SoAMadDeathWish

This is exactly the problem. AGW is being treated as the true truth that needs disproving (on pain of that "denier" thing lurking around the corner). Even as a lay person, I understood what the report meant by null hypothesis. It meant that we start with natural causes for changes in climate as the baseline, then see what varies against that standard. The we look at human activity as one of the potential sources to test if large variations are found. The approach above starts with AGW as the baseline and presumes that any current variance from projected trends of natural causes measured from the past are "unequivocally" due to humans. Every frigging one of them until they are completely disproven. And even then, from what little I already know about this, there is a lot of monkey-business that goes on in these measurements of the past and the interpretations of them. So predictions don't have to prove the theory. In short, it's backwards. Doing it that way, nothing will ever be falsified that the AGW truthers don't want falsified. They threw the falsifiability system out with the null hypothesis. Michael That is incorrect. The null hypothesis is that temperature variations are explained by nothing at all, and are therefore completely unpredictable (that's why it's called a "null" hypothesis and not a natural hypothesis). That temperature variations are explained by natural causes, anthropogenic causes, or both, none of those are a null hypothesis. The vast amount of data we have on the climate, as shown in the IPCC report, proves "unequivocally" that temperature variations are not completely random and unpredictable, but that they are almost entirely explained by anthropogenic factors. They also show that natural factors alone cannot explain any of the recent temperature trends. Thus, if one does claim that natural factors alone can explain the temperature trends, then they need to prove it. Climate scientists most certainly do not presume the truth of AGW just because they demand a proof of an alternative hypothesis. On the contrary, the NIPCC people presume the truth of GW by entirely natural causes, and then try to argue that AGW is false simply because it doesn't explain everything.

Tard, What Bob means is that when climate alarmists' models and predictions are shown to be wrong -- when they are shown to have been falsified -- the alarmists deny that they have been falsified. In other words, they allow for no possible logical disproof of their theories. Understand? That's what it means to call a theory "unfalsifiable." See, it's like when climate scientists recognize that their predictions didn't pan out, and then try to come up with an explanation of why they didn't pan out, yet they don't admit that their failed predictions disprove their theory. They assert that their theory is still valid, but that some unexplained phenomenon must have affected it and given it a false appearance of failure. They will not name or accept any possible outcomes as disproving their theory. Over the next century, temperatures could rise by 10 degrees, or they could cool by 10 degrees, or they could remain exactly the same, and regardless of which turned out to be true, the alarmists would be claiming that it is proof of their theory, and not disproof. J I think what we really need is an explanation of how hypothesis testing works in real science, because there are a lot of misconceptions out there due to oversimplified explanations of the scientific method. Let's look at a simple made-up example to see how hypothesis testing actually works. Suppose that you have a model of the climate, and it predicts a temperature increase of about 3 degrees, while the observed temperature increase is 10 degrees. Is your model falsified? No. Why is that? Because it successfully explains some of the variation of the temperature. What this means is that you're on the right track, but there are pieces missing in your puzzle, and you have to find them. Let's say that after some amount of investigation and thinking, you propose a mechanism which explains an additional 4 degrees of the increase (it's important that this new mechanism not contradict any part of your original model, your combined hypothesis has to be logically consistent). Now, you can explain a total of 7 degrees of the increase. That's better. You now have a more accurate model. So, on the surface, it would seem that no data can contradict your hypothesis, and that it is unfalsifiable. For each discrepancy, all you have to do is find some new mechanism to explain it, and your theory would always be safe. However, this isn't exactly right. There is, in fact, a way to falsify your hypothesis. Suppose that you discover a third mechanism, which both contradicts the first mechanism, but, when combined with the second mechanism, explains 9 degrees of the temperature increase. So, originally, you had a hypothesis whereby mechanisms 1 and 2 together could explain only 7 degrees, but now you have a hypothesis whereby mechanisms 2 and 3 together explain 9 degrees. The second hypothesis is clearly more accurate than the first, and so the first is rejected in favor of the second. So the way to disprove AGW would not be to point out minor discrepancies between observations and model predictions. (nonetheless, these discrepancies need to be explained) What one has to do, is to come up with an explanation that excludes anthropogenic factors and can explain the observed data even just a little bit better than the current theory can. Thus far, no one has succeeded in proposing a theory that can explain the observed temperature trends using only natural factors. In fact, natural factors explain virtually none of the recent temperature variations.

Ba'al Earlier, you seemed quite certain that the climate models were unfalsifiable. Now, however, you are claiming that they have been empirically falsified. Which is it exactly? Because you obviously can't have it both ways. If you believe that they are falsifiable, and I show you that the above claims are misleading, false, or irrelevant, will you then believe that the climate models accurately predict long term trends?

So is anyone actually prepared to criticize the IPCC position on climate change described in my big post? Where's Ellen?

No, but it's still just a hallucinogen.

It's just a hallucinogen.

Enlighten yourself Bob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiqzHzAx4ro Intuition in a grain of easily available plants.... What is this???? The bullshit hour? I will not spend an hour of pure dreck. There is no spirit so there is certainly no spirit molecule. All there is is matter and energy in time and space. The Universe is physical right down to the basement level. Ba'al Chatzaf It's just a hallucinogen.

Well, it failed to support the hypothesis because the magnitude of the effect they calculated was too small to explain the observations. Meh. I'm not at all afraid of being proven wrong. The worst case scenario is that I'll have learned something.

That's great. So I looked into the vastness to see what would look back. Is the following part of the "vast literature" where Svensmark's hypothesis fails just about every test? More support for Svensmark’s cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s climate hypothesis by Anthony Watts Watts Up With That? April 10, 2014 From the article: I'm no expert on this. I just did a simple Google search for the words: Svensmark's hypothesis, and this was one of the first things that came up. I certainly didn't see a vast literature of failures in the search results. I did see a lot of bickering and rebuttals back and forth. Also, I looked up Environmental Research Letters (and here) just to make sure it is peer-reviewed. It is. It's even run by Obama's own dude, Daniel Kammen. About that "vast literature," it's the vastness of the bullshit that gets to me with AGW zealots. Michael According to the authors: In these previous studies, like this one, the effect of solar cycle perturbations is "two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties". So close... but it just doesn't cut it.

I like this approach of trying to agree on some basic facts. I actually agree with both, but I have some concerns about the second in particular. While it is true that a real physical system is always more complicated than any model we have access to, that doesn't mean that the models can't make accurate predictions about what the system will do. I also disagree with the conclusion. An increase of atmospheric CO2 by 40% is not small potatoes whether it is due to natural or anthropogenic causes. That kind of change will definitely affect the climate, and it has historically. This is precisely the issue with the AGW folk. They -assume-, nay, they -insist- that most of the global climate change in the last hundred or two hundred years is primarily the result of human activity. There is no doubt that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans as evidenced by the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic. No one is arguing these facts. The entire dispute is over the causes of these changes. Is the cause mostly human activity, in particular, man made effluence of CO2 or do other causes, in particular natural causes account for what we see. Clearly human activity has some influence on the warming, but -how- much-??? I think cosmic radiation has been under weighted. Cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds of water vapor in the atmosphere. Now clouds are like window shades or Venetian Blinds. Suppose your living room has a large south facing window (and it is located in the Northern Hemisphere) between 10 A.M and 3 P.M. on a sunny summer day if you leave the blinds or shades or curtains open and the light comes streaming in your living room heats up from its morning cool to an uncomfortable temperature. Whereas if you keep the shades drawn or the blinds closed the room does not heat up so much. Clouds reflect sunlight back to space (the technical term is albedo). If more light is reflected then less light is absorbed below the clouds or by the atmosphere. How hot would a hothouse be if one sprayed high reflectivity paint over the glass of the hothouse? It would be a luke warm house. Cosmic ray affect how well clouds form. See The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark for an account of how cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds and how this affects long term climate. Now-a-days any scientific worker who -dares- to suggest that there are significant natural causes to the current warming trend is branded as a Skeptic, a Heretic, an Incompetent, a lick spittle and running dog for the Corporate Cronies etc. etc. To get the tone of this please refer to Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People. Ba'al Chatzaf That's because that is where all the evidence points. There is a vast literature out there on Svensmark's hypothesis, and just about every test of it fails to support and sometimes outright contradicts it.

"Waaaaa! I'm too much of a pussy to ask a girl out! Why can't I get laid!?" What a baby...

What does this have to do with what I mused about? I wasn't talking only about "this process" of going in and out of the atmosphere. Michael I meant the process of transforming one form of energy into another.

Heat in the climate system is the result of energy from infrared radiation being transformed into kinetic energy of molecules. However, this process can neither increase nor decrease the total amount of energy.

There you look as if you mean by "AGW" any temperature rise at all, even if insignificant, caused by human-produced CO2. But see above, where you stipulated to "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic.'" Most researchers in the area indeed agree that if there's been CO2-implicated warming, human-produced CO2 has contributed to that warming. But how much? Not enough to bother about unless strong positive feedbacks are posited which turn the negligible human-produced percentage of atmospheric CO2 into a "tipping point" trigger. Ellen What I'm saying is that human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures. Like I said gimme a sec. There are natural drivers of the temperature increase then cutting or eliminating human produced CO2 will do little or no good unless there effect is weighted accurately against man made factors. There was no human produced CO2 when the Siberian Traps erupted. That killed off most of the surface life of the planet and poisoned the oceans. The AGW crew is telling us that if we cut out CO2 production (other than exhaling) our temperature rise will stop. Unless they can eliminate the effects of natural drivers or weigh them properly then their conclusions might not hold. We are asked to become beggars and paupers on the basis of an ill formed sloppy easily manipulated statistical model. The underlying science is shaky at best but we are urged to take a pauper's oath on that basis. I am not all that ready to do so. I want to see a sound and scientifically corroborated -science- of climate. Right now all we have are models, not a solid theory. Ba'al Chatzaf Simulations have been run taking into account only natural drivers, and they conclude that, in the absence of anthropogenic effects, global average temperatures would remain stable. The models are physical models, and not mere statistical models. That claim is absurd. And as I've told you before, the underlying science is physics, but you seem to have ignored everything from our previous discussion, so I'm not gonna bother repeating myself.

I did some research recently, and I decided to take a look at the recent IPCC report itself. I think that the AR5 report for policy makers summarizes the consensus of the whole field and does a great job of stating and supporting the AGW claims. (The full report is even better, but it's over 1500 pages long and the file size is huge). Basically, according to Hartmann (and the scientific community), the climate works like this: The Earth receives energy from the sun in the form of radiation. The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it. Since greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O have absorption spectra in the infrared range, they let radiation from the sun reach the Earth's surface. However, since the Earth radiates blackbody radiation in the form of infrared waves, these gases absorb that radiation, and its energy remains trapped in the atmosphere. This energy heats the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. Thus, if the atmosphere wasn't there, the Earth's surface would be much cooler than it is. Now, any increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, makes the climate system absorb more infrared radiation, thus making it heat up overall. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans have increased its concentration from 278 ppm in the pre-industrial era, to 391 ppm in 2011 (an increase of about 40%), primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land-use such as deforestation. Thus, from what we know of physics, it is physically impossible that human activity could not have contributed directly to the increase in average global temperatures. Furthermore, this temperature increase has important effects on other aspects of the climate system. An increase in average global temperatures results in more boiling of the Oceans, thereby increasing the concentration of H2O (the most important greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere, trapping even more infrared radiation. An increase in the amount of CO2 also means that the oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, and thereby heat up as well. This has a number of important effects for weather phenomena. Furthermore, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the ocean also increases its acidity levels, which affects its ecology. Higher temperatures also contribute to increased melting of the polar ice caps. This melt results not only in an increase in sea levels, but also exacerbates the greenhouse effect since less radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by polar ice. Cumulatively, these processes explain all of the recent climatic trends. Current climate models fit historical data, and have only increased in their accuracy over time. They also make a number of predictions up to 2100 under several possible scenarios with regard to CO2 and other gas emissions. According to the AR5, the official consensus of climate scientists is that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continentalscale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. {Box 12.2, Box 13.1}Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {6, 11–14}Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3}The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. {11.3, 12.4}It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. {12.4, 13.4}Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets. {13.3–13.5}Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification. {6.4}Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}The supporting facts and figures can be found within the AR5 for policy makers as well as the full AR5 report linked above. EDIT: I hope this also answers your questions in post #257

There you look as if you mean by "AGW" any temperature rise at all, even if insignificant, caused by human-produced CO2. But see above, where you stipulated to "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic.'" Most researchers in the area indeed agree that if there's been CO2-implicated warming, human-produced CO2 has contributed to that warming. But how much? Not enough to bother about unless strong positive feedbacks are posited which turn the negligible human-produced percentage of atmospheric CO2 into a "tipping point" trigger. Ellen What I'm saying is that human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures. Like I said gimme a sec.

Not at all. You have made the claim that AGW has been proven. (A definition reminder. Upon my saying, "I'm taking you to mean the idea that human-produced CO2 is having a 'disruptive' to 'catastrophic' effect on climate dynamics," you replied, in post #183, "That is what I mean.") You've provided nothing in support of the claim but the (reported) say-so of persons whom you consider to be authorities. You've tried to argue that you're being rational in considering these persons authorities. But unless I've missed it, you haven't even provided any specifics of what these persons state to be the case, or any arguments which they give. So all you have is, "I'm telling you it's so." And then you say that others have to disprove a case you haven't presented. I on the other hand have not told you to disprove what I've said about the models, only that your unawareness of the problems with the models indicates to me that you haven't explored the subject matter enough to be entitled to say that you have an informed opinion. Again, unless, I've missed it, you haven't even said what's in the textbook, just, in essence, "here, this answers everything; read it." Was the textbook used in a college course you took? Ellen You asked for research that supports AGW, and I gave it to you. I'm sorry I simply assumed that someone as well-informed as you would be aware of the data and arguments that appear in any standard mainstream source, so I thought you would be starting things off with an attempt to refute any of the standard stuff. That I never made those arguments explicit is because you never asked me to until just now. But what the hey, I will, just give me a few minutes. And no I never took a course on climatology in college.

