Falsifiable Climate Predictions?

DogB said:
The TIMED data is showing significant solar variablity input into this. Should interesting to watch now that cycle 24 is ramping up.

ETA: Sorry, linky here.
Click to expand...

Though the homosphere contains the stratosphere, the mesosphere, and the thermosphere, they are not all the same thing. The NASA report specifies the later two and the earlier mentioned prediction specified the initial. As an example of the ranges we (and NASA) are talking about: the shuttle typically orbits in the mid-thermosphere, meteors typically become visible and burn up in the mesosphere, the stratosphere is a very calm, rarified region, cool at the bottom and warmer higher up, commercial airliners tend to fly in the lower layers of the stratosphere.
 
mhaze said:
We're just talking about falsifiable hypotheses. Theories or competing theories don't have much to do with that.

I can't follow your argument there. Don't know what you are referring to.

Oops, that's a good one.

One falsifiable hypothesis is that stratospheric cooling can only result from an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between saying that stratospherice cooling and enhanced troposheric warming are a condition of CO2 amplification (which is what the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer tell us), and saying that stratospheric cooling can only result from an enhanced greenhouse effect (which is apparently a strawman of mhaze construction).
 
mhaze, are you sure you understand what a falsifiable prediction is?
 
TShaitanaku said:
There is a big difference between saying that stratospherice cooling and enhanced troposheric warming are a condition of CO2 amplification (which is what the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer tell us), and saying that stratospheric cooling can only result from an enhanced greenhouse effect (which is apparently a strawman of mhaze construction).
Click to expand...
Oh, did I make it up or take it from one of Lomiller's group? Gee, I took it from his, so I didn't make it up.

But yes, you note the difference. So therefore, I would think you'd see the merit in phrasing the issue as a falsifiable prediction.

The circular logic isn't mine.
 
mhaze said:
Oh, did I make it up or take it from one of Lomiller's group? Gee, I took it from his, so I didn't make it up.
Click to expand...

Nobody's going to take your word for anything, so a link is required. What you might choose to think you understand from a lomiller (lomiller has a group now?) post is anybody's guess.

But yes, you note the difference. So therefore, I would think you'd see the merit in phrasing the issue as a falsifiable prediction.
Click to expand...

Does it merit you phrasing it a falsifiable prediction which you think is made by AGW?

The circular logic isn't mine.
Click to expand...

Your version of logic is unique, which excludes the circular. So this time you're right.
 
As a falsifiable prediction: how about a prediction of what measurements NASA's Deep Space Climate Observatory would reveal (if it were ever launched)?
 
Suggested reading for falsifiable...black swan.

That said, Popperian nonsense should be stuffed and mounted as an extinct species...

We could do without this junk cluttering the landscape...

Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and of the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Give me a boots on ground intelligent science trained observer like Darwin any day over the "mystics" of semantic juggling. :garfield:
 
mhaze said:
Oh, did I make it up or take it from one of Lomiller's group? Gee, I took it from his, so I didn't make it up.

But yes, you note the difference. So therefore, I would think you'd see the merit in phrasing the issue as a falsifiable prediction.

The circular logic isn't mine.
Click to expand...

LoMiller said that stratospheric cooling was a prediction of the current understandings with regards to CO2 forced warming, he did not say that the only way to produce stratospheric cooling is through CO2 forced warming.
In actuality, I'm not sure that this is true throughout the entire process, as opposed to being a clear indicator from the GCM models during the early phases of CO2 warming.

Regardless, your statement is incorrect in its absolutist conditioning of the circumstance. Your rewording makes the statement more incorrect, not more correct, with regards to determining whether or not the prediction is falsifiable.
 
TShaitanaku said:
LoMiller said that stratospheric cooling was a prediction of the current understandings with regards to CO2 forced warming, he did not say that the only way to produce stratospheric cooling is through CO2 forced warming.
In actuality, I'm not sure that this is true throughout the entire process, as opposed to being a clear indicator from the GCM models during the early phases of CO2 warming. ....
Click to expand...
I agree, and I stated that he said that (although with a group of other "predictions"). Those other predictions I tossed out, as a consequence of general planetary warming and not part of any "CO2 hypothesis". Also, note that you don't falsify a hypothesis with a computer model...

