Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

But the first one is a science paper from a peer reviewed journal (PNAS which is available on line for free) and can be found here

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...on&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

the second is from Nature

the third from Proceeding of the Royal Society

the forth is Lawrence Livermore labs

the fifth is Climate Dynamics

the sixth is NOAA

the seventh is NASA

and the eighth is Scrippts at the University of California San Diego in association with Lawrence livermore labs.

If that's Varwochian psuedoscience, I'm all for it.

Maybe mHaze would like to repost some high school chick's blog drivel and we'll see which is more scientific.

Actually I was referring lo the summaries posted of the papers.

Having not read the papers themselves.

 

[varwoche]

Pseudoscientific Varochian Neo-Alarmism noted.

You claim alarmism...?

Having not read the papers themselves.

... and yet you didn't even follow the links. Pure mhaze.

The 'I didn't even read it yet I've reached a conclusion' syndrome appears to be spreading.

 

[varwoche]

Prove me wrong.

Prove is too strong a word. There's lots of things that are widely accepted but can't be proven.

And since you dismiss scientific evidence out of hand without even reading it, and since you scare-quote "climate science" as if it's not real science, I see no point in jumping through hoops on your behalf. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[CapelDodger]

it is my understanding that string theory is controversial amongst physicists, exactly because it has been dominant for so long without producing falsifiable claims.

As it happens, one prediction - more than three spatial dimensions - may be falsifiable by the Large Hadron Collider when it gets up to speed (which is quite some speed, I can tell you ). It may be able to at least put an upper limit on the number of spatial dimensions; if that limit turns out to be three then string theory becomes more of a hobby interest than a scientific pursuit.

 

[CapelDodger]

maybe it's easy for you, but maybe i just suck at math and so when i look at the relevant equations or the mathematical reasoning behind the models i get a headache.

That level of math is beyond me, but I can usually get the drift. Partial differential equations is about where my maths education stopped. I never studied statistics so I'm not at all good with that. The best book on statistics I've ever read is How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, so I'm not completetely disarmed.

I think a good grounding in thermodynamics is key to understanding climate. It's all about how energy flows through a system so as to maximise (within the system's constraints) the rate at which entropy is increased. When you look at it that way everything slips into place .

i look stuff up on my own, but given that most science papers cost ten or twenty bucks, every now and then someone pops into a forum like this and has a link to a paper i wouldn't have found on my own.

Do you know RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ ? That's a good source of links and references.

 

[TrueSceptic]

That level of math is beyond me, but I can usually get the drift. Partial differential equations is about where my maths education stopped. I never studied statistics so I'm not at all good with that. The best book on statistics I've ever read is How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, so I'm not completetely disarmed.

Once you get into complex dynamic systems, such as fluids, the maths is inherently difficult. You need computers for even the simpler equations or it just takes too long, even for one point (or cell) in space at one point in time, with one set of initial conditions. You can see how the computations would increase exponentially when you introduce multiples of those. (I did this stuff over 35 years ago so I can remember only the basics.)

I think a good grounding in thermodynamics is key to understanding climate. It's all about how energy flows through a system so as to maximise (within the system's constraints) the rate at which entropy is increased. When you look at it that way everything slips into place .

That would be a good start. Fluid dynamics is at least as important.

Do you know RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ ? That's a good source of links and references.

I agree.

Note: that site pretty much represents 'The Team', as Steve McIntyre refers to it, so anyone referencing it can expect attacks from the GWS crowd.

 

[CapelDodger]

Another CD claim out of the blue: AGW accounts for the urban heat island effect. Evidence?

Do what now?

You stated that ozone isn't warming the cities its generated in. Which implies that there's no extra warming in cities, ergo no warming bias introduced by the Urban Heat Island effect. Unless you think there's some cast-iron way of separating the two effects and the ozone contribution is nil.

Directed science: studies incorporating a known bias performed to confirm a conclusion rather than test an hypothesis.