Nothing presented in this article suggests that AGW isn't happening. If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

No it doesn't. So there, woman of faith. Michael Umm yeah, actually it does. This book is a summary of a vast amount of climate research. If you disagree with it, then you have to give your reasons and evidence for disagreeing.

In a college textbook from 1994? Gimme a break. (Might as well present an affiliate Amazon link : Global Physical Climatology, Volume 56 (International Geophysics) by Dennis L. Hartmann. Anybody wanna plunk down 90 smackaroonies to see what the girl is talking about? ) I skimmed around about this book and it has a reputation of being a good presentation of many of the models used in calculating changes in climate, but nowhere have I read that this book proves AWG exists, despite the last section where he makes some doomsday affirmations about the future unless mankind mends its evil ways. Michael Yes, that book. The climate models themselves and the data and arguments that the author presents is the proof of AGW.

It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now. That's actually incredible. Could you possibly believe that "it's already been proven"? Or are you outright lying? And, oh, my, you've pointed everyone to one book! Gee-whizz. The books in this house on the subject would probably make about four stacks each 10 feet high. And then the articles would probably make four other comparable stacks. I am SO impressed that you've read one book. Not. I can say that you haven't given evidence because you haven't. My position is a great deal more than the climate-model fiddling. True, I haven't provided evidence of that. I've told you a person informed enough to state a positive opinion would already know about it. Seems you have a good-ole-fashion'd contradictarino going on there... One whole textbook is still infinitely more than what you have, i.e., nothing. You keep saying you're so informed, that you won't even bother supporting your position with any evidence. Unfortunately, the rest of us mere mortals don't have a special connection to the Divine like you do. So maybe you could enlighten us?

Well don't deny it. Prove it and nobody will deny it. But you haven't proven it. Nobody has. Michael You're the one making a positive claim, but with not one shred of "evidence" except the peer-review catechism. And you don't even know what my position is. Ellen It's already been proven, and I've already pointed everyone to the book Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann for like the third time now. Ellen, You can't say that I have not given you any evidence if you choose to ignore it when I do. Your position is that the climate models have been retroactively fitted to the data, as you've said in at least two posts so far. And you have not actually supported the claim with any evidence PS: Is your post #232 supposed to be a response to my post #231?

But I think everyone gets my meaning except, maybe, the myth-worshippers. Nobody wants to purposely trash the planet to the extinction of life because of greed or whatnot. And certainly nobody in the Objectivist and libertarian world wants to make the earth uninhabitable for humans and other life forms. But I hope they keep telling the story that we do since the public knows this is bullshit by now. I speak for myself and I know I speak for many when I say the government--especially when allied to crony businesses--is the LAST organization on earth that should be entrusted to deal with this issue. Michael I never said that anyone wants to make the earth uninhabitable, just that we should not deny AGW.

It's impossible to forget something which wasn't ever in one's thoughts. Ellen And you once again fail to back up anything you say with any sort of evidence whatsoever. (and I'm supposedly the religious fanatic...) If you'd properly done enough homework to form a reasoned viewpoint, you wouldn't have to be asking for the information you keep asking for. Ellen This reminds me of the whole theist schtick "The reason you can't see God is because you're not looking for him." Come on Ellen, one little bit of evidence that supports your position? Just... one... bit... ?

How about reverting to hunter gathering and living the Simple Life. All we have to do is eliminate 99.999 percent of the human population and we are ready to go back the neolithic Way of Life. Of course it means a reduction of life expectancy down to 30 some odd years. If you want to keep industry, science, technology and efficient food production then pave every industrial country from end to end with nuclear generating states. No CO2. All the electricity we could want and then some and finally the Hydrogren Economy. We a lot of excess electricity we can break water down to O2 and H2. No CO2 in site. Of course the eco-phreaks oppose nuclear energy because it might make everyone comfortable and rich which contradicts their agenda of bringing us back to the Glorious Past. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf This is all just a long-winded appeal to consequences. Just because you don't like the consequences of believing that AGW is true, that doesn't make it false.