David Evans falls off the Global Warming Woo Wagon too!

[JoeEllison]

I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?

Why do you make that claim?

 

[MattusMaximus]

That should definitely be clarified.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer...

... but I'll ask anyway: Mhaze, is the title of this thread "fact" or "satire" in your opinion?

 

[gdnp]

Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

I use this argument in discussions about the existence of God. Because the characteristics of (the Christian) God are defined such that no experiment could disprove his existence, I see God theory as non-falsifiable. Attempts to prove his existence through, for example, demonstrating the power of intercessionary prayer have failed, but this does not prove (to the believers) non-existence, since they can always argue that God only answers the prayers he wants to, and we can't know his mind. No possible experiment--no conceivable experiment--could disprove the existence of God to a believer.

What about science? Is AGW warming non-falsifiable because we can't produce a duplicate earth to use as a control? Does that mean we are reduced to guessing, flipping a coin, as to whether global warming is a tempest in a teapot or the greatest threat to the environment this side of an asteroid impact?

AGW theory is fundamentally different than God theory. Even though the "slam dunk" experiment cannot be performed, it can be conceived, and it can be modeled. And the results, unlike debates about the existence of God, hold real consequences.

Do we hold other science to this level of verification? Was the effect of CFCs on atmospheric ozone proven before production was curtailed, for example?

Is there a simple, falsifiable experiment that can prove evolution theory? I don't see one. It just happens to be the theory that best explains biodiversity, the fossil record, DNA homologies between similar organisms, etc.

So whats the deal? If:

1) average global temperatures are rising
2) atmospheric CO2 is rising
3) increased CO2 is secondary to burning of fossil fuels
4) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the laboratory

why is it unscientific to put 1+2+3+4 together and get "AGW" as a plausible answer? If the upward trend in global temperature reverses while CO2 continues to rise, the theory will be invalidated. For those who claim AGW theory is non-falsifiable, what would you propose we do? Fiddle even though Rome may be burning?

 

[SezMe]

I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?

I have not doubt that you do. More's the pity.

 

[casebro]

J.E., and Sez Me, that was a question, not a claim, from me.

At least gdnp is discussing my question.

I propose a different non-falsifiable theory: I call it Global Unidentified Flying Object Warming (GUFOW). It looks to me that UFO emissions are the true cause of AGW. While we don't know the exact mechanism, UFO sightings have gone up since the short cooling trend at WWII. MY guess is , since some giant amount of cheap energy is available to them for interstellar travel, they are probably wasting it within our atmosphere. This is causing the direct heating of our globe. And ice core samples do show that a raise in temperatures is followed by a rise in CO2 levels. If only I could do some computer models, I could 'prove' it. Maybe Dave Evans could help me out here?

I wonder why IDers don't do some Computer Models of theology?

 

[Pipirr]

Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes:

AGW is not an organizing principle of climate theory at all.

Hypotheses, organizing principles, of this sort emerge from the fabric of a science as a consequence of a search for unifying principles. The organizing principles of climatology come from various threads, but I'd mention the oceanographic sysyntheses of Sverdrup and Stommel, the atmospheric syntheses of Charney and Lorenz, paleoclimatological studies from ice and mud core field work, observational work by Wigley and Jones, and computational work starting with no less than Johnny von Neumann.

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

So attacks on climate change as if it were a "theory" make very little sense. Greenhouse gas accumulation is a fact. Radiative properties of greenhouse gases are factual. The climate is not going to stay the same. It can't stay the same. Staying the same would violate physics; specifically it would violate the law of energy conservation. Something has to change.

If you want to convince me that the sensitivity is less than 2 or more than 4, you will have to provide quite a good deal of evidence, but I don;t think this is what the denialists have in mind when they ask me what would "falsify the hypothesis". In fact, though, they haven't defined their terms. If the sensititivity is less than 1, is the supposed hypothesis falsified? What if it is more than 6? If the onset time is a hundred years rather than ten?

It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Apparently its obvious to some people that AGW isn't falsifiable. But what precisely about it is not?

 

[a_unique_person]

I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes:



It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Apparently its obvious to some people that AGW isn't falsifiable. But what precisely about it is not?

It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.

 

[mhaze]

It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

This contribution from Pipirr I find to be a quote from the first link from google <-- "Is AGW falsifiable". Many others links follow which present the skeptical argument that "AGW is not falsifiable". If Pipirr has "yet to see a skeptic present the argument" as he indicates, it is because he stopped reading at the first linky.

(Pipirr's link to Michael Tobias is an easy target for smears and invective, lack of peer reviewed publications, etc., but it is warmers who use these tactics then present someone like Tobias as authoritative. Let's just say that someone who has at the top of their website a reverent Gorean quote string....). So Pipirr, I encourage you to traverse the string of links in the first page or so of the google search, and report back with a clear exposition of what skeptics consider "AGW is not falsifiable", instead of exhibiting your confirmation bias so readily.

Leaving that aside completely, Tobias being an artist and worthy of respect in his own right, as is David Evans for obvious reasons, and looking at the substantive argument:

Many studies show the impact of solar to account for 30,50 or 69% of 20th century warming. Other studies show that 20th century warming can be entirely or mostly accounted for by natural climate cycles. Yet other studies and or IPCC claims that all of 20th century warming is due to AGW.

Obviously, natural climate cycles, solar effects, and some CO2 warming effect exist, the question is in what relative ratios and importance, and by what evidence the conclusion is derived.