What is this known bias, who knows about it, and how do they know? As one who's clearly in the know you could enlighten us.

So much to learn; so little time, huh? Know you not of any falsified studies? How did your cave get internet service?

To repeat myself, science has never prospered when it's been directed. The Nazis rejected "Jewish science", the Soviets under Stalin rejected genetics, the Catholic nations rejected free thought in general. Check out how things worked out for them.

Climate science, on the other hand, is prospering. There's no sign of the dead hand of conformity holding it back. More and more scientists and institutions around the world are getting involved, more and more funds are available, more and more attention is attracted to it.

Your imaginary view of science is showing again. Science is NOT observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat. That's what I call the iterative stochastic approach and it's not science. It might be where you live but not here on Earth. Science is hypothesize, devise a test, test, judge results.

How does that differ from my cycle?

OK, I start with observe, because observation precedes any hypothesis. The hypothesis (if it's useful) leads to a prediction of something as yet unobserved. Then it's back to observation, to see whether what's predicted is actually what's observed. That may require an experiment, or it may require looking for a phaenomenon that has not yet been directly observed or measured.

Observe, hypothesize, predict (devise a test), observe (test). The hypothesis is judged on subsequent observations.

It's not science if the test cannot falsify the hypothesis. Your approach is called research/hypothesis formation and it's only a small part of science.

AGW theory can be falsified quite easily. Global cooling would do it, absent other obvious influences such as major vulcanism or asteroid strike. We've had global warming, but if AGW theory is wrong it could as easily have been global cooling. Perhaps it has coincided with some other forcing, but that strikes me as extremely unlikely. One decade, maybe; two decades, it's a bit of a stretch; three decades and it's good enough for me.

Again, you use the mystic science label. Can you explain to me yet, if all the science needed to model climate is known, why hasn't it been successfully modeled in over one hundred years of trying?

For most of that time there were no computers, which was something of a handicap, but Hadley Cells were modelled on paper back in the 18thCE. Respect to Hadley, and to Coriolis, and, of course, to Arrhenius and Milankovich. Among others.

Sticking to the era of active modelling, Hansen et al 1988 has done a pretty good job, and you're in no position to say that recent models aren't accurate. The data's not in yet.

The science involved is fairly simple, but the application is a bitch. A thin film of fluids on a rotaing sphere orbiting a fixed energy source that's not quite normal to the axis of rotation. And that's without bringing geography into it. Modelling the broad picture counts as a success in the circumstances

After that, you can back up your claim that past climate can be post-dicted with the simple physics you know.

What non-simple physics are you suggesting? Dark matter? Dark energy? Dark climate-specific-stuf? There's been no call for it so far.

How about your claim that a model is not a hypothesis? What fun, living in a make-believe world!

Let us know how that works out for you in the long-run.

A model is not a hypothesis. It's a representation of a hypothesis, a test of a hypothesis, if you will. Models are tools, just as telescopes and microscopes are tools.

 

[Pipirr]

{snip}A thin film of fluids on a rotaing sphere orbiting a fixed energy source that's not quite normal to the axis of rotation. And that's without bringing geography into it.

Speaking of thin films of fluids on spheres, I like this visual. Worth a look.
http://blog.phiffer.org/post/27344630

No claim to accuracy made.

 

[Slimething]

I would wonder what a great number of scientists are doing in the world these days. They are working with many areas where it is impossible to 'falsify' their research. String theory and astronomy and other areas of research come to mind. Not everyone has the luxury of a laboratory.

If it's impossible to falsify research then it's not even at the hypothesis level yet. To have a hypothesis that will eventually be accepted as a theory, it must be falsifiable. No mention of labs, cyclotrons, etc need enter into this discussion.

Why is it that perfectly rational and intelligent people want to give the AGW hypothesis a pass on this part of the scientific method? Is it fear that waiting too long will doom us? Maybe so, but the scientific method got us this far and I say let's stay with the thing that got us here. I'm very skeptical that the scaremongers using AGW for their agenda are correct anyway.

