Stars In My Eyes

This quote from [url=http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000031&p=2]another thread[/url is worth posting here, especially since elwoodblue's point hasn't really been addressed:

If we accept this, then global warming theory (ie the theory of anthropogenic surface and atmospheric heating), to be regarded as a "proper" scientific theory, has to be falsifiable. If some argue no, it doesn't, then why not? What evidence would falsify GW? How could it be satisfactorily tested? If it couldn't be falsified or tested, would that failure make it "pseudo-science"? If it can't be falsified, how would we know if it's valid or not?

GW theory seems to "forbid", as Popper calls it, nothing as reported by the popular press. I keep reading how GW will cause more droughts AND floods, warmer AND cooler temperatures, drier AND wetter seasons etc. How can we tell this isn't just natural climatic variations like the Little Ice Age 1400-1800AD or the Medieval Warm Period 900-1300AD? Climate isn't stable.

The Earth has experienced larger temperature swings in shorter timeframes with lower CO2 levels naturally, according to various published analyses of proxy data derived from sea sediments, coral fossils, tree rings, ice cores etc. Greenland warmed 7 degrees C in a matter of decades at the end of the last Ice Age for example, compared to less than 1 degree C over the last 150 years, despite CO2 levels a third below today's. Again, how do we tell the difference this time?

If GW theory is "true", we should've already experienced more climatic extremes and accelerating sea level rise. Yet even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits no increase in weather extremes or acceleration in sea level rise throughout the 20th century has actually been recorded. Nevertheless, it produces dozens of computer models that "predict" this and that will happen, even though it can't explain why this and that hasn't happened so far.

According to GW theory, the poles should also experience the most warming as they are the most sensitive to CO2 concentration, since at certain sub-zero temperatures it traps IR radiation much more effectively than in warmer latitudes. Yet many peer-reviewed, published studies show Antarctica has cooled overall in the last 20 years, sea pack ice is slowly growing etc while Arctic temperatures are generally lower now than in the 1930s and suggest the region is most likely returning to an "equilibrium" or "normal" state after an lower-than-average cool phase 1940-1970 (though the question has to be asked "What is normal? For what timeframe?").

So to repeat, what would it take to falsify GW? Do all roads lead to GW? If there is some atmospheric warming, why isn't the growing body of evidence from various published studies showing a strong correlation between solar irradiance and magnetism and terrestrial temperatures being considered or reported more widely? Why is the base assumption "Humans must have something to do with it?"

Supporters of GW theory really have to question their basic assumptions. I hate to use the phrase "True Believers", but.....

elwoodblues

Thanks for the follow-up, Stars. I don't think my post was answered in any way, either. You hit the nail on the head; the theory just isn't falsifiable in any reasonable sense of the word. There are no attempts to test the theory, only to confirm it. Scientists seem to be SEEKING OUT confirming evidence instead of trying to disprove the theory, which is common scientific practice in EVERY OTHER FIELD. The fact that the theory itself lends itself handily to confirming evidence doesn't make this better; it makes it much worse.

Morat

Decreasing average global tempature would falsify it. Decreases in the thermal capacity of the atmosphere would falsify it.

You're mixing several concepts. One, that global climate is not static. Falsfying that would be to observe a static climate over a number of years.

Secondly, that given that the climate is not static, that the average global temperature is increasing. Also falsifiable. After all, measuring average global temperature isn't that difficult. If it falls, it's certainly not increasing, is it?

Third, that the current increase in global temperature is at least partly attributable to man. That's more difficult to falsify, as one must find natural sources that account for the entire increase. But quite possible.

The problem, Stars, is that you're looking for falsification criteria in the wrong places. Why not ask a climatologist?

You know, an expert in the field. What I see is you listing what you think you should see, and then showing scientists are showing it's not so.

Well good. We've so far proved that what you think should happen, isn't. Fine by me. Why not ask the experts what they expect to see and if that's happening?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Stars In My Eyes:
If we accept this, then global warming theory (ie the theory of anthropogenic surface and atmospheric heating), to be regarded as a "proper" scientific theory, has to be falsifiable. If some argue no, it doesn't, then why not? What evidence would falsify GW? How could it be satisfactorily tested? If it couldn't be falsified or tested, would that failure make it "pseudo-science"? If it can't be falsified, how would we know if it's valid or not?

The world mean temperature--if it goes up enough, it's true. If it goes down enough, it's false. In between, we need more data until the error bars of historical variation close in more.

GW theory seems to "forbid", as Popper calls it, nothing as reported by the popular press. I keep reading how GW will cause more droughts AND floods, warmer AND cooler temperatures, drier AND wetter seasons etc. How can we tell this isn't just natural climatic variations like the Little Ice Age 1400-1800AD or the Medieval Warm Period 900-1300AD? Climate isn't stable.

In general, GW should cause more extremes of weather in all directions. These aren't very useable as evidence, though--you need to look at the mean temperature. If it rises sufficiently in comparison to historical changes, it's proven.

The Earth has experienced larger temperature swings in shorter timeframes with lower CO2 levels naturally, according to various published analyses of proxy data derived from sea sediments, coral fossils, tree rings, ice cores etc. Greenland warmed 7 degrees C in a matter of decades at the end of the last Ice Age for example, compared to less than 1 degree C over the last 150 years, despite CO2 levels a third below today's. Again, how do we tell the difference this time?

Greenland is one thing. Look at the whole world--GW will warm everything, whereas localized effects like Greenland get damped.

Arrowman

An opinion piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald which might be of interest to this thread:

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/27/opinion/opinion5.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/27/opinion/opinion5.html</a>

PS does anyone here think the Kyoto Protocol will have any material effect on climate change?