Is it necessary to invoke AGW to explain the 0.7C warming of the 20th century? No. Solar+natural cycles can easily explain all 20th century warming. No AGW explanation is required nor is it sufficient.

Is it likely or possible there is some effect from CO2? The skeptical community views the effect of CO2 as between roughly to 0.0-0.4C of the 0.7C 20th century warming effect being due to CO2.

Warmology pseudoscience holds that 100% of 20th century warming is due to CO2. Obviously, there is and will continue to be a disagreements.

 

[gdnp]

I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes:

It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Thanks. This states far more explicitly what I thought was likely the case. Climate theory is like a strong fabric made up of many individual threads. The breaking of a single thread is unlikely to make the entire cloth unwind, but if enough threads go bad we will have to replace it with a new theory.

Which still leaves the question: theory or no, falsifiable or no, AGW is either a serious threat or a tempest in a teapot or something in between. So what is our best course of action? Wait until evidence is incontrovertible, knowing that by that time irreversible catastrophic change may already be taking place?

 

[Pipirr]

This contribution from Pipirr I find to be a quote from the first link from google <-- "Is AGW falsifiable". Many others links follow which present the skeptical argument that "AGW is not falsifiable". If Pipirr has "yet to see a skeptic present the argument" as he indicates, it is because he stopped reading at the first linky.

I didn't use Google to find this link.

And I didn't say what you 'indicate' that I said with your use of quotations.

Do stop misquoting me.

 

[varwoche]

And I didn't say what you 'indicate' that I said with your use of quotations. Do stop misquoting me.

I've tried to explain to mhaze the complex concept of how quotation marks work ... to no avail.

 

[CapelDodger]

Remember, there are some non-random fluctuations as well. We probably hit the minimum in the current solar cycle in January. Since average global temperature fluctuates with the solar cycle, 2007 should have been a relatively cool year. Therefore, if the NASA data are correct and 2007 was the second hottest on record, then we should expect temperature increases to accelerate over the next 5-6 years as sunspot activity picks up.

2007 was slightly unusual in that it started with El Nino conditions and ended with La Nina conditions. (We currently have neutral, Es Nada conditions.) The next sustained El Nino will be one to watch.

If the solar cycle does have a noticeable climate signature, then clearly you're right about the next 5-6 years.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

It's just a sciency sound-bite. They'll still be chanting it when the ice-caps are lapping around their ankles (while claiming that AGW must be false because their feet are cold).

 

[gdnp]

If the solar cycle does have a noticeable climate signature, then clearly you're right about the next 5-6 years.

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.

 

[CapelDodger]

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.

There's a lot of noise to eliminate, and a lot of variation in the cycles. We don't have observations of very many cycles, and a major eruption or two can easily strike off a complete cycle, so the perils of accidental data-mining are acute. People have been trying to find a signature since the solar cycle was first recognised - 1830's, I think. The earliest attempts used grain-prices as a proxy for harvests as a proxy for climate, and why not?

There's always been a healthy contingent of sceptics eager to knock down any claims. And there's been a handful of enthusiasts who never gave up. All very healthy, really. I gather that particular arms-race had a noticeable impact on the early development of statistics. (I don't have figures on that, it's just something I read in a credible source .)

Just how robust the most recent work is I'm not able to judge. It certainly has much better data - we measure solar output directly now, not via a sunspot number proxy - but it's yet to stand the test of time. Which is to say, how robustly will it assimilate the next few cycles?

From my deep-time perspective (often mistaken for cynicism, which is an attribute of mine) I very much doubt it'll survive the slings and arrows.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've tried to explain to mhaze the complex concept of how quotation marks work ... to no avail.

Were I designing a Turing Test Candidate I would regard the ability to interpret and assimilate an explanation as a serious challenge. Which is, I think, how Turing saw it.

Doing cut-ups of the human side of the conversation, incorporating Google-access and blogs, defining a crude ideological slant on a specific subject ... No great challenges.

Just saying.

 

[CapelDodger]

I still have a lot to learn.

Only about detail, IMO. You clearly know how to think and to communicate, as do so many splendid people in these Forums.

 

[lomiller]

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.

Of course it’s falsifiable, but that’s not what you asked for. You asked for *proof*, but science isn’t in the business of proving things, that honor goes to mathematicians and philosophers who specialize in logic.

Science is about finding the best, most likely, most useful answer. To that end you are correct it must have predictive power, and must capable of being falsified. Some people however, will only accept actual falsification as “proof” something is falsifiable. Of course this is simply an excuse to dismiss the very large body of published science out of hand.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.

The Real Manhatten Project certainly exposed the broad-church nature of this particular cult. It's a rainbow-alliance. From the "it's not happening" through "it's not science" through to "the sensitivity is exaggerated". The saner voices are all being heard at the "sensitivity" end these days. Even Monckton's Embarrassment is about sensitivity.

(The Real Manhattan Project because it really happened in Manhattan, and it was really important. Simply everybody was there, even Viscount Munchkin. Not Steve McIntyre, of course; far too vulgar. Probably wears an off-the-rack suit .)

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course it’s falsifiable, but that’s not what you asked for. You asked for *proof*, but science isn’t in the business of proving things, that honor goes to mathematicians and philosophers who specialize in logic.

Science is about finding the best, most likely, most useful answer. To that end you are correct it must have predictive power, and must capable of being falsified. Some people however, will only accept actual falsification as “proof” something is falsifiable. Of course this is simply an excuse to dismiss the very large body of published science out of hand.

Did you perhaps hit the wrong "Quote" button?