 

[Slimething]

Prove is too strong a word. There's lots of things that are widely accepted but can't be proven.

Did my wording offend you, varwoche? I so humbly apologize. Could you, pretty please, sir, point to a falsifiable link between the mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and Earth's heat content? When you get a chance, that is. Don't break a sweat!

And since you dismiss scientific evidence out of hand without even reading it, and since you scare-quote "climate science" as if it's not real science, I see no point in jumping through hoops on your behalf. Sorry 'bout that.

I've dismissed the claims of one of your links on exactly the point I challenged you on. I read the summaries of the others and noted that they too appear to suffer from the same flaw. That flaw is presupposing that carbon dioxide is indeed a major temperature driver. So, yes, I will disbelieve any statement using that assumption for now. I will not dismiss the raw data those studies turned up without a good reason, though, as raw data is different from interpretation.

You don't surprise me or disappoint me by refusing to meet my challenge, varwoche. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Once you get into complex dynamic systems, such as fluids, the maths is inherently difficult.

It's practically impossible is on the small scale, but on the large scale (and climate is pretty large) the chaos fades away. The fluid dynamics of a wave breaking is still uncertain (or was last I heard), but an experienced surfer can pick out a pattern in very short order.

You need computers for even the simpler equations or it just takes too long, even for one point (or cell) in space at one point in time, with one set of initial conditions. You can see how the computations would increase exponentially when you introduce multiples of those. (I did this stuff over 35 years ago so I can remember only the basics.)

Even with today's resources models operate on atmospheric cells that are a hundred or more kilometres across and a kilometre deep. A lot of fine detail is going to be lost in there. To my mind the most important lost detail is clouds, which exist generally on a much smaller scale. Cloud-effect has to be averaged across the cell, and that's a definite weakness.

That would be a good start. Fluid dynamics is at least as important.

It's certainly important. On the other hand, thermodynamics does inform fluid dynamics, and so takes precedence IMO. (I was proselytised by a thermo-dynamicist at an impressionable age. Given any new subject I always start from that perspective. "It's the entropy, stoopid".)

Interestingly, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are both strongly grounded in the 19thCE. This is old, well-established science. And well-resourced at the time, since they pertain so strongly to steam-based technology (the cutting-edge of the day).

 

[Slimething]

You stated that ozone isn't warming the cities its generated in. Which implies that there's no extra warming in cities, ergo no warming bias introduced by the Urban Heat Island effect. Unless you think there's some cast-iron way of separating the two effects and the ozone contribution is nil.

It's too precious how, when it suits you, you verbalize the problem with establishing AGW (resolution of the natural and anthropogenic effects) yet, usually, you dismiss the natural component to bolster your belief in AGW. Well done.

Climate science, on the other hand, is prospering. There's no sign of the dead hand of conformity holding it back. More and more scientists and institutions around the world are getting involved, more and more funds are available, more and more attention is attracted to it.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you making that claim that, because it's popular and well-funded, some climatologists won't succumb to tempation for fame, honor and wealth? Let me know how that goes, will you? Those are usually the ingredients needed for corruption.

OK, I start with observe, because observation precedes any hypothesis. The hypothesis (if it's useful) leads to a prediction of something as yet unobserved. Then it's back to observation, to see whether what's predicted is actually what's observed. That may require an experiment, or it may require looking for a phaenomenon that has not yet been directly observed or measured.

Observe, hypothesize, predict (devise a test), observe (test). The hypothesis is judged on subsequent observations.

Is English not your first language? Since when does observe mean test? You really need to review your science. You've got it upside down, inside out and backwards. I don't fall for that stuff. I don't care what you mean if what you say is diametrically opposed to it. Why do you rely on hand-waving when understanding the scientific method is so damned easy?