TShaitanaku said:
....Regardless, your statement is incorrect in its absolutist conditioning of the circumstance. Your rewording makes the statement more incorrect, not more correct, with regards to determining whether or not the prediction is falsifiable.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that, but you are welcome to fashion your own falsifiable hypothesis as best you can to state what you think is correct premises, hypothesis, and tests qualifying for falsification, instead of criticizing mine.:)
 
mhaze said:
I agree, and I stated that he said that (although with a group of other "predictions"). Those other predictions I tossed out, as a consequence of general planetary warming and not part of any "CO2 hypothesis". Also, note that you don't falsify a hypothesis with a computer model...
Click to expand...

No, you falsify them with evidences that contradict the elements the theories predict, something your postings are remarkable for, only in that they never seem to contain any verifiable and empiric evidences that contradict such predictions.

I'm not so sure about that, but you are welcome to fashion your own falsifiable hypothesis as best you can to state what you think is correct premises, hypothesis, and tests qualifying for falsification, instead of criticizing mine.:)
Click to expand...

Falsifying your own strawmen can become a cumpulsive behavior,...just a word to the wise.
 
TShaitanaku said:
No, you falsify them with evidences that contradict the elements the theories predict.....

Falsifying your own strawmen can become a cumpulsive behavior,...just a word to the wise.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. And here's my word to the wise.

Falsifiable hypotheses regarding AGW imply that AGW can be falsified, thus one mark of a jittery, rabid, glazed eye Warmer is the inability to entertain the actual subject of falsifiable hypotheses on AGW. Just criticizing presented plausible falsifiable hypotheses is much safer ground.

Don't fall into that trap.:D
 
mhaze said:
I have no problem with that. And here's my word to the wise.

Falsifiable hypotheses regarding AGW imply that AGW can be falsified, thus one mark of a jittery, rabid, glazed eye Warmer is the inability to entertain the actual subject of falsifiable hypotheses on AGW. Just criticizing presented plausible falsifiable hypotheses is much safer ground.

Don't fall into that trap.:D
Click to expand...

See, I tried to warn you about the compulsive nature of such behavior!
 
lomiller said:
Warming trend of ~0.2 deg/decade
Click to expand...

Well, warming in the last 100 years has been about half that.

In the last 50 years, just about half that.

In the last 25 years, just about equal to that.

In the last 10 years, less than half that.
 
Wangler said:
In the last 50 years, just about half that.
Click to expand...

Somewhat more then half (~0.7 deg in the last 50 years), though lower then 0.2 deg since there was less CO2.

Wangler said:
In the last 10 years, less than half that.
Click to expand...

Insufficient data to properly characterize a trend but 0.2 deg/dec is within the error bars of the observed trend in the last 10 years.
 
Wangler said:
Well, warming in the last 100 years has been about half that.

In the last 50 years, just about half that.

In the last 25 years, just about equal to that.

In the last 10 years, less than half that.
Click to expand...
Okay, here's our straight and narrow falsifiable hypothesis Warmer style:

AGW will cause warming about equal to:

  • 0.2C per decade
  • 0.1C averaged over a century
  • 0.2C if we pick the right 25 year space
  • 0.1C or less in other decade
Now falsify that.

I double dare you.

See....you jest have to beeeeLIEVE!!!!

TShaitanaku said:
See, I tried to warn you about the compulsive nature of such behavior!
Click to expand...
That you did. But why use one word when six will do nicely?
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Insufficient data to properly characterize a trend but 0.2 deg/dec is within the error bars of the observed trend in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

This decade 'warmest on record'

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale.
Click to expand...
 
Megalodon said:
Been saying that since early 2008...

Click to expand...

What have you been saying? Let's see...we can state what you've been saying as a falsifiable hypothesis.

Here it is.

"By charting decades of temperature from suspect sources, and not detrending for solar cycle and for oceanic PDO and other known cyclic phenomena on temperature, I can puff out a graph using highly autocorrelated data that makes it look like it is progressively warming each decade."

Pixel42 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

Quote:
This decade 'warmest on record'

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale.
Click to expand...
The Lying Liars of ClimateGate shall you quote?

Hmmm.....

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom