Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[CapelDodger]

So the Mayan prophecy about the end of the world in 2012 has the same predictive value.

That's an ideosyncratic exegesis.

Anyway, do you think that AGW is falsiable :

a) Now
b) In 2010
c) Only in 2100 and beyond.

You've agreed to (c), haven't you? Falsifiable in principle, over your dead body.

If a or b, what are the falsiability claims? (just the ones appliable only to the anthropogenic part of AGW)

As for (a), it hasn't been falsified by events yet; as to (b), what would you regard as falsification in eighteen months time? What are you hoping for?

What about 2020? (Heaven forbid you don't last that long.) More to the point, when will you give up hoping that falsification is just around the corner? An ice-free Arctic Ocean? Would that be sufficient confirmation for you?

 

[CapelDodger]

Crack about high school science not withstanding. Surely the extent of this year’s ice is a direct result of the unusually large amount of thin first year ice, which is a result of the unusual 07 melt season.

An example of a system having memory, or inertia (unlike, for instance, one Alaskan summer). 2007 left a lot of open water where one-year ice was the only option available.

2007 wasn't just unusual it was abnormal. It took 20% off the previous record, two summers previously, which itself followed a few years of marked decline in summer ice-extent.

Like it or not the amount of ice trended upwards this year.

One year does not a trend make. People made the same mistake in 2006, and look what happened. Two successive records with a noisy signal is extrmemly unlikely; two in three years is very unlikely, but when the second is 20% less than the first something systemic is going on.

It's hardly proof that GW isn't occurring but to use it as proof that it is could be seen as being just a tiny bit disingenuous as well.

I don't think you've grasped the significance of the last few years' Arctic melt. It's far from normal. What it reveals is a great reduction in ice-volume.

Is it proof? It's proof enough for me. I'm not a professional scientist, I don't have to equivocate at the margins.

 

[varwoche]

If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media.

By all means, be the first to post some evidence in a more appropriate thread:

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science

 

[CapelDodger]

Does this professor of atmospheric science at MIT give us a reality check?

No. Reality imposes reality-checks.

He says..

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear ..."

He says that, but does he provide examples? This claim is often been made, but that's all it is withiout evidence, a claim that's been made.

... their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

Do you have evidence for the libel? Derisory work should be derided, and most contrarian scientists are ideologically-motivated ageing hacks who only have any prominence because of self-interested industrial promotion

... Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

"Lies about climate change", is that libel or what? Who does he accuse of lying?

How does AGW fly in the face of science? AGW is a prediction of science, and sho' nuff it has happened. Observation bears it out.

"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift."

The reason these papers are not published is that they're rubbish.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

If that sort of source is what you base reality on, you're screwed.

 

[lomiller]

Like it or not the amount of ice trended upwards this year.

Nope. Ice area was even with last year. Ice volume was probably lower then last year because ice was thinner this year. No one officially tracks ice volume, so probably is the best we are going to get only that one.

That little detail aside, it’s ridiculous to suggest that arctic sea ice isn’t declining simply because a new record low isn’t set every single year.

 

[a_unique_person]

That little detail aside, it’s ridiculous to suggest that arctic sea ice isn’t
declining simply because a new record low isn’t set every single year.

 

[DogB]

Nope. Ice area was even with last year. Ice volume was probably lower then last year because ice was thinner this year. No one officially tracks ice volume, so probably is the best we are going to get only that one.

My source says ice extent was greater by 77,000 square kilometers. I used this site.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Argue with them if you wish.

That little detail aside, it’s ridiculous to suggest that arctic sea ice isn’t declining simply because a new record low isn’t set every single year.

And that's exactly what I didn't do. Capels post above is correct. This system is noisy and we may be looking at noise. If it goes up next year it will still probably be noise. Three years in a row is less likely and five would probably be significant.

What we can say is that this is a single data point trending upwards. It could be the start of a long persistant upward trend in ice extent. You don't know that it isn't. That's what science is about. We follow the data.

If you ask me do I think the ice extent will fall again I'd have to say yes, it seems extremely likely but it's not certain. But that doesn't matter, that's conjecture, not data.

Regards.

P.

 

[mhaze]

... Capels post above is correct. This system is noisy and we may be looking at noise. If it goes up next year it will still probably be noise. Three years in a row is less likely and five would probably be significant.

What we can say is that this is a single data point trending upwards. It could be the start of a long persistant upward trend in ice extent. You don't know that it isn't. That's what science is about. We follow the data.

If you ask me do I think the ice extent will fall again I'd have to say yes, it seems extremely likely but it's not certain. But that doesn't matter, that's conjecture, not data.

Regards.

P.

Perhaps. More revealing might be the issue of whether ice is a leading or lagginq indicator of climate. Implications, obvious.

 

[lomiller]

My source says ice extent was greater by 77,000 square kilometers. I used this site.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Argue with them if you wish.

Why would I argue with them, they don’t contradict anything I said. They track ice extents, not ice area. This years ice was much more broken up then last year, so even though there wasn’t any more of it, it was more spread out.

And that's exactly what I didn't do. Capels post above is correct. This system is noisy and we may be looking at noise. If it goes up next year it will still probably be noise. Three years in a row is less likely and five would probably be significant.

The chance of a move being noise is inversely proportional to how big it is, and last years decline was very big indeed. It was also on top of other steep declines over the last decade.

 

[a_unique_person]

My source says ice extent was greater by 77,000 square kilometers. I used this site.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Argue with them if you wish.

No on is arguing with them, it's your interpretation of the information that is the problem.

And that's exactly what I didn't do. Capels post above is correct. This system is noisy and we may be looking at noise. If it goes up next year it will still probably be noise. Three years in a row is less likely and five would probably be significant.

What we can say is that this is a single data point trending upwards. It could be the start of a long persistant upward trend in ice extent. You don't know that it isn't. That's what science is about. We follow the data.

I don't know if you could ever say a single point is treding upwards. Trend is defined as

1. The general direction in which something tends to move.
2. A general tendency or inclination. See Synonyms at tendency.

One single point cannot be generalised.

 

[lomiller]

Perhaps. More revealing might be the issue of whether ice is a leading or lagginq indicator of climate. Implications, obvious.

Or perhaps you are simply presenting a false dichotomy. In a feedback loop something is both cause and effect and can therefore lead or lag depending on the specifics of the system and forcing.

 

[DogB]

No on is arguing with them, it's your interpretation of the information that is the problem.

I'm not explaining myself very well, am I?

My point is I'm not interpreting this information - CapelDodger was when he said this.

That was the result of a long-term process, as was the second-lowest ice-extent this year (despite rather different weather in Alaska).

I'm just saying that as a single data point its significance is limited.

It does go against a long term trend so it's significance must not be over stated. It's hardly evidence for a cooling artic. It would be stupid to claim it does.

But at the same time because it DOES go against the trend it can't be considered as support for the trend either.

That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

 

[DogB]

Perhaps. More revealing might be the issue of whether ice is a leading or lagginq indicator of climate. Implications, obvious.

Personally I think ice volume is a hugely complex issue and probably won't make a good indicator at all. Too subject to issues like precipitation and ocean currents. I mean what happens if the gulf stream shuts down?

 

[mhaze]

Personally I think ice volume is a hugely complex issue and probably won't make a good indicator at all. Too subject to issues like precipitation and ocean currents. I mean what happens if the gulf stream shuts down?

It won't.

Definitely good for a laugh though:

The Day After Tomorrow

 

[easycruise]

What is the right climate?

I'd say the sort of one we've enjoyed (on and off) for the last several hundred years. Adaptation is a pain in the butt, especially when we have to worry about entire populations getting displaced. If the current rate of warming carries on (which it almost certainly will), we'll be headed into uncharted territory which is probably best avoided if we can.

The current rate of warming is a seemingly measly increase of 1 degree F over the last 100 years. If this continues for another hundred years, I fail to see how dangerous this is and for everyone to get so apopletic over it. What am I missing about the danger of a two degree increase over 200 years?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Thanks for accept the fact that the AGW hypothesis isn't falsiable right now and that it won't be falsiable in about 90 more years. That's all I wanted you to accept,so we can abandon the concept that AGW is being confirmed for any weather event.
Now, for a or b please provide what I asked for, not rethoric FUD.