AGW theory can be falsified quite easily. Global cooling would do it, absent other obvious influences such as major vulcanism or asteroid strike. We've had global warming, but if AGW theory is wrong it could as easily have been global cooling. Perhaps it has coincided with some other forcing, but that strikes me as extremely unlikely. One decade, maybe; two decades, it's a bit of a stretch; three decades and it's good enough for me.

You've amazed me again. First you call it the AGW theory. Just couldn't resist, huh? Sorry, bub, it's a hypothesis, if anything, and I'm being generous. As it can't be falsified yet, it's not even that. Strictly, it's more of a thought experiment that will someday lead to a hypothesis.

I've taken you to task previously for the statement that a cooling world would falsify the AGW hypotheses. That is not true and you only say it because you don't know much about thermodynamics. The AGW hypotheses are proposed mechanisms which try to describe how human activity has influenced the planet's climate. Not only are these hypotheses not yet falsifiable as to their intrinsic correctness, there is no indication as to how efficacious each proposed mechanism will be. That is, AGW gases may indeed warm the earth but a stronger climatic mechanism could cause cooling while AGW is occuring. That is, AGW may indeed be active even when the planet is cooling. Remember my tellng you about not making your k's? There is nothing to rule out that k[climatic factor n] >> k [AGW].

The science involved is fairly simple, but the application is a bitch. A thin film of fluids on a rotaing sphere orbiting a fixed energy source that's not quite normal to the axis of rotation. And that's without bringing geography into it. Modelling the broad picture counts as a success in the circumstances

I know what's simple here and it's neither the science nor its application. I am telling now that your belief that all the necessary science that needs to be known to understand climate is already known is absolute nonsense. That's a permutation of "the science is settled" gaffe. I would tell you right now that, given the time, money and power that has been pooled into trying to model climate without success, your premise that all we need to know is known gets less and less likely every day. Whereas we have the mathematics to deconvolute tremendously complex matrices of intertwined signals, you keep retreating into the tired argument that "we have to wait just a little longer" while some other fool is telling me that "there's no time to wait".

A model is not a hypothesis. It's a representation of a hypothesis, a test of a hypothesis, if you will. Models are tools, just as telescopes and microscopes are tools.

Computers are tools. Models are hypotheses. Some models are even theories. Every physics equation you ever saw in your life is a model. For some reason, you've convinced yourself that models only belong in computers or catwalks. T'aint so.

Really, you need to go back to remedial science class. Nothing you say makes sense. If you want to believe in unfalsifiable stuff, fine. No one's going to object. Just don't try to blame science for it.

 

[Pipirr]

On falsifying the AGW hypothesis. M. Tobis, a climate modeller had this to say:

R. Pielke Jr. asks at what point the theory on which we operate might be falsified. I have to say I have a hard time answering. If this means falsifying the theory of the greenhouse effect, it's baffling. The question is sort of like what it would take to abandon the idea of gravity. It is pretty much incomprehensible to me how the theory of radiative transfer might be falsified without taking the whole of science down with it.

While Lucia, well, I think she is an engineer, had a different take on it.

“What trend in GISS Land/Ocean temperatures over the next 5, 8 or 10 years, would be inconsistent with the most recent IPCC projections of climate change?”

This question can be answered, because it nails down a metric– GISS Land/Ocean, and specifies the “current consensus” with projections that are published, and, so, knowable. The answer is a bit complicated, since the IPCC provided a range of projections, described the probabilities in somewhat vague terms and has different projections for both short and long terms trends.

In my opinion, the short answer to the question is: If, the weather is such that an ordinary least squares fit to GISS Land/Ocean data for the next decade shows any negative trend, this would be inconsistent with the IPCC’s short term projection for temperature which appears to be 2.0°C per century.

