thanks for the maps and the link, seems that the photosynthesis fluorescence has less problems than the CO2 measurements… It is a pity that they don’t show the levels over Los Angeles city, the main release seems to be – again – vegetation in their calibration plot…
        ATheoK, the Ferrel cells lift air from the mid-latitudes which descend near the poles. The seasonal variability at Schauinsland (SW Germany, Black Forest, 1200 m altitude) is at least as high as at Barrow. I suppose that has more influence on the CO2 levels at Barrow than the local growth and wane of vegetation, as that is only tundra and measurements are mainly from seaside winds.
        http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/uba/uba-sc.html

      • John,
        Read the article by Dr. David Crisp at this link I posted above. It gives a pretty good description of what column means (basically line of site over the viewing angle) and is very accessible. Hats off to him for admirable public communication. The article contains this link to NASA’s overview of A-Train.

      • “Ferdinand Engelbeen August 9, 2015 at 1:11 am

        TheoK, the Ferrel cells lift air from the mid-latitudes which descend near the poles. The seasonal variability at Schauinsland (SW Germany, Black Forest, 1200 m altitude) is at least as high as at Barrow. I suppose that has more influence on the CO2 levels at Barrow than the local growth and wane of vegetation, as that is only tundra and measurements are mainly from seaside winds…”

        That is sheer sophistry Ferdinand.
        You expect us to accept that Ferrel cells lift air, including CO2 content, and instantly transport that air to Northern latitudes. Without any coriolis effect, nor impacts from general air mass direction or even jet stream.
        That makes the Ferrel cell explanation for why CO2 concentrations are latitudes North of ‘expected’ CO2 sources a fairy tale. A pleasant sounding explanation meant to calm the gullible.
        CO2 is not instantly transported, nor does the graphic display any semblance of CO2 movement except for some west to east transport.
        Your explanation regarding Schauinsland in comparison to Barrow, (I presume Alaska), makes no sense to me regarding CO2 transport. Barrow, Alaska is a sea level location at latitude 71°17′44″N. Schauinsland, DE is at altitude 1200m and latitude 47°54′40″N. There is no similarity.

      • ATheoK
        No need to believe me, I only did show that the seasonal swings at Schauinsland are at least as high as at Barrow (Alaska) and a NOAA (?) has a nice graph where most of the extra-tropical NH shows the same seasonal fluctuation (found it back, see below).
        The oceans near Barrow are covered with ice for most of the year except in the summer months and as the winds are mostly from the ocean side, it is hard to understand that CO2 levels go up in fall/winter without any CO2 source (or even CO2 sinks by cooling oceans as long as they are open) in the main wind direction. The source must be somewhere else.
        If you look at the latest OCO-2 graph from November-December, the forests of Siberia and Canada are releasing a lot of CO2. That is not “instantly” transported to the highest latitudes, but that is only a matter of days to weeks…
        Here the seasonal graph:
        http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/co2_distribution.jpg

      • Please note the wording at the bottom of that NOAA graph:

        Three-dimensional representation of the lattitudinal distribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the marine boundary layer.

      • Also note the wording in this graphic from the same source …
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/figures/co2_icp_brw.png
        Still trying to find a description of the apparatus used for each series. This stuff is very interesting, no doubt OCO-2 will (given time) throw up lots of insights we are currently unaware of. I’m particularly interested in how CO2 expelled from the ocean is actually measured, any links gratefully received.

      • AJB: “This stuff is very interesting, no doubt OCO-2 will (given time) throw up lots of insights we are currently unaware of. “
        Judging by the somewhat contentious nature of the data that has already been released, they won’t want to release any more until it has been thoroughly Mannipulated.
        They wouldn’t want people getting the wrong idea, would they?

      • AJB,
        The momentary CO2 changes over the oceans are far smaller than over land (where one can find 100 ppmv difference in 15 minutes, as C.D. Keeling experienced in the early days). Reason why all “background” CO2 measurements are on islands or coastal or in (cold: Antarctica) deserts.
        Coastal stations have mostly wind from the seaside, but occasionally measurements are from land side. These show high variability and are “flagged” and are not used for daily to yearly averages. In fact it doesn’t matter much if you include or exclude the “outliers”: the difference is less than 0.1 ppmv for yearly averages:
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
        I haven’t made the same plot for Barrow, but the outliers seem to be of the same order as at Mauna Loa, be it more up than down. It is clear that the South Pole has far less local contamination, but more mechanical problems (no wonder at -70°C)…
        See the procedures for Mauna Loa (the same procedures are used for Barrow and other NOAA stations, except that these have no volcanic vents and upwind conditions from the valleys in the neighborhood):
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
        Most stations use NDIR for (almost) continuous measurements, some take GC samples for CO2 and other gases each half hour. Flaks samples too are measured by NDIR, or sometimes GC or mass spectrometers (if the isotopic ratios are needed).
        Ocean surface measurements were nicely compiled by Feely e.a.:
        http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following pages.
        The important point is that the difference in pCO2 between ocean surface and atmosphere is the driving force for the release or uptake of CO2 from/into the oceans. Wind speed enhances the fluxes as diffusion of CO2 in seawater is very low.
        The pCO2 of the oceans is measured in-situ by taking a continuous flow from the motor cooling water intake of the research vessel and thoroughly mixed with air, by spraying it in a small air flow and/or bubbling air through the water. pCO2 in the air then is in equilibrium with the seawater and measured with the normal methods for CO2 in air. Only a (mostly small) correction is needed for the temperature difference at the intake and the mixing equipment. See chapter 3b at:
        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/oceans/omp_pco2/OMPreport.txt
        Unfortunately without a picture of the equipment…

      • From the NBC article:
        The first map from the mission shows relatively high concentrations of carbon dioxide in northern latitudes and along a band of central Africa, during a time frame running from Nov. 21 to Dec. 27. Basilio said the findings were consistent with the expectation that northern concentrations would be higher during winter, when plants are dormant and more fossil fuels are being burned for heating.
        This appears inaccurate, as the first map was in fact labelled as Oct 1 – Nov 11, and bears little or no resemblance to the latest one in a number of very obvious respects.
        Has the data been Mannipulated?

      • eyesonu and Richard M; The first big winter storm of 2014 was nov. 17(?) to the nov. 21. If memory serves it pretty much kept snowing one place or another world wide.
        I wonder if that has something to do with the lack or slowness of the data release.
        just my two cents in,
        michael

      • Could those high concentrations of carbon have anything to do with
        1 burning of trees to create short term farmland ( Amazon)
        2 same for Africa? (although they have problems with grass fires)
        3 same for Indonesia? ( but for farming palm trees)

      • Asybot,
        Ocean temperatures last year were already high (a would-be El Niño), but the main effect seems to be on the tropical forests: higher ocean temperatures give higher land temperatures but also changes in rain patterns. Both give less growth and more decay of vegetation in the tropics (and more – human induced or not – forest fires). That is temporarily and normally levels off in 2-3 years. The mostly subsequent La Niña reverses the patterns and gives an abundant growth which shows up in the minimal growth of CO2 in the next year(s):
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
        The opposite CO2 changes and δ13C changes (especially during the 1998 super El Niño) show that vegetation is the dominant reaction with a small lag after temperature changes. If the oceans were the main effect, the CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other.

      • The explanations for high Co2 levels over the Southern Hemisphere being “spring burn-offs” is highly questionable. Most burning takes place in late summer through to early winter.

    • Much too early to draw any conclusions, one need at least a full year (and preferably several years) of CO2 data to see the small human influence (+10 GtC/year) in the huge (+/- 150 GtC/season) natural ins and outs over the seasons. The natural ins and outs level off after a full year within a year by year variability of +/- 2 GtC/year around the trend…

      • Ferdinand:
        I agree with you that it is “Much too early to draw any conclusions” from the OCO-2 satellite data.
        However, a single year of OCO-2 data would be sufficient to indicate if the emissions of CO2 from human activities are – or are not – consistent with the hypothesis (supported by e.g. the IPCC and you) that those emissions are overloading the natural system so their accumulation is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.
        This need for only a single year of OCO-2 data is good because OCO-2 is scheduled to operate for only two years.
        Richard

      • A lot of the downlink requirements, minus specific frequencies, are here. If some ham with an X-band receiver or S-band receiver could download the data it could a means for keeping up on what the gov’t won’t provide.

      • Terry Oldberg
        You say
        One will be unable to logically draw conclusions from the observational data until the underlying statistical populations are identified.

      • Terry Oldberg
        I apologise that my post to you went before it was finished. This is what I intended.
        You say
        One will be unable to logically draw conclusions from the observational data until the underlying statistical populations are identified.

      • Terry Oldberg
        I apologise that my post to you went before it was finished. And the necty did it, too. I hope this will be what I intended.
        You say

        One will be unable to logically draw conclusions from the observational data until the underlying statistical populations are identified.

        Please list the “underlying statistical populations” in your post.
        Richard
        PS
        You have again forgotten to state what you mean by an “event”.

    • This Joel agrees the catastrophic part of AGW-CO2 theory (that is, an ECS greater than 2 K per doubling CO2) has no support in the data . Even the tampered-twisted-adulterated Karl-ized surface temp data doesn’t support CAGW.
      And as has been pointed repeatedly here at WUWT, model results are not data.