That's an ideosyncratic exegesis.



You've agreed to (c), haven't you? Falsifiable in principle, over your dead body.



As for (a), it hasn't been falsified by events yet; as to (b), what would you regard as falsification in eighteen months time? What are you hoping for?

What about 2020? (Heaven forbid you don't last that long.) More to the point, when will you give up hoping that falsification is just around the corner? An ice-free Arctic Ocean? Would that be sufficient confirmation for you?

 

[Pipirr]

So the Mayan prophecy about the end of the world in 2012 has the same predictive value. Anyway, do you think that AGW is falsiable :

a) Now
b) In 2010
c) Only in 2100 and beyond.

If a or b, what are the falsiability claims? (just the ones appliable only to the anthropogenic part of AGW)

a) Sure. Lucia is having a good go at doing just that. You probably know the address.
b) Yep. See above for examples.
c) No, not only in 2100, although yes, because the test that you proposed specified 2100.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Pipirr
yes I know the address: For now is http://rankexploits.com/musings/200...-tests-very-low-confidence-2ccentury-correct/
I have some problems with his metodology, specifically that she should not deal with the average of the models and that she has to use a higher CO2 rising estimate in her runs, but I think she will correct those flaws later this year.
Here we have the preliminar results

Results based AR(1)+White

The results for this analysis are summarized in the table below.
Hypothesis Test Results Based on AR(1)+White Noise Model.
Jan 2001-Aug. 2008 Observations.
p (m < m observed) Observed Trend (m) “Is the 2C/century consistent with data?” HadCrut3 2.49% -1.03 C/Century Inconsistent: 2 C/century Falsified GISS 4.18% -0.24 C/Century Very Low Confidence. NOAA 3.45% -0.12 C/Century Very Low Confidence Average of 3 2.55% -0.59 C/Century Very Low Confidence Terms: I have translated ‘p’ values for the hypothesis test into one of five standard terms. Four are taken from the IPCC usages.

I add the term “falsify” if the result of a particular analysis indicates we should reject it at p=95%, which corresponds to a diagnosis that a hypothesis has a 1 in 20 chance of being true. As you can see, if we use IPCC language, based on this statistical model we would conclude that we have “very low confidence” that the current trends are consistent with 2C/century + “weather noise”. However, we would not reject 2C/century at the 95% confidence intervals based on GISS, NOAA or the average of the three data sets. HadCrut3 is rejected at a 95% confidence level, i.e. this test says 2C/century is to be treated as false– or falsified.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I can't copy /paste her results table with formatting, so please look at http://rankexploits.com/musings/200...-tests-very-low-confidence-2ccentury-correct/ for the correctly formatted chart.

HadCrut3 2.49% -1.03 C/Century Inconsistent: 2 C/century Falsified GISS 4.18% -0.24 C/Century Very Low Confidence. NOAA 3.45% -0.12 C/Century Very Low Confidence Average of 3 2.55% -0.59 C/Century Very Low Confidence

 

[lomiller]

Thanks for accept the fact that the AGW hypothesis isn't falsiable right now and that it won't be falsiable in about 90 more years. That's all I wanted you to accept,so we can abandon the concept that AGW is being confirmed for any weather event.
Now, for a or b please provide what I asked for, not rethoric FUD.

You are confusing “isn’t falsifiable” with “hasn’t been falsified”.

AGW would have been falsified if temperatures had dropped by 0.4 deg since 1990 instead of increased by 0.4 deg. AWG would have been falsified if CO2 levels dropped to pre-industrial levels in 1990 but temperatures continued to rise. AGW would have been falsified if someone came up with a laboratory experiment that proved CO2 doesn’t act as a greenhouse gas.

None of these things happened, so AGW wasn’t falsified. It seems that the only way you would accept AGW as falsifiable is if it were actually falsified. Anything to avoid a little work right.