You can read about it at the links below.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/200...sify-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/can-ipcc-projections-be-falsified-sample-calculation/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/yet-more-on-falsification/

I like Lucia's approach, in as much as she defines a metric to use and it would be obvious if temperature increases meet the demands of the hypothesis or not. Its clear and straightforward.

There is clearly a difference between the two viewpoints. For a climate modeller, when expressed in very elementary terms, the AGW hypothesis may simply be a question of radiative transfer. Increasing the CO2 content is expected to lead to warming, so for a climate modeller, this aspect is fundamental to the work that they do. The rate of warming is what is in question: given a doubling of CO2, what will happen? Falsifying AGW requires falsifying some basic physics. Lucia defined her falsification criteria differently. Her test is applied to the model outputs, the predictions the modellers make of 'what will happen'.

In really simple terms, and I do like things simple, AGW would be falsified for me if CO2 doubled and nothing happened. Or, what are we up to now, increased by a third and nothing happened. I suspect that for that to be true, some physics that I admittedly don't well understand will need to be either just plain wrong or to have been wrongly applied for a heck of a long time; or some unknown mechanism will minimise the effects of the CO2 increase.

In that sense, falsification of AGW seems quite straightforward to me. Nothing needs to happen. But I think we often talk at cross purposes. What is implicit to a climatologist is not implicit or obvious to an engineer or, e.g. a JREF forumite. Slimething, you aren't the only one out there wondering about falsification. Its an important question.


*Both Tobis and Lucia were responding to this post.

 

[a_unique_person]

If it's impossible to falsify research then it's not even at the hypothesis level yet. To have a hypothesis that will eventually be accepted as a theory, it must be falsifiable. No mention of labs, cyclotrons, etc need enter into this discussion.

Why is it that perfectly rational and intelligent people want to give the AGW hypothesis a pass on this part of the scientific method? Is it fear that waiting too long will doom us? Maybe so, but the scientific method got us this far and I say let's stay with the thing that got us here. I'm very skeptical that the scaremongers using AGW for their agenda are correct anyway.

It's all a part of science. Scientists are working hard at creating a string theory, I don't know what else you'd call them, or what else they are doing.

 

[CapelDodger]

I like Lucia's approach, in as much as she defines a metric to use and it would be obvious if temperature increases meet the demands of the hypothesis or not. Its clear and straightforward.

And demonstrates some balls. I too like that approach.

What struck me was this from Pielke Jr :

"What behavior of the climate system could hypothetically be observed over the next 1, 5, 10 years that would be inconsistent with the current consensus on climate change?".

So there is a current consensus, and we've the word of a Pielke to back it up with. Cool.

(That "1, 5, 10 years" is the antithesis of "ballsy". What a wimp.)

 

[zeusbheld]

That level of math is beyond me, but I can usually get the drift. Partial differential equations is about where my maths education stopped. I never studied statistics so I'm not at all good with that. The best book on statistics I've ever read is How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, so I'm not completetely disarmed.

3 semesters of calc is as far as i got. and that was a looooooooong time ago.

quite familiar with the Huff book and the principles contained therein. used to do graphics in an investment bank, and boy did those people use every trick in the book!

I think a good grounding in thermodynamics is key to understanding climate. It's all about how energy flows through a system so as to maximise (within the system's constraints) the rate at which entropy is increased. When you look at it that way everything slips into place .

understanding the basics gives you a grounding in the basic processes, but reading the actual papers still involves math all over the place and gives me a ****in' headache.

Do you know RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/ ? That's a good source of links and references.

yeah, i have ample blog resources on the 'yes AGW' side. still keenly interested in links to any papers though. the IPCC report is de facto a policy recommendation, what i'm interested in is scientific papers attempting to establish the A in AGW.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

 

[TrueSceptic]

yeah, i have ample blog resources on the 'yes AGW' side. still keenly interested in links to any papers though. the IPCC report is de facto a policy recommendation, what i'm interested in is scientific papers attempting to establish the A in AGW.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

IMO the only sceptic sites worth bothering with are Climate Audit (McIntyre) and
Prometheus (Pielke).