      • Model results are not data.
        Hmm. Humm. Oh dear.
        Much as I hate to say this, there are strong philosophical grounds for asserting that data – which are a priori to science, are in fact post priori to metaphysical assumptions, which are in themselves not provable by definition..
        Metaphysics is in essence the creation of a model by which we create an analogy of experience that we call ‘the real world as seen objectively’
        Or, a model.
        The world is, as Wittgenstein said ‘whatever is the case’.
        Before we can even discuss it rationally it has to be modelled in terms of (for scientific purposes) events happening to material substance in space time (phenomena) connected by an assumed eternally valid series of natural laws which link the phenomena into a causal matrix.
        All of this is a priori to science.
        All of this is a model of how the world works and what it consists of that we operate on with science.
        Our disagreement with AGW is not on the basis that model results are not data., Oh no. Our disagreement is on the basis that AGW is a science that disagrees with the data that the metaphysical model that creates the opportunity for science, produces.
        Our world – the world of the rational mind, at least – is in fact models all the way down. With the certainty at any given level being based on the assumptions of the next layer down
        It is this notion that is causing the extreme and deep crisis within science itself.
        I, personally argue for the acceptance and understanding of this: We have no real touchstone for certainty or Truth, we have only models which work, mire or less well, to determine the outcome of future events. Rational materialism is a model that serves us well, but it is not certain that it is in fact true. In fact it can be demonstrated – and has been – that it cannot be 100% true. The whole argument of Kant is precisely this.
        In the end teh argument is not about models versus reality – we can only work with models. reality may well be there somewhere, but is forever (necessarily) one step removed from the conceptions we may have of it. The argument is about which model s work bets. Occams Razor et al.
        The pointy finally being that AGW is not a science that works within the framework of rational materialism, which it uses to ‘prove its point’.
        It fails on the terms that it sets itself up to be judged by.
        Ergo AGW is not a scientific theory – it is, as Popper puts it – a ‘metaphysical theory’ – a model that one applies to reality a priori of any analysis being applied.
        And that model simply states that ‘human activity affects the climate’ – which is trivially true, but useless, because in a closed system, – the Universe as we conceive it – everything affects everything else.
        From there it extends the metaphysical proposition to ‘CO2 affects climate’, which is also trivially true. So does the consumption of vegetables.
        The question then becomes ‘by how much’ .
        The answer – the true answer, in the context of rational materialism anyway – then becomes ‘not enough to be worth losing any sleep over’.
        And the models that show it to be otherwise, are thereby refuted by the measurements.
        Not because those measurements are not ‘model outputs’ because they are in fact model outputs – from the model called ‘rational materialism’ – but because they actually disagree with those ‘measurements’.
        We have, in essence a a final conclusion:
        The outputs of AGW models are inconsistent with the outputs of rational materialism’s modes… ergo AGW is not a science that is consistent with the rational materialistic model of the world that other sciences rely upon, ergo AGW is no longer a scientific theory, but a metaphysical one, based on other assumptions than those that underpin science.
        It may be true, but it ain’t science, Jim, not as we know it.

      • Leo writes “Metaphysics is in essence the creation of a model by which we create an analogy of experience that we call ‘the real world as seen objectively’ Or, a model.”

        I don’t think that’s it. I don’t think that’s what was meant. Models that manipulate observational data and produce an insight (eg a global temperature anomaly) produce data based in reality but a model that projects the future does not produce data based on reality, instead it produces data based on our interpretation, understanding and finally implementation of how complex climatic processes evolve and interact.
        In the case of a GCM there is general acceptance that we dont understand all the processes including some key ones such as clouds. There is general acceptance that processes have been simplified for computational efficiency and there are observational comparisons that say the model’s output doesn’t agree with reality.
        So I think its fair to say the GCM model results are not related closely enough to climate data to be useful.
        Or put more simply, GCM model results are not climate data.

  6. Is this a polite challenge, of show us the science?
    It is mind boggling to most critics how the bureaucracies abuse the scientific method.
    This is what lead me to open hostility to Climatology.
    It pretends to invoke science while denying the application of the scientific method.
    This kind of obtuse deceit is best described by Hans Christian Anderson in that fine expose The Emperors New Clothes.
    Human nature has not changed and the very best one can say of climate science as such; “Good enough for Government.”
    I could go on to compare bureaucracy and fire, as each is a useful servant, however both are determined to consume all available resources.
    The IPCC, WMO and the relentless propaganda from our national bureaus say it all.

  7. This whole thing is a scientific disgrace. It can readily be explained by understanding that the water at the surface of a pot of water does not behave in the same way as the water in the body of the pot because of surface tension. Because of surface tension the surface of water does not obey the laws of thermodynamics. The sun’s radiation penetrates the surface of water but the heat from a gas gun or hairdryer is rejected. No “heat” can pass from the atmosphere into the ocean. This is just as well because many places on this planet regularly have temperature well in excess of 30degs in summer and cyclones are triggered at 26.5 degs. AGW is a nonesense

  8. Joel supports AGW theory. Here is my reply to him as well as to AGW enthusiast in general showing why AGW theory is plain old wrong on so many different levels.
    Joel says,
    I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence.
    My reply
    Joel here is the evidence. Why don’t you refute each point with data ,not theory to prove I am wrong. You will not do it because there is no supportive data. I would hardly call all these blunders SELECT EVIDENCE.
    AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
    In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
    Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
    SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
    GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
    TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
    EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
    GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
    LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
    LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
    GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
    MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
    STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
    WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
    AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
    OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
    Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
    Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
    Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
    Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
    Past historical data showing no correlation.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
    Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
    http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
    **

  9. The datasets already fall outside the 90% confidence intervals for the vast majority of the models. Logically the models aren’t worth the computer bits that store them (pardon my paraphrase plagiarism). Of course to some people it’s the datasets that are in error. After all those people have so much invested in the models that they can’t see what’s right in front of them.

  10. It’s not even a case of falsifiable predictions. There is NO evidence to support the models at all.
    One of our pollies cited an article from WUWT showing 18 yr 7m of pause from RSS. Ahead of the trolls arriving I asked a specific question: point us to just 1 piece of satellite-sourced evidence for high ECS forcings such as to support the alarmist position of 4c / century.
    Not one was produced.

  11. Is it goal shifting to perpetuate the status quo ante or a reflection of phases and cycles as the science progresses?
    Are there any models which have proven to be accurate over time? If no, then the models falsify themselves?

    • Accuracy and falsifiability are distinct characteristics. Though the climate models exhibit degrees of accuracy they lack falsifiability. This is a widely misunderstood feature of global warming climatology.

      • Terry Oldberg:
        You say

        Accuracy and falsifiability are distinct characteristics. Though the climate models exhibit degrees of accuracy they lack falsifiability. This is a widely misunderstood feature of global warming climatology.

        The models make predictions and comparison with reality shows their predictions be wrong (see graph in the above essay). That failure to correctly predict observables in reality falsifies the climate models.
        Of course, the models’ predictions could lack sufficient accuracy for them to be meaningful (e.g the inherent error of their accuracy could be ±infinity) and in that case they could not be falsified because all possible values would be encompassed in their error range of their predictions. In that case all their predictions would have no meaning so could not be falsified.
        Richard
        PS
        Please provided your long-awaited definition of what you mean by an “event”.

        • richardscourtney:
          As I’ve pointed out to you on countless previous occasions, your argument is an equivocation on the polysemic term “predict” and the vehicle for application of the equivocation fallacy. Unfortunately, the rules of this blog allow one to repeat the same fallacious argument ad infinitum.

      • Falsifiability wasn’t part of the Koch excerpt but I’ll play along.
        Aren’t the “educated guesses” which aren’t based on accepted or fully understood climate system relationships yet are part of the model programming Falsifiable? Or is everyone hiding behind the cloak of conscience to inhibit Falsifiability?
        Assuming a proper methodology exists, guesses which prove to be inaccurate are Falsifiable.
        Perhaps the point is, models are such a complex mess no one can accurately separate theories from the math?

      • Terry,
        Richardscourtney’s use of the term “model predictions” is similar to Lord May’s use of “educated guesses”. Lord May was addressing the issue of conscience at the Royal Society related to aspects of climate science which are not fully understood yet generally accepted until disproven.
        The educated guesses are embedded in the various models thus making the guesses and resulting model predictions falsifiable. Models don’t think they simply reflect coded results.

        • John:
          Richardscourtney’s use of the term “model predictions” makes this term “polysemic” (have multiple meanings). When this term changes meaning in the midst of an argument, an “equivocation” is born.
          In logical terminology, an argument having a true conclusion is a “syllogism.” Though an equivocation may look like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, though it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism the same is not true of drawing a conclusion from an equivocation. Mr. Courtney makes a habit of drawing logically improper conclusions from equivocations.

      • Terry,
        Educated guesses/theories can be falsifiable. “Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.”
        Are you implying all climate science theory is not scientific?
        Methodological falsification helps to develop a process to improve theories. Given the models are packed with theories, this article’s title makes some sense.

        • John:
          Neither I nor anyone else can reach a logical conclusion on the issue of whether “all climate science theory is not scientific” while the terms “science” and “scientific” remain polysemic,

      • Terry Oldberg:
        As I have pointed out to you on countless previous occasions the term “prediction” has the clear and unambiguous meaning of being a forecast and it is defined in every dictionary.

        The climate models make predictions and comparison with reality shows their predictions to be wrong (see graph in the above essay). That failure to correctly predict observables in reality falsifies the climate models.

        Your repetitious nonsense about this is a waste of space on threads and has reached the level of trolling.
        In the unlikely event that you want to post something sensible then post the long-awaited definition of what you mean by the word “event”.
        Richard

      • John:
        Oldberg has found some words that sound ‘sciencey’ and thinks using them makes him seem clever.
        For example, you said to him and asked him

        Educated guesses/theories can be falsifiable. “Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.”
        Are you implying all climate science theory is not scientific?

        and he replied

        John:
        Neither I nor anyone else can reach a logical conclusion on the issue of whether “all climate science theory is not scientific” while the terms “science” and “scientific” remain polysemic,

        Clearly, Oldberg is claiming to know Popper was wrong because the “terms “science” and “scientific” remain polysemic” (i.e. each has more than one meaning).
        Apart from the arrogance of Oldberg’s unsubstantiated claim to know more than Popper, his assertion about the word “science” is plain wrong. Oldberg does not state more than one definition of the word ‘science’ because in reality the word ‘science’ has only one meaning and that clear meaning is stated in every dictionary ; e.g.