They put the work in, even if I disagree with them!

 

[a_unique_person]

IMO the only sceptic sites worth bothering with are Climate Audit (McIntyre) and
Prometheus (Pielke).

They put the work in, even if I disagree with them!

I notice that Steve McIntyre has given up his frenetic attempts to understand the whole physical basis of global warming, and is now just back to attacking the temperature record. Good move, I think he was cracking up.

 

[mhaze]

On falsifying the AGW hypothesis. M. Tobis, a climate modeller had this to say: While Lucia, well, I think she is an engineer, had a different take on it. You can read about it at the links below.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/200...sify-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/can-ipcc-projections-be-falsified-sample-calculation/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/yet-more-on-falsification/

I like Lucia's approach, in as much as she defines a metric to use and it would be obvious if temperature increases meet the demands of the hypothesis or not. Its clear and straightforward.

There is clearly a difference between the two viewpoints. For a climate modeller, when expressed in very elementary terms, the AGW hypothesis may simply be a question of radiative transfer. Increasing the CO2 content is expected to lead to warming, so for a climate modeller, this aspect is fundamental to the work that they do. The rate of warming is what is in question: given a doubling of CO2, what will happen? Falsifying AGW requires falsifying some basic physics. Lucia defined her falsification criteria differently. Her test is applied to the model outputs, the predictions the modellers make of 'what will happen'.

In really simple terms, and I do like things simple, AGW would be falsified for me if CO2 doubled and nothing happened. Or, what are we up to now, increased by a third and nothing happened. I suspect that for that to be true, some physics that I admittedly don't well understand will need to be either just plain wrong or to have been wrongly applied for a heck of a long time; or some unknown mechanism will minimise the effects of the CO2 increase.

In that sense, falsification of AGW seems quite straightforward to me. Nothing needs to happen. But I think we often talk at cross purposes. What is implicit to a climatologist is not implicit or obvious to an engineer or, e.g. a JREF forumite. Slimething, you aren't the only one out there wondering about falsification. Its an important question.

*Both Tobis and Lucia were responding to this post.

From the third of your links -

Now, as it happens, I don’t like to use already collected before a prediction to test a prediction. I don’t like that the IPCC does that. But, oddly enough, the IPCC seems to do this all the time, and includes already existing data in their predictions. So….

1. if you think calling the IPCC’s “2001-2010″ predictions, made in 2007 ‘predictions’ even including the eariler data is fair, and
2. if the IPCC would normally use this 2001-2007 data to “confirm” their “prediction”, made in 2007
3. then, it is, in some sense, fair to falsify their “predictions”, based on the same data the IPCC would use to confirm their predictions.

As you can see, the current Hadley trend is flat, flat, falt.
So yes, if the flat trend in Hadley data persists to the end of 2010, that would be inconsistent with projections of the predicted 2.0C/century trend. Only lower rates of increase would be consistent with the actual weather to a 95% confidence level.

Support for David Rodale's assertion that in the last decade, it has not been warming.

 

[mhaze]

You claim alarmism...? ... and yet you didn't even follow the links. Pure mhaze. The 'I didn't even read it yet I've reached a conclusion' syndrome appears to be spreading.

You've posted links to articles that can't be retrieved without payout $, knowing that people would not pay the $ out. Your summaries of the articles content may or may not reflect the actual scientific conclusions.

Consider, for a moment, how often I've posted an article that clearly cut into the AGW-warming point of view, and how it got picked at based on nuances of grammer or the politically correct AGW disclamer contained therein. The ability of persons such as yourself to produce such (weak) criticisms was based on my providing articles for which the full pdf was available without charge.

If you cannot (or will not) do the same, don't expect your spin or the spin of others regarding the actual conclusions of the scientists writing the articles to be considered as fact.

On the contrary - expect your posted links to be disregarded!