        Definition of science in English:
        noun
        The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
        the world of science and technology

        OED
        Richard

      • Richard – I agree with your conclusion that the model predictions shown in the graph have been falsified. However, it seems to be a matter of semantics whether one considers the models themselves falsified by these observations. If so inclined, one could argue that the falsification applies to the sets of parameter values that were given to the models in these model runs, but not the models themselves.
        It probably is possible to initialize the model runs with other parameter values that would produce a reasonable fit to the observed temperatures. In that sense, the models are indeed probably not falsifiable – there may be no plausible observed temperature records for which parameter sets could not be found that would make the models match observation within specified error.
        So, while I agree with you in essence, I suggest that you not waste your time fighting sophistry.

        • The accuracies of model projections can be judged in an IPCC-style “evaluation” but evaluation differs from validation. The latter requires the existence of the underlying statistical population which, however, does not exist. In a failed attempt at validating it a model is falsified. As validation of a climate model is impossible so is falsification of it.
          If a debater succeeds in replacement of the monosemic term “projection” by the polysemic term “prediction” in making an argument he makes of this argument an example of an equivocation. For the unwary, an equivocation looks like a syllogism. However, while the conclusion of a syllogism is true the conclusion of an equivocation is false or unproved. Thus, to draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically unwarranted.
          To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is the “equivocation fallacy.” Applications of this fallacy are common in the literature of global warming climatology ( http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ ). Through application of the fallacy one can compose a bogus proof of the proposition that the moon is made of cream cheese or any other proposition that one likes. In particular, one can compose a bogus proof of the proposition that the climate models are validated though validation is impossible.

      • Hi Terry,
        The issue of evaluation is interesting. I just read a paper titled A Review on Evaluation Methods of Climate Models which was found in the Advances in Climate Change Research journal vol. 4 issue 3.
        The paper evaluates the 24 models in relation to 29 criteria and ranks them worst to best. Conclusions include the need to quantitatively evaluate the models and their processes. It states the models are only qualitatively evaluated.
        Is falsification possible without quantitative information?

        • Hi John:
          Falsification is not possible without: a) a statistical population and b) a sample that is drawn from this population. The sample is composed of sampling units. Through observation of each sampling unit one can determine its outcome.
          Sampling units having the same outcome can be counted. This count is called the “frequency.” The “relative frequency” of an outcome is the frequency of this outcome divided by the sum of the frequencies of all of the various possible outcomes. If the sample is “large,” the model is falsified if the model predicted values of the probabilities of the various outcomes fail to match the observed values of the corresponding relative frequencies. If the sample is not “large,” there are complications due to sampling error.
          If the model is not falsified then it is said to be “validated.” Though “validation” sounds like “evaluation” they are distinct processes. In an IPCC-style evaluation the observed global temperature is compared to the model projected global temperature. This comparison reveals the magnitude of the error in the model projected global temperature. Though validation requires the existence of a statistical population evaluation does not require one. As the climate models lack statistical populations they can be evaluated but not falsified or validated.

  12. “… a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models.”
    That’s a lovely time frame isn’t it? It means business as usual alarmism to continue until just after everyone wrong, involved in the movement, or in the racket and making a living off this science fiction will have passed away without every facing reality or any consequences for anything.
    Perfect. Life is short. Live large, do what you must? 🙂
    A think tank friend of friend of mine characterizes unscrupulous officials, (academia, bureaucrats,staff, politicians) who don’t like being questioned in public, as reacting by “sitting there looking at you like potted plants”.
    It’s that empty stare with guilt and hatred behind the eyes that tells you plenty about their new normal of acceptable public deceit.

  13. Hear hear!
    The models are not falsifiable and for a readily understandable reason: the statistical populations underlying the models do not exist. That they do not exist leads to an additional conclusion: the models leave a policy maker without information regarding the outcomes for the climate system of the future, conditional on actions taken in the present, thus making control of the climate impossible.
    Nonetheless, policy makers such as President Obama persist in attempting to control the climate. Why would they do so? As the result of a study on the topic of “logic and climatology” ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ) I conclude this is the result of applications of the equivocation fallacy that make false or unproved conclusions seem true to duped policy makers (http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/). Dr. Vincent Gray is the pioneer in this area of investigation. He reports that IPCC management set the stage for applications of this fallacy via the wording of its assessment reports ( http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPINNING_THE_CLIMATE08.pdf ).
    The immediate need is for global warming climatology to be reorganized for falsifiability of claims and production of information from its models. It seems to me that the place to start is by replacement of the current leadership. Otherwise, they will continue to lead the research in the wrong direction.

    • Terry,
      Not only replacement of the current leadership but should include indictments, incarceration, and confiscation/forfeiture where appropriate. Where appropriate should be interpreted as being aware or should have been that falsehoods were being propagated. There should be no exemptions for religious beliefs of CAGW. Anyone trained/educated in the scientific principles should be held to a higher degree of culpability.
      A drug dealer only pushes their wares on those voluntarily seeking it. The CAGW promoters push it on everyone regardless of their scientific knowledge or objections to participation in such scams. It has led to a destruction in confidence in science and our governments. Notwithstanding the economic impacts on the worlds economies and the physical impacts on the inhabitants affected by the economic impacts.

  14. Eric there is a great article in forbes summarizing issues of cost and stability in the grid as the major obstacle to green energy delusions. You should take a look at it. Sorry for the off topic (I don’t work for Koch bros)

  15. To the models being incorrect, I came across this stuff yesterday:
    http://www.climate-change-theory.com/index.html
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/kiehl-and-trenberth-debunk-climate-alarm.html
    Sorry don’ t know how to hyperlink wordpress
    I’m not qualified to speak of the veracity but the logic appears well reasoned anyway. I was wondering why I’d never seen this stuff on WUWT referred to or debunked. Being true; it would seem the circulations models are “not even wrong” Seems like the kind of thing that would turn Willis’ crank.
    When it steps into thermodynamics I have to quote Bugs Bunny “I never studied law”

    • taz1999,
      Nicely discussed here at WUWT in 2013, since then a forbidden subject…
      Search for the word “Slayers” to see the discussions, especially the challenge by Dr. Spencer and experiments done by Anthony and Curt Wilson, these are easy to follow…

      • Thank you, I’ll take a look at some threads. I’ve heard echo’s of the Slayer arguments here but clearly don’t know the background. May have been mislead or misunderstood from the PS* website:
        SLAYING THE ‘SLAYERS’
        Principia Scientific International was formed with good intentions and I contributed papers and articles in 2012 and 2013. However their pseudo science is now dominated by the postulates of Joseph Postma and Pierre Latour, and they merely delete comments which point out errors in their posts.

      • Replying to my own thread. Probably means this thread is dead 🙂 but anyway if someone is digging through the garbage…. I don’t know how all this progressed but some of it seems some of the issues are a matter of degree which fell maybe into name calling et.al. To the warmer/cooler energy transfer, I don’t mean to denigrate Curt Wilson’s experiment (which I think was beautifully designed, executed and documented) but to my simple mind what he proved is why I cover my pots when cooking 🙂 Changing the system changes the set points. If you replace the Slayer “can never transfer cool to hot” with well yeah some effect is obvious but may not explain the total temperature difference there may be validity to some of the other points. I like the hypothesis of solar inputs and water cycles driving climate. This is the dog I would pick to wag the tail. I think effectively we should consider ourselves “Water World” instead of “Terra” bad movie not withstanding.

      • Taz,
        Indeed the earth is a water world and water/vapor/clouds/ice work as a kind of thermostat which keeps (parts of) the earth within inhabitable borders…
        Besides that, the Slayers are way out of what science says and proves. I have made a simple Excel sheet which shows the effect of the thought experiment of Dr. Spencer for any initial conditions:
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/slayers.xlsx
        Please read the “readme” page for how to change the conditions.
        There is a simple example why the Slayers are wrong: there are a lot of CO2 lasers used all over the world. These are based on the own frequency of CO2 in certain bands. All what is done is exciting the CO2 in the laser so that it starts to send IR light at that sole frequency. While the whole apparatus heats up due to the lots of energy pumped into it (less than 100°C with cooling for industrial types). Despite that low temperature, the laser beam can cut through steel at 1200°C…

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen
        cool spreadsheet, I’ll have some fun playing with that.
        I like the laser example. I have some peripheral experience with LED pumped YAG lasers. Not the same power but we put a few holes in things.

  16. Although I don’t believe one word ever spoken by Harry Reid I wish it was true that “the Koch Brothers are going to buy an election,”

    • In 2004, when George Soros was spending 10 times as much money supporting Democrats, the NYT and other Democrats just declared that to be grassroots in action.

  17. The prostitution of science will not make the climate models work. They have failed to predict the future temperature trend for the last 2 decades.

  18. Well, if nothing else, hopefully the referenced article will have sent the hordes of spittle-flecked, swivel-eyed CAGW fanatics into a right old Twitter rage.

    • That is what happens when the count gets over 50 and they keep morphing to avoid clear previous criticisms. Cochroaches do a similar scuttle. Regards.

  19. Well, who’d have thunk it? A billionaire who is, in fact, capable of being an intelligent, educated human being who knows climate-BS when he sees it.
    Frankly, if I was him, I would also see no need to spend a single dollar subsidizing us “deniers” when the facts are so obvious to those who care to look.
    Still, I think Anthony Watts deserves something.

  20. There was an interesting post on Bart Verheggen’s blog about this very topic.
    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
    The poster (Hans Custers) suggests 10 things that would falsify climate science. It is light-hearted, and there is much to criticize.
    What is even more interesting than the post itself is the response in the comments to heathergirl1234. She makes several valiant attempts to ask fairly straightforward questions about scientific falsifiability in general. The blog denizens seem to take the stance that since she asked a question, she must be ignorant. They proceed with a barrage of links and references to dry technical research papers and videos on YouTube. They then berate her for not educating herself by following up on those links and references.
    Now, I like it when commenters provide links. I have both the inclination and the background to wade (up to my ankle at least) into some of the dry technical material. But most people have neither the time, the inclination nor the background to delve like that. Heather asked some very straightforward questions and wanted only equally straightforward answers. Not getting that she eventually left (who could blame her).
    This is an issue of communication. You have to engage people on their terms, not on yours; something I learned from teaching introductory Astronomy and Physics for 10 years. Sticking your nose in the air and saying, “If they are not going to educate themselves, then they shouldn’t get involved at all”, is just snooty.
    Then krischel takes up the challenge and makes a determined effort to keep the discussion focused on the issue of falsifiability of climate science. It is worth reading if only to see how the denizens so easily veer off topic. Something which happens here quite a lot and is not always a bad thing; sometimes discussions go down other paths. But sometimes they go completely off the rails.

    • To summarize, the 10 ways suggested to disprove the human impact on climate are:
      A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause.
      A drop in global sea level for some period of time.
      A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level.
      The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks.
      Warming of the stratosphere
      Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing longwave radiation.
      Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature.
      A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet.
      A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics.
      CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory.

  21. I think and hope that at long last this CAGW theory is losing support. Common sense has said all along that an extra CO2 molecule for every 10,000 other molecules in the atmosphere is not going to make a jot of difference. The fact that these models disagree with each other proves they are not fit for purpose, The fact that the Met Office use a supercomputer with AGW factored in but still cannot get a weather forecast right, should say it all (their new £97,000,000 supercomputer goes online next month and I predict that unless they get rid of the part of the program linked to AGW, then it will be just as wrong as the last one).
    This science is far from being settled!

  22. One sentence makes the whole article not reliable: “A few alarmists, such as German climate researcher Hans Von Storch…” HvS is the reverse of an alarmist! Read more, write less!

    • Agreed, that is a mistake from Eric: Hans von Storch was never an alarmist and while he still believes in the effect of CO2, he is the first to admit that even the low-end model of his group fails to replicate the pause…
      Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray conducted a widespread survey under climate scientists in 2008 which did give far more nuanced answers than the 97% “consensus”, very interesting reading:
      http://ncse.com/files/pub/polls/2010–Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf

    • Von Storch is an interesting character. I did consider describing Von Storch as a “luke warmer”, but I think its more accurate to describe him as someone who fully embraces the alarmist position, but demands that his fellow scientists explain the discrepancies between models and observations.
      For example, Von Storch’s testimony to the US Congress in 2006;
      http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf
      Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

      • Sorry Eric,
        von Storch is not an alarmist, he doesn’t endorse the C in CAGW, only the A. He openly dislikes the real alarmists of PIK, Mann and others. In his opinion we are still going to 2°C for 2xCO2, still borderline the “luke warmer” position, but contrary the alarmist position, is ready to admit that he may be wrong.
        BTW, I am in the same position, as I am convinced that AGW is real, but at a lower effect (around 1°C for 2xCO2), and more beneficial than harmful…

        • I observe that a barrier to converting global warming climatology into a real science is the hold on peoples’ minds of the related ideas of a) radiative forcing and b) the equilibrium climate sensitivity. These ideas lie in the foundations of global warming pseudoscience where they act as substitutes for the statistical populations that would facilitate falsifiability and conveyance of information to policy makers about the outcomes from their policy decisions.

      • Not convinced Ferdinand – if Von Storch thinks global warming is harmless, why didn’t he say so in his 2006 testimony to Congress?
        However, rather than debate this issue here, why don’t you write up what you know about Von Storch, and submit it to Anthony as a story? I’d love to know more about Von Storch, he is one of the more interesting characters in the climate debate.

      • More a matter of nuance, Eric.
        Hans von Storch is of the opinion that humans are increasing the earth’s temperature and that that may have an effect. If that is harmful or harmless is not mentioned and he doesn’t make any statement on that, as he in the first place want to do real science, not politics and maybe he is of the opinion that he simply doesn’t know the effects of such a warming. He definitely is not in the alarmist’s camp…
        I can write to Hans von Storch, to see if he is willing to give his own opinion here…

  23. Read the article. Chas. Koch is a charming, thoughtful, patriotic fellow who thinks, yeah, we have warmed some and probably CO2 has contributed. He’s concerned about the middle class and the poor under recent administrations. He describes himself as a classical DEMOCRAT!!! He’s not happy with either Repubs or Demos. He says Demos are taking the US to disaster at 100mph, but Repubs are also doing so, but at 70mph.
    I (and the interviewer!) was expecting a guy with red horns and sharp pointy teeth from all the horrible press and blog comments I’ve read. Why has this wonderful fellow been so vilified? To me, he is the classic American of several generations back that I remember who made the US the most powerful, innovative, productive, advanced, prosperous, welcoming, friendly, generous of peoples on earth. If so many are so hateful towards such a persona, what do such people have in mind for our future? That, my friends, is more scary than an Iran with bundles of nukes, the worst of climate futures and an ocean at a pH of 5.

    • He describes himself as a classical DEMOCRAT!!!
      ‘Classical liberalism’ is more like a libertarianism without the fruits and nuts on top.

      • Many of those who oppose climate change consider themselves classical liberals but they have nowhere left to go except to the right.

      • Yam, It was explained to me by a 94 year-old former economics dept head from U. of Wisconsin, that the conservatives were mostly dems until L.B.J. signed the civil rights bill. That caused a mass defection of conservatives to the Republican side of the fence, particularly in the south. I was around 15 when that happened, so I wasn’t paying attention to politics and can’t verify it from my observation.

  24. Koch and others make a very simple mistake when talking about ‘falsification”
    The principle at play here is falsifiability. A theory, or statement, or model must be falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE.
    for folks who havent read the primary literature on this, wikipedia will do in a pinch
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
    “Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not “to commit fraud” but “show to be false”. Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]”
    For example 2+2= 4 is not falsifiable. you cannot concieve of an observation which would call this into question.
    This demarcates “science” which is falisifiable from math and logic which is not
    Another example (here is where trouble starts ) would be God Loves Me. And people who had faith would say that nothing could convince them that god didnt love them.
    This demarcates “science” from ‘religion’
    So is climate science or specifically climate models ‘falsifiable” in principle. Yes.
    “A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false”
    The issue is not that climate science is not falsifiable. if it were not falsifiable people would not even compare the outputs to observations.
    The issue is something entirely different. the issue is this
    1. What do you DO when a model disagrees with observations?
    The answer to that is not black and white. Even Feynman didnt know what to do in some cases where
    standard theory predicted one thing and observations said something else.
    There is no hard and fast rule about what to do. collect more data? run the test again? make changes to the model?

    • Mosher:
      1. What do you DO when a model disagrees with observations?
      Fundamentally, that model is wrong and can’t be used to “project” the future, neither base any policy on such a model.
      After that hard fact, one can have different options:
      – looking at why the model fails and if the cause is found, adjust the model on that knowledge.
      – restart from scratch if the cause is found and the model has fundamental errors in it.
      – collect more data if no obvious cause is found.
      – give it up if you have no idea where or what to look for…

    • Steven Mosher:
      We are discussing the failure of the climate models to emulate the evolution of climate behaviour and you ask

      1. What do you DO when a model disagrees with observations?

      Oh! That does bring back a memory.
      Long ago (i.e. in 2000) 15 scientists were invited from around the world to give a briefing at the US Congress in Washingtom, DC. The briefing consisted of three Sessions each Chaired by one of 5 of the invited scientists who each gave a presentation and questions were invited from the floor after the 5 presentations.
      Fred Singer chaired the first Session on Climate Data,
      I chaired the second Session on Climate Models, and
      David Wojick chaired the third Session on possible Climate Policy options.
      After the presentations of the second Session the first questioner stood and said in an aggressive manner,
      “The first Session said we cannot believe the climate data and this session says we cannot believe the climate models. Where do we go from here?”
      Gerd Rainer-Weber stood to answer but as Chair I gestured him to sit then I turned to the questioner and said,
      Either the Climate Data are right or they are not.
      If the climate data are right then the climate models cannot emulate past climate.
      If the climate data are not right then we have nothing with which to assess the Climate Models.
      In either case we cannot use the Climate Models to indicate future climate. So, I agree your question, Sir, where do we go from here?

      The questioner did not reply but studied his shoes.
      Gerd then signaled that he was satisfied, so I took the next question.
      Perhaps you can say where you think we should “go from here”?
      Richard

      • Richard,
        Your response to the ‘questioner’ was the best that could have ever been made. I would also have to note that the ‘questioners’ response was the best he/she could have done (studied their shoes and kept their mouth shut).

    • “…For example 2+2= 4 is not falsifiable. you cannot concieve of an observation which would call this into question…”

      Math originated as the ability to ‘count’ physical objects with the immediate next steps of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division required for tallies and division.
      2+2=4 was ‘proven’ well before the time of Greece and was one of the propelling forces behind written language as most of the first cuneiform examples are tallies and apportions. Communication that knowledge required inscribed language.

      “…The issue is something entirely different. the issue is this
      1. What do you DO when a model disagrees with observations?
      The answer to that is not black and white. Even Feynman didnt know what to do in some cases where
      standard theory predicted one thing and observations said something else.
      …”

      Feynman certainly did know and he made the famous statement several times in near identical words.
      Feynman’s point was absolute! “When a model disagrees with observations, the model/postulate/theory/research is wrong!
      Not partly right, not mostly right, not almost right. The model is wrong and must be reevaluated to determine why.
      When a complex climate model is wrong, it is wrong</b period! Break the model down to contributing parts and identify which components are incorrect!
      This is the curious part. Why hasn't the climate teams spent serious cash on evaluating and discarding incorrect components?
      Then again, why hasn't 18 years of model error forced climate modelers to realize their models were falsified in the first year. Eighteen years ago, the world would have been very patient at climate modelers spending time, money and effort on breaking the models down to working versus non-working components. At this point in time, many if not most people are plain sick of climate modeler's sheer arrogance; both in refusing science and climate modeler's acting as our elitist superiors.

      • Its not curious. There are two simple problems. First is resolution, constrained by computatiomal limits. Insufficent resolution forces parameterization of physically unresolvable climate processes. Parameterization requires attribution (parsing between AGW and natural variation) for proper ‘tuning’. There is insufficent good information to do that (yet)– another 30 years of sat mapped Arctic ice, another 50 years or so of ARGO, a few more decades of GRACE ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica,…based on the past hundred years temperature estimates. So model parameterization is almost fully AGW according to AR5; conforming to the original IPCC charter from UNFCCC. The pause shows that to be incorrect. Dissecting those fundamentals would expose the whole house of cards for what it is.

    • 1. What do you DO when a model disagrees with observations?
      There is no hard and fast rule about what to do. collect more data? run the test again? make changes to the model?

      One thing you don’t do is keep republishing the same model output with increasing confidence values.

      • Neither do you change the supposed observations, as is SOP in so-called climate science.

    • 2+2 is falsifiable if you are using base 3. 2+2 in base 3 is 11. We all know that computers run in Base 2 (binary) right. Well, ok, some transistors use ternary logic.

      • Philosophers are always desperately trying to squeeze juice out of nothing. This old ‘science’ has said and reasoned pretty much all there is to say. It is a frustrating thing to find something new in this field. 2+2=4 is that by definition, by semantics. If you break two pieces of chalk in half, you have 4 pieces. We could have created the counting terminology to be 1,2,3,5,4,7,8,9….then 2+2=5. Moshe is right about this not a field for falsifiability. He’s wrong about what should be done about models that don’t match reality.

        • Gary Pearse:
          In reality this “old science” is an evolving science. The part of it that is “old” in the sense of no longer evolving is the classical logic.
          In the classical logic, propositions have truth-values. That they have truth-values renders propositions obeying the classical logic falsifiable. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are examples of propositions obeying the classical logic. The truth-value of the first of the two propositions can be proved to be true. The truth-value of the second can be proved to be false. Thus, the proposition that the classical logic is “not a field for falsifiability” is false.

    • I take issue with several of Mr. Mosher’s contentions starting with his contention that logic is not falsifiable. Logic is that field of scientific inquiry that contains what is known of the rules by which true propositions can be discriminated from false ones. Mathematics conforms to the subset of rules belonging to the classical branch of logic wherein every proposition possesses a truth-value. Thus, the proposition that “2+2 = 4” has a truth-value and the proposition that “2+2=5″ has a truth-value. The truth-value of the first of the two propositions can be proved to be ‘true’ while the truth-value of the second can be proved to be ‘false.” A proposition is “falsified” when the value of its truth-value is proved to be ‘false.” Under the classical logic, the assumption is made that there is sufficient information for a deductive conclusion to be reached. Hence, observation is neither needed nor appropriate for falsification.
      Under the condition of insufficient information for a deductive conclusion to be reached from the available evidence, the generalization of the classical logic that is called the “probabilitic logic” applies. It is formed by replacement of the rule that every proposition has a truth-value by the rule that every proposition has a probability of being true. The contention that a model claim has a specified probability-value is falsified by reference to the corresponding relative frequency value in the statistical population underlying the this model. A climate model of today lacks the underlying statistical population thus lacks falsifiability.
      Mosher is correct in implying that people compare the outputs of climate models to observations. However, contrary to his assumption such a comparison does not confer upon these models the attribute of falsifiability. For this the underlying statistical populations are needed.
      Finally, Mosher implies misleadingly that the climate models “predict.” This usage of “predict” is misleading because it makes of “predict” a polysemic term supporting frequent applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of global warming climatologists ( http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ ). While lacking skills that are required for conduct of a scientific study, global warming climatologists have proved themselves to possess skills that are required for application of the equivocation fallacy. Applications of this fallacy have created the appearance of the falsifiability of the climate models without the reality of it.

        • Tomer
          I’m not dancing around the meanings of words. Quite the opposite.
          The content of the classical logic is settled. However, there have been major advances in the non-classical logic in the past 70 years. These have brought us, for example, HDTV.
          It was possible to develop HDTV because of the invention by Claude Shannon of information theory. It is a fully scientific theory in the modern sense of “scientific.” The classical logic is that specialization of information theory that is the result when information needed for a deductive conclusion is not missing. Thus, the classical logic is also “scientific” in the modern sense of that word.

        • Tomer:
          You are accurate in stating that HDTV is not a deduction from logic. In addition to having a deductive branch, though, logic has an inductive branch. The latter branch is of recent vintage and is one of two breakthroughs that made HDTV possible.

      • terry, you and willard and I are probably the only people who could have an intelligent conversation about the falsifiability of logic. I’m try to illustrate this for folks in the simplest way possible.
        Models predict that if the world work warms to 1000C, there will be no ice.
        That is clearly falsifiable.
        In short the models have empirical content which is what the concept of falisifiability is trying to articulate.

        • Steven Mosher:
          Unfortunately, your example of “models predict…” contains two terms that are polysemic in the language of climatology; they are “model” and “predict.” That each term changes meaning in the midst of your argument makes of this argument an equivocation. As it is an equivocation and not a syllogism one cannot properly assume that the conclusion of your argument is true. This conclusion is: “That is clearly falsifiable.”
          This shortcoming may be overcome by replacing the polysemic terms of your argument with monosemic ones. This can be accomplished, for example, by attaching modifying adjectives to “predict” and “model” in such a way as to make the resulting terms monosemic. If this is done, it is found that your conclusion is false in reference to today’s climate models for they lack the underlying statistical populations that would make this conclusion true.

      • Steven Mosher on August 8, 2015 at 4:16 pm: lterry, you and willard and I are probably the only people who could have an intelligent conversation about the falsifiability of logic. I’m try to illustrate this for folks in the simplest way possible”
        LOL classical, clueless arrogance from SM, he’s now the world expert on philosophy, science, climate, & vapid commentary.
        The fact is Steven, there is a climate model that has been verified with millions of observations: the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere, and which also proves that CO2 has no measurable or significant effect upon temperature. Your refusal to acknowledge this clearly defies any logical explanation.

    • Steven, IMO by any reasonable measure the models have already been falsified – as Von Storch said recently in an interview with Der Spiegel, 98% of climate models cannot be reconciled with observations. In a few years that will rise to 100%. Since the alarmists who create the models refuse to accept that disagreement between their models and observations is legitimate grounds to call falsification, in my view what they are practicing is not science.
      This denial of the value of observational evidence, and its applicability to climate science, is beautifully captured by a statement a few years ago from the British MET office:
      People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/people-underestimate-the-power-of-models-observational-evidence-is-not-very-useful/

      • Eric Worrall:
        While the climate models have proved to be inaccurate they have not been nor can be falsified. Falsification will remain impossible pending identification of the underlying statistical populations.

      • Terry, Moshe, what you are saying about a construct (model) based on a fledgling theory is simply wrong, even though you two have egghead knowledge of philosophy’s arcane semantic structure that only you two can apparently understand. Don’t forget that the work handed out to climate scientists along with infinite funding promised was by UNFCC creator Maurice Strong (Canadian Marxist, now retired in Beijing, who only competed high school and has had a lifelong mission to destroy Western civilization and capitalism and to create world gov of the elites) was to find humans culpable of warming that will end the world. Isn’t it likely under these conditions that what goes into the models is pretty much guaranteed to be not fit for purpose if it DOESN’T show humans, unfettered, causing thermageddon.
        I’m only an engineer so I apologize to my betters for saying that constructs of this kind are falsifiable if they don’t match to some meagre degree what they claim to represent. If I, tomorrow, create a climate model that says we are going to freeze to death in 30 years, surely it is falsified if in 2045 if we can sunbathe in Nunavut instead. Thomas Malthus had a model at the end of the 18th century – duly based on solid physics, that in a hundred years, with population growth and the expanding margins of cities, that they would be buried in horseshit. WS Jevons, another Malthusian, in the the 1860s bemoaned that at the current rate of coal usage, the industrial revolution would come to a halt by the turn of the 20th Century.
        As a Canadian engineer, I wear a steel ring on my right hand made from a collapsed bridge over the St. Lawrence River in Quebec that killed a number of construction workers. This model falsified itself and we wear this ring as a reminder of what happens if we do a construct that doesn’t work.
        Here you two are the only ones in the world who can understand philosopher’s logic but number among the masses in not understanding you have been given your marching orders by malthusian misanthropes. You guys are the donkey in George Orwell’s “1984”

        • Gary Pearse:
          It does not seem to me that the need for a model to have an underlying population in order for it to be falsifiable is “arcane.” In the U.S. the Food and Drug administration insists upon a sufficient sample size for statistical significance of the conclusions from a study of the safety or efficacy of a drug that is a candidate for its approval. Here the sample size and statistical significance are nil. Would a drug candidate be approved if the sample size and statistical significance were nil? NO WAY!
          To be frank, it sounds to me as though you are among the multitudes of bright earnest generally well trained people who, however, have slim understanding of the scientific method and have been duped by applications of the equivocation fallacy into thinking the conclusions of the climate models are falsifiable when they are not. These people believe the conclusions of climate models are falsifiable though the sample size is nil.

      • Terry Oldberg:

        “…Here the sample size and statistical significance are nil. Would a drug candidate be approved if the sample size and statistical significance were nil? NO WAY!

        This is an admission of falsified. When a drug, food additive, food derivative, etc. fails to achieve sufficient sample size and statistical significance, you are correct, it will not be approved.
        The result is negative, all claims of that drug, food additive, food derivative, etc. are considered unproven or falsified; until and when sample size and statistical significance is proven beyond doubt along with determining evidence for any observable side effects.
        Until climate model statistical populations and statistical significance demonstrating accurate simulation of climate reality those climate models remain unproven. Given the climate models repeated failure to provide any accurate climate simulation, they are falsified until proven capable.
        Mosh and the climate modelers need to understand that an old saying is very apropos to climate models and proof of the current climate models.
        “You can’t get there from here!”
        You’ve all heard from engineers, physicists, statisticians and programmers with model experience here and on other blogs. The current crops of climate models are far too complex clumps of unproven pieces.
        Tear the complex climate model beasties into their components and then begin the arduous process of design, test, re-design, test and prove every component; by itself, alone, independent until accuracy is certain. Claiming statistically significant is false, climate models must achieve genuine accuracy that any and all agree with.

      • Gary Pearse August 8, 2015 at 7:18 pm
        “Don’t forget that the work handed out to climate scientists along with infinite funding promised was by UNFCC creator Maurice Strong … was to find humans culpable of warming that will end the world.”
        The “Principles governing IPCC work” seems to support your observation:
        The revision history of that document is a clear indication that the document can be regarded to hold the fundamental principles for the Panel. The document was first approved in 1998 and latest amendment was in 2013.
        Paragraph 1 :
        “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … shall concentrate its activities …. on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.”
        Here is an extract from Wikipedia that will help to understand this better: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change .. is an international environmental treaty .. The objective of the treaty is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
        Hence the following will be a legitimate interpretation of Paragraph 1:
        “The panel shall concentrate its activities on actions in support of stabilizing the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
        Obviously, the principles does not nourish a culture of systematic scrutiny or attempts to falsify parts of the theory about anthropogenic warming.

    • How do you deal with the following unscientific actions?
      “it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system can ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
      Karl Popper (The master mind behind the modern scientific method – the empirical method) warned about these procedures, and ruled out from the the empirical method.
      Ref. The logic of scientific discovery
      How do you falsify models which are adjusted to mach the observations?
      Texas sharp shooter fallacy – shoot first then draw the target
      How do you deal with those who simply refuse to acknowledge falsifying experiences whatsoever – like then the model prediction don’t match observations?
      Charles Koch actually seems to be familiar with the modern scientific method – the empirical method.
      You are not:
      http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/03/president-obamas-clean-power-plan/#comment-722875

      • If you have to make ad hoc adjustments to a theory to make it agree with observations the theory has been falsified. But proponents of that theory will continue with adjustments as they have much of their financial and emotional career tied up with it.
        According to Max Plank …” a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.

    • 1. What do you DO when a model disagrees with observations?
      Easy employ rule one of climate ‘science, ‘when reality and models differ in value it is reality which is error ‘

  25. Show me the modeling graph with the 70 year pause please. Oh and explain the calculus that allows this plateau. How many more are there?

  26. When it is not possible to falsify something it enters into the realm of “belief” and exits the realm of “science”. Science is based on finding those circumstances in which a hypothesis fails to predict what has been observed. No more, no less. The escathological cargo cult of the CAGW is thus a religion, since it prevents finding those circumstances, and denies that they have occurred when they are found.

  27. The hypothesis is:

    An increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will contribute an increase in the global average surface temperature.

    What if the net change in the global average surface temperature were to decrease? Would that disprove the hypothesis?
    ΔT_net = ΔT_CO2 + ΔT_1 + ΔT_2 + … + ΔT_N
    The net change in the (global average surface) temperature on the left-hand-side is the sum of contributions on the right-hand-side. So there is a contribution to the change in temperature from CO2 plus contributions from other things. The contribution from CO2 is always positive.
    The net change in temperature (ΔT_net) could increases, decreases or stays the same. None of those cases would disprove the hypothesis. Even if the net change in temperature decreases (it gets colder), that would just mean that one or more of the changes ΔT_i is more negative than ΔT_CO2 is positive. If the temperature were to decrease, then the most we could say is that something else is affecting the temperature more than CO2. But it would not disprove the hypothesis.

    • nhill:
      You say
      The hypothesis is:

      An increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will contribute an increase in the global average surface temperature.
      {snip}
      If the temperature were to decrease, then the most we could say is that something else is affecting the temperature more than CO2. But it would not disprove the hypothesis.

      True, a temperature decrease would NOT falsify THAT hypothesis.
      But that is not the hypothesis under discussion.
      The hypothesis being discussed is:
      An increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere induced by emissions of CO2 from human activities will provide an increase in the global average surface temperature which is predicted by outputs of climate models.
      The concentration of atmospheric CO2 and emissions of CO2 from human activities have each increased but the climate models predicted warming that has not happened (see comparison plots in the illustration of the above essay) and the failure of that prediction falsifies the discussed hypothesis.
      In other words, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis as emulated by climate models is refuted by observations.
      Richard

      • Fair enough. A clear distinction should be made between the physical model (what I called the hypothesis) and the computer models. The graph at the very beginning of this post show clearly that the computer model predictions/projections/forecasts/scenarios/prognostications are inadequate. There is a clear divergence between the observations and the computer model output.
        What does this mean?
        It does not necessarily mean that the physical model is wrong. It may mean that, but it does not necessarily mean that.
        For example, the theory of gravity says that a block of wood will slide down an incline plane (that is the physical model). You use a pocket calculator to compute the time that it takes the block of wood to slide down the incline plane (that is like the output of the computer model). Your calculation shows that it will take 5 seconds. But when you actually let the block slide down, you measure the time that it takes to be 7 seconds. It actually takes significantly longer than you had calculated. That does not mean that the theory of gravity (the physical model) is wrong. It just means that you have not taken all of the factors affecting the time of descent of the block into account. You have neglected the friction between the block and the inclined plane. So you modify your simple physical model to include friction. Then, when you recalculate the time including the effect of friction (you modify your computer model), you find that the predicted time is 6.5 seconds. Which is much closer to what you actually observed.
        This might be an answer to Steve Mosher’s question above: “What do you do when the computer model output does not match observations?” The first thing you do is go back and modify/update/revise your physical model to include factors that were previously ignored because they were assumed to be negligible, or just simply to difficult to account for. Then you update your computer models and recalculate. In short, you do not need to assume that the entire physical model is necessarily invalid. Just try to modify it and see if the results are any better. If not…, well…, then…, try, try again. In science, models (both physical and computer) are constantly modified and improved.

      • nhill,
        The first thing you should do is publicly reveal that your models are worthless as is and publicly state that absolutely no policy decisions should be made or even considered based on any of the current climate models. Then start from scratch and only include only factors that can be proven to be valid. Any future conditions/assumptions/guesses/religious desires/political wants/self serving claims/etc that are added to future models be clearly noted and publicly revealed as to having any entry into the future models.
        Furthermore, invite, support, and openly discuss throughout the entire scientific establishment any and all assumptions that will be encoppassed in the new models.
        These are some of the first things you should do.

      • eyesonu,
        Wow. You are probably right. In an area that is as contentious and publicly scrutinized as climate science, such public declarations may be called for.
        I am a bit taken aback, though. My background is in theoretical particle physics. I have been involved in some research projects that were highly controversial, but only with the rather rarefied community of particle physicists; nothing that was ever of any interest to the public at large.
        A Chemist in Langely has a blog post called “More on Professionalism in the Climate Change debate”. He talks about the differences he sees between licensed professionals and academics that was quite an eye-opener. The motivation for the post was a few exchanges the Chemist had with “And Then Theres Physics” and “Sou”.

      • nhill:
        Your reply to eyesonu says

        Wow. You are probably right. In an area that is as contentious and publicly scrutinized as climate science, such public declarations may be called for.
        I am a bit taken aback, though. My background is in theoretical particle physics. I have been involved in some research projects that were highly controversial, but only with the rather rarefied community of particle physicists; nothing that was ever of any interest to the public at large.
        A Chemist in Langely has a blog post called “More on Professionalism in the Climate Change debate”. He talks about the differences he sees between licensed professionals and academics that was quite an eye-opener. The motivation for the post was a few exchanges the Chemist had with “And Then Theres Physics” and “Sou”.

        Thankyou. That is interesting.
        The underlying issue is stated in the link from your link where it says of an academic

        Apparently, I had made two mistakes. My first mistake was to assume that when a scientist describes himself as a “professional” in his “About Me” that he/she might not actually be a “Professional” but simply someone who is paid to carry out a job. My second mistake was that until this discussion I had completely forgotten that academics can choose, if they wish, to live in an ethical void. Historically, academics considered themselves bound by the nature of the collegial endeavour. After all the etymology of the word “collegial” pretty much describes the behaviours one would expect from academics. Unfortunately, in recent years the bonds of collegiality have disappeared. There is no group capable of controlling the bad actors. I recognize that the limitations of the tenure system precludes enforcing ethical behaviours, but I am horrified to realize that for some modern academics what was once considered typical ethical behavior is now considered a thing reserved for a “priest or politician”. On a lighter note, I can’t help but notice that in a battle of ethics this academic views politicians as more ethical than academics?

        That sums-up the attitude towards ‘climate science’ of scientists whose careers have been outside academia. We would have been sacked if we had behaved in the manners revealed by climategate but the academics whose misconduct was then revealed have no remorse, and subsequently others (e.g. Gleick) have been rewarded for extreme misconduct!
        Thankyou for providing your links that I commend for all to read.
        Richard

      • nhill writes “Then you update your computer models and recalculate. In short, you do not need to assume that the entire physical model is necessarily invalid. Just try to modify it and see if the results are any better. If not…, well…, then…, try, try again.”

        The problem is that if there are many variables (not just friction in your example) then what values do you use to get the best prediction result? You can tweak them all as much as you like and get great comparisons to past results…but unless you strike on the correct set of parameters you can say nothing about the future.
        Furthermore it may be near impossible to become more confident about individual parameters if they’re all set well inside their “expected” ranges. Whatever that may mean.
        And then there is the question of unknowns. For example perhaps you didn’t take into account friction with the air and only allowed for friction with the plane. Without allowing for the specific effect of friction with the air, you can never create a general model that projects over great distances.

    • The hypothesis being discussed is:
      An increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere induced by emissions of CO2 from human activities will provide an increase in the global average surface temperature which is predicted by outputs of climate models.

      The Null Hypothesis should be the Status Quo, the Null Hypothesis should be “CO2 or Man is NOT causing Climate Change.” The way you would test that is by finding a statistically significant difference between the mean and standard deviation of the past 50 and 150 years vs the previous 15k years of the Holocene. If you take the time to test the ice core data you will discover that there is absolutely nothing abnormal about the mean or standard deviation/variation of temperatures over the past 50 and 150 years. You will discover that temperatures were warmer in the past, temperatures showed greater variation in the past, CO2 is not related to temperature, CO2 does not lead temperature, there was a Medieval and Roman Warming period and there was a little ice age. CO2 is a red herring.

      • co2islife
        I agree that the Null Hypothesis is what should be discussed, but we are discussing the hypothesis presented by the above essay.
        Richard

  28. The Royal Society in a recent meeting with British skeptics shifted the goalpost again, with a suggestion that a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models.

    [+emphasis]
    Unbelievable! Time to tear down the goalposts.

    • Agree – unbelievable.
      “The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”
      (Karl Popper in The Logic of scientific discovery – On the modern scientific method: the empirical method.)
      The anticipation that the Royal Society will act in accordance with modern scientific principles, in accordance with the empirical method, has thus been falsified – it has been demonstrated to be wrong.

  29. …The Royal Society in a recent meeting with British skeptics shifted the goalpost again, with a suggestion that a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models….
    Actually, it’s worse. They said that they “wouldn’t change their minds even after a 50 years pause”.
    So one might ask, what WOULD change their minds? A temperature plummet to the depths of the Little Ice Age? Or a full blown Ice Age? Or would they still be saying “Put that coal fire out!” to the last remnants of humanity trying to survive on a glacier?

  30. Remember, we’ve already had a roughly 40 year pause (actually, temperature decline) during a period of massively increasing CO2 levels, during the post WW II era.

  31. …….” the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.”
    Eric, sorry, it was a typo, it should read “71 Years”…..

  32. There is in fact a 1-D climate model that was verified by millions of observations: The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere, which remains the gold standard today. The hundreds of physicists, physical chemists, meteorologists, rocket scientists, etc that worked on this massive effort mathematically proved & verified with millions of observations that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Feynman gravito-thermal greenhouse effect is absolutely correct, and did not use one single radiative transfer calculation whatsoever, and furthermore, completely removed CO2 from their physical model of the atmosphere.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html

  33. “This might be an answer to Steve Mosher’s question above: “What do you do when the computer model output does not match observations?” The first thing you do is go back and modify/update/revise your physical model to include factors that were previously ignored because they were assumed to be negligible, or just simply to difficult to account for. Then you update your computer models and recalculate. In short, you do not need to assume that the entire physical model is necessarily invalid. Just try to modify it and see if the results are any better. If not…, well…, then…, try, try again. In science, models (both physical and computer) are constantly modified and improved.”
    It depends.
    The first thing you do depends on the EASE of doing it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
    It this case you have two choices: Find a mistake in the experiment or REBUILD a huge amount of physics.
    Obviously scientists make a PRAGMATIC decision and focus on the data and the experimental set up
    But logic ( theory say X, observation says Y) doesnt tell you WHICH to look at.
    Pragmatic values drive the decision. The “logic” of falsification can only tell you “Somethings wrong”
    The mismatch IN AND OF ITSELF doesnt point to anything explicit. Could be the data, could be a part of the theory, could be both, could be a fluke.
    A mismatch between theory and experiment ( hey they never match absolutely) is normal. The trick is finding out where the problem is exactly.
    Folks should study the Duhem Quine thesis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

    • Steven Mosher:
      You posed the question

      What do you do when the computer model output does not match observations?

      And as answer to it you assert:

      It depends.
      The first thing you do depends on the EASE of doing it.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
      It this case you have two choices: Find a mistake in the experiment or REBUILD a huge amount of physics.
      Obviously scientists make a PRAGMATIC decision and focus on the data and the experimental set up
      But logic ( theory say X, observation says Y) doesnt tell you WHICH to look at.
      Pragmatic values drive the decision. The “logic” of falsification can only tell you “Somethings wrong”
      The mismatch IN AND OF ITSELF doesnt point to anything explicit. Could be the data, could be a part of the theory, could be both, could be a fluke.

      No, it does NOT “depend” on anything.
      And you are very wrong when you assert,
      “The first thing you do depends on the EASE of doing it”.
      The first thing to do is to report the discrepancy and the need for it to be resolved.
      The wicki link you provided illustrates this saying

      In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly observed neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light. Even before the mistake was discovered, the result was considered anomalous because speeds higher than that of light in a vacuum are generally thought to violate special relativity, a cornerstone of the modern understanding of physics for over a century.
      OPERA scientists announced the results of the experiment in September 2011 with the stated intent of promoting further inquiry and debate.

      Having announced the discrepancy then possible reasons for the discrepancy are determined and each assessed.
      You say,
      “Pragmatic values drive the decision. The “logic” of falsification can only tell you “Somethings wrong”
      The mismatch IN AND OF ITSELF doesnt point to anything explicit. Could be the data, could be a part of the theory, could be both, could be a fluke.”
      It is not relevant that “logic ( theory say X, observation says Y) doesnt tell you WHICH to look at” because scientists slog through ALL the needed investigations. Scientists do NOT choose WHICH investigations of the discrepancy to pursue but conduct them all.
      “Pragmatic values” may “drive the decision” of which possibilities charlatans will choose to investigate, but scientists make no such choice and slog through all the investigations.
      Only very,very rarely will a cherished theory be found to be plain wrong but it sometimes happens; e.g. the Michelson–Morley experiment falsified the theory of the luminiferous aether. And that is why all possibilities – including fundamental error of the theory – need to be considered.
      Richard

    • Folks should study the Duhem Quine thesis
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

      Or they should read E. T. Jaynes Probability Theory, the Logic of Science (or his online Mobil lecture(s), or the online/free perpetual preprint of the book that was polished and finished posthumously. Before, or while, reading this they should also read Richard Cox’s monograph: The Algebra of Probable Inference as it is arguably the most important philosophical work since David Hume demonstrated that philosophy was bullshit, and so was science if the goal of science was either the deduction or inference of truth or falsehood.
      The bundle of assumptions in the Duhem Quine thesis link above are basically Bayesian priors in the probabilistic analysis of any hypothesis or experiment. In the scientific worldview, the set of Bayesian priors is the entire linked body of empirically supported belief as it forms a network of joint and conditional probabilities with a strong requirement of consistency.
      The process of scientific endeavor involves constantly computing marginal probabilities (how likely is it that increasing carbon dioxide by 100 ppm will cause a temperature increase of 0.4 C, given a long list of often unspecified prior beliefs in physics, chemistry, etc etc, the model, and the data) and, when the model fails to describe/predict the actual events within the bounds set by properly done statistics, modifying the probability of the truth of the assumptions (called “recomputing the posterior probabilities”). There is no good “recipe” for the latter at this point because the network of knowledge is fabulously complex and has substantial and often understated uncertainties built into it — we believe in e.g. the laws of classical (in context) and quantum (in context) and (non)relativistic (in contexts) physics rather strongly up to where we have issues with completing a consistent field theory and down to where our ability to solve problems deteriorates due to complexity computational and mathematical both, but we believe rather less strongly that we can assign some specific number to “aerosol forcing” in some particular approximate mean field computational implementation of energy transport in a climate model being conducted on a grid 30 orders of magnitude away from the Kolmogorov scale for the hydrodynamics problem.
      But yes, this is precisely the problem with much of climate science. People (if anybody is still reading this thread at all) should look at the Storch survey above. It is eye-opening. Look especially at the comments at the end — it isn’t even true that the majority of climate scientists consider global warming due to CO2 to be the most pressing problem (or among the top ten!) facing the world. And when they do, they do with a frightening specificity concerning specific risks that suggest that this is their specific area of research and they have no broad appreciation even of climate science per se.
      I would love to see scatter plots of much of this study. For example, the vast majority of respondents state that the IPCC estimates for things like global temperature and rainfall and so on are “just right”, not too high, not too low. And yet in specific questions earlier, when asked about our state of knowledge of precisely these things and our ability to compute them, there was considerable spread with very few people asserting that it was “excellent”, most asserting that it was middling good, middling bad. This is amazing for two reasons — one is that there is some sort of cognitive disconnect between IPCC estimates being right on the money and yet a poor opinion of where being on the money is, and second a factual disconnect, because it is a simple matter of fact that at the moment the predictions of CMIP5 are systematically too high, extremely so for the troposphere, but also too high for the surface temperature even after it has been once again “adjusted” with an adjustment that curiously has an almost perfect correlation with increasing CO2 in order to re-introduce a monotonic increase in what was a flat record. Even more surprisingly, large number of respondents acknowledged that the models do a poor job of predicting rainfall, weather extremes, sea level rise or local climate change (they thought they worked the best for global temperature) but they still responded that the IPCC report predictions of these quantities were accurate!
      Also amusing was the confusion illustrated as to just what a “prediction” vs “projection” was — among the surveyed scientists! They couldn’t even agree on something as simple as this. They did seem to agree, though, that they should be communicating a range of future possibilities, not certainties, even as they overwhelmingly approved the AR SPM that does the exact opposite.
      The saddest single thing was that a substantial fraction of those surveyed were not able to accept that climate change has at least some benefits that might offset risks. Amazing.
      rgb

      • Yet the propagandists of the MSM and their political masters would have the public believe that “scientists” are an anointed high priesthood in 97% agreement that humans are causing catastrophic climate change (or something bad), an apocalypse requiring the abandonment of industrial economy to avoid.

  34. “A mismatch between theory and experiment ( hey they never match absolutely) is normal. The trick is finding out where the problem is exactly.”
    Theory and experiment are supposed to match without systematic errors and within stated levels of uncertainty. If not – your theory has been falsified.
    This does not mean that you have to discard every bit of the theory. But you cannot claim that you currently have a proper understanding. And you don´t immediately know what is wrong.
    There are also ways in which you can fool the test. Like – if you commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy of drawing the target after the shooting. Similarly if you adjust and fine tune your models to the observations, or if you only show the successful results.

  35. I have watched the GCMs output being observed, nit picked, criticized, judged and commented upon for over 10 years. Occasionally, I think various GCMs have been tweaked or modified. I remember one year when the European model received a significant upgrade and ever since its been one of the top models in forecasting tropical Atlantic cyclonic events. There are many models and many of them have suites or versions of themselves running. They run daily and some people grab their output and present it publically in weatherunderground for those people interested in these short term predictions. I being one of those with skin in the game, do watch this output occasionally for useful information to my particular interests. One of the principles in evaluation is that the model produces consistently similar results on successive runs, and that various models will tend to cluster around a significant result. Also if the result is near term ie 4 days out or closer in time then more weight should be given to it. When they are projecting out past 10 days, one should be more skeptical of their results. That 10 day rule hasn’t improved at all since 2006. Personally I place more weight on observational weather but I don’t discount the benefit of using model output especially in the very short term.

      • Yes I think falsifiability would enhance their situation. In fact I think those who control the models have internal falsifiability, else why the constant rerunning or the occasional upgrades. For my use these are a second order tool.

  36. Just got back from Washington DC. Charles’ Brother David is funding the renovation of the dinosaur exhibit in the Natural History Museum. What caught my eye was the the origin of man presentation covered a lot of past climate change and how it impacted man. Clearly making the case that climate change is nothing new, and man has adapted in the past.
    http://www.si.edu/Exhibitions/Details/The-David-H-Koch-Hall-of-Human-Origins-What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Human-249
    I then went over to where the dinosaur exhibit will be and on the construction wall are graphics spelling out words. Coal, Carbon and Climate Change are words repeated on the walls. I did not see CO2. It appears to me that David is fighting fire with fire. The truth is on his side. I only hope he has this chart greeting people as they enter the exhibit.
    http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
    Scientists to Smithsonian: Cut ties with Koch brothers
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/03/24/scientists-to-smithsonian-cut-ties-with-koch-brothers/
    One other thing I noticed was that there is a video on the Hydrothermal Vents at the ocean floor. The video details all the toxic gasses that they spew into the oceans, and yet life thrives. The one gas they never mentioned was that hydrothermal vents pump out huge amounts of CO2 and the pH is around 2.8

    The pH of waters coming out of black smokers can be as low as 2.8, making it more acidic than vinegar.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/life-in-the-abyss.html

  37. ‘shameful display of unscientific goal shifting, and the repeated unfounded assertions of certainty, ‘
    The trouble is when you look at climate ‘science’ you need , ironically, to use a model that you never use for any other science because ‘unscientific goal shifting, and the repeated unfounded assertions of certainty,’ along with standards that would unacceptable for undergraduate handing in an essay , are norm for this area.
    And you have to say its worked well, its gone from poorly funded unknown and less cared about part of physical sciences to major league with more funding they it knows want to do with , a high profile and for some of its ‘leaders’ world leaders on speed dial. We may moan about poor pratice and worse science but the bottom line it is approach that has worked very well for those in the area. On the other hand admitted that is far from ‘settled science’ it likley to see much of those goodies disappear , now you decided which approach they are going to take.

  38. I model based paper or result should be not just falsifiable, it should be retractable. There are many papers that should have been retracted when various diagnostic issues became known, especially those diagnostic issue relevant to the result or projection. For example model results projecting increased risk of drought should be retracted when they are shown to underrepresent the increase in precipitation associated with the warming, as in Wentz’s 2007 paper in Science.

  39. The Null Hypothesis “Man is not causing climate change” is falsifiable. Simply take the ice core data. Is the temperature and variation in temperature different over the past 50 and 150 years as compared to the other 15k years of the Holocene? The answer is absolutely not, you will also discover that 1) there was a little ice age 2) there was a Roman, Medieval and Holocene Optimum.
    Simply construct a temperature record of thermometer data and then satellite data post 1979 over the past 150 years. Use that data to tack onto an ice core data set. Test for max and min, standard deviation and mean over the past 150 and 15k years.

    • Not sure what that graph is trying to tell us, where does the blue end and where does the red end? Anyway, that is a temperature “reconstruction.” It clearly shows a max variation of less that 1°C over the past 10k years. Check any ice core data set. The temperature volatility is much greater than 1°C.
      From Vostok I calculated the average to be -3.7411°C and Spread between the Max and Min to be 8.12°c.
      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_deld.txt
      If I use just the Holocene I get these values. BTW, I started the Holocene as -11,191 years ago. I chose this number as the first positive value after some pretty extreme negative values. I “Cherry Picked” the period that would benefit the Warmest the most, and most likely support their case. I deliberately excluded data that would support my case.
      Spread between Max and Min is 4.03°C.
      Standard Deviation of 0.60°C
      Average -0.35°C
      Average step in change in time 42.6 years.
      Simply check the numbers yourself. The ice core data proves all the claims of the Climate alarmists to be complete and utter lies.
      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/f?p=519:1:::::P1_study_id:2453
      Bottom line, even cherry picking data to favor the alarmists, the numbers still don’t work in their favor. This “science” is truly that bad. This “science” make junk science look credible.

    • Please tell me Tomer that you realize that Marcotte’s blue trace represents a smoothed temperature because of the centuries or so of resolution. Hidden in it most certainly include spikes like your red one of daily resolution. Here’s a test: they grew wine grapes in Scotland in the MWP. Do you think this possible today? Marcotte is a young fellow who was coaxed to add the red line at the request of prominent hockey stick promoters. When challenged by statistician Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit), he backed off and stated that his work did not in fact have the kind of resolution to deal with the hockey stick. However if you want to do this, here is what you do: take the annual temperatures from 1850 to present and average them. This will still be a little iffy but it would cut your tail off by two thirds and would be closer to resolution of Marcotte et al. Your tail, of course would still be better in terms of error bars than Marcottes proxies.

  40. Any proposition — no matter how superficially plausible — remains only a superstition if it cannot be decisively falsified. Mud wrestling over details of specific evidence for or against such a superstition only lends it an entirely fraudulent appearance of credibility.
    Until the vanguard AGW faction endorses a specific and coherent theoretical proposition which it is possible to indisputably falsify by verifiable evidence at hand, these promoters have no legitimate claim to be “scientists”. Indeed, they are just another band of self-promoting career rent seekers with their snouts firmly shoved into the public trough.

  41. I wonder how high the models would have predicted the temps if they didn’t have El Chicon and Pinatubo already factored in? There are two dips in the model record that are hinddasts!

  42. I don’t think anybody is going to have to pay,do time or even lose face for this absurd ruse. I don’t care really. The ones who pulled the strings are just to powerful and utouchable. The ones who pushed the cause most likely were thinking with their hearts and truly were duped. The movement seems to be in endgame damage control now but I could be wrong. Soon they will burn their own pizzeria as any good grift would know to do. What a waste of time and money.

  43. @Weber: “Only warmist dolts believe that CO2 is capable of providing heat all by itself without an external source of energy (photons).” Can you say “Straw Man”? I knew you could.
    No warmist (and no, I am not a warmist myself) ever said that CO2 added heat. The claim (and it’s simple physics) is that it’s an insulator, helping to hold in energy that would otherwise radiate out to the blackness of space.
    If you don’t understand, try a simple experiment. Put two metal cans of water (like soup cans) on a stove plate. Cover both of them (to prevent loss of heat by evaporation/ convection), preferably with something transparent so you can watch (ideally, you’d stick a thermometer in each). Wrap one of them with some kind of insulator (like a dish towel) and turn the stove plate on low, simulating a *constant* input of energy from the Sun. (Make sure not to set the dish towel on fire!) If they’re both on equally hot locations on the hot plate (one’s not more towards the center of the plate than the other, say), I guarantee the one with the insulating blanket will get hotter than the one without the insulator.
    The question is not *whether* CO2 acts as an insulator, but *how effective* it is (and whether its effect is amplified by other things, as many models assume). It may well be that its effect is much smaller than solar variation, and/or that amplifying effects are relevant (they could even be anti-amplifying effects). On the other hand, its effect may be greater than solar variation. That’s not something you can guess at.

  44. the real difference between science and religion is that scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable and that any established fact will fall by the wayside if nature shows different results. (Karl Popper) So the models have been falsified by interrogating nature over and over again. Unfortunately there are no scientists running them.

    • Patrick:
      The models can’t have been falsified because they are not falsifiable. The appearance that they are falsifiable has been created by climatologists and fellow travelers through applications of the equivocation fallacy. These applications feature polysemic words such as “model,” and “science” and word pairs such as “predict/project,” and validate/evaluate. A word is “polysemic” when it has several meanings. A word pair is “polysemic” when each word has a different meaning but the two words are treated as if they were synonyms.
      When a word or word pair is used in making an argument and changes meaning in the midst of the argument this argument is an example of an “equivocation.” An equivocation looks like an argument having a true conclusion ( a syllogism ) but isn’t one. As the conclusion isn’t true one cannot logically draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”

  45. This certainty chart should be advertised everywhere in Paris from now to December 2015 and turned into drink mats, t-shirts, balloons, etc etc etc.

  46. “Is Koch right about climate models not being falsifiable?”
    Trick question? the climate models have already been falsified by reality.

Comments are closed.