Morat

Might slow down the damage, is all. *shrug*. Something is better than nothing, that's for sure.

Perhaps, at most, it might buy time for enough of the idiots in charge to grasp reality. And for the bright boys and girls in various R&D groups to come up with good answers.

However, it's interesting to note that yet another person has screwed up local climate with global climate.

So it was warmer in Greenland. Big whoop. Shifting a single ocean current could manage that. A world of difference between that and global mean temperature.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Morat ]</p>

elwoodblues

"Secondly, that given that the climate is not static, that the average global temperature is increasing. Also falsifiable. After all, measuring average global temperature isn't that difficult."

More difficult than you may think. But I'm not talking about mean global temperature. I'm talking about local variability theory.

See, if mean global temp goes up, say, .1 degrees, you can cry 'global warming'. Then, when someone asks you to point to the effects, you point to a bunch of wild weather patterns that occurred over that period. You're ALWAYS going to have wild weather patterns. It's a big place.

The only way to falsify the theory is to get down and dirty with a statistical analysis. That's very difficult. That's very abstract. That's very... boring. It's nowhere near as convincing as some nut pointing to a flood, a drought, and a famine, and saying they're all due to global warming. That's NEWS. That's exciting. That's memorable. No one remembers the poor schlob who spent 1500 manhours coding, sifting, and tabulating data.

But even a drop in global mean temperature wouldn't necessarily be enough. Then we'd get the global cooling scaremongers out there, and THEY would point to some drastic weather patterns and cry foul. Hell, if we kept a rock-steady constant number, THAT would scare people. "We fell right off the curve! This shouldn't be!"

I stand by it. The theory is provable with just about ANY data set you come up with, and even when it isn't, it still SOUNDS good enough to believe. It's slick. It's smooth. It's deceptive. I have serious problems with any theory that can be confirmed with any possible data set.

Arrowman

Infinitesimally, if at all. Ah - the fallacy of availability! "Something must be done - this is something - so let's do it [whether or not it has any real effect]". And at the potential cost of millions of jobs and distraction of resources and focus from what might be real solutions.

On the other hand, we might just be going through a global climate change that we are powerless to control by any means. It's just that the big bad industrialised western world makes a soft target.

I think there's more to the argument than the writer has put in his column. I don't have my sources right now, but IIRC there is quite strong evidence to suggest that global mean temperature has varied much more in the past several thousand years than we might assume.

Look, I'm not a total cynic on this subject - it's just that I'm very wary of the "religious environmentalists" - I've seen them caught out too many times on questions of fact and real science.

Morat

You're preaching to the choir here, Elwood. I'm all for reining in the idiots in the press (and the idiots in various lobbying groups) from using scare tactics and uncorrelated data to press an agenda.

Thankfully, however, the science on global warming isn't done by these lobby groups or the press, but by actual scientists who do all the dirty work.

It rather sucks that their work and reputations are being used for cheap gain. Doesn't change the fact that there is a problem, and a big one. It just means you need to talk to the people who know, whose work all this is.
No, it can't. You are point to what people are saying are the effects, and saying it's proving the cause.

Wrong. You can, if you're suitable rigourous, evidence a cause from it's effects. Sometimes it's simple, sometimes not. With a complex system, there are often easier ways.

Falsifying global warming is simple. Show that the global mean temperature (and atmospheric thermal capacity) are decreasing or steady.

That's all it would take. Why are you so hung up on weather changes when the real test is quite simple?

Local variability is an entirely different matter. Local variability is predicting long-term effects based on changes to a complex feedback system. The smaller the area you're discussing, the more difficult and edgy it is.

I wouldn't call it "proof" of global warming by any means. If anything, a successful prediction would simply mean that the climate model used is accurate. Global warming is just an input.

An incorrect prediction means the model was wrong in some respect. So you fix the model. It's done in every field of science, day in and day out. Doesn't change the fact that the global temperature is rising and that it is affecting local climate.

Telling what changes are a result of global warming and what aren't is far trickier. Reminds me of when everything was blamed on El Nino.

Quite a gamble. All our eggs are sort of in one basket, wouldn't you say?

And to be blunt, the economic impact is vastly overstated. No one is asking to retool an industry overnight. At the very least, the cost could be partially offset by selling the technology necessary to developing countries. And even if that wasn't true, it's one of the things government exists for. To help make the painful, but necessary, things less painful.

Yeah. The mere fact that America alone produces what..25% or so? of greenhouse gases is just one of those pointless little facts that clutter up the debate.

Face it. We spew crap into the air. Some things are obviously bad. Like cyanide. Various carcinogens.

We outlawed outputting the stuff that killed us directly, and fast. Then we outlawed the stuff that killed us more slowly. And, I'll point out, that the Clean Air act didn't destroy our economy, and didn't ruin the country.

So now we're looking at the stuff we spew out that's altering the whole climate. And I rather doubt fixing it will be any easier than any of the other "Oh crap, we're killing people" fixes we've forced on industry from time to time.

But it certainly makes sense to start with the biggest sources of the problem, especially when they've got the technology and money to deal with it.

As for Greenland, I'm sure there is more to it. And I'm sure global temperature has fluctuated quite a bit over the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth.

And hell, maybe we are utterly powerless to stop it. Maybe it's too late, and things are going to really suck for the next few centuries.

All the more reason to try to cut down the amount of stuff we vent into the atmosphere.

Unless you don't think we have any effect whatsoever.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Morat ]</p>

moon

Yeah, there is absolutely no solid scientific evidence for global warming. It's just a bunch of nuts pointing to floods - because climatologists are all big media hounds who get rich off of instilling fear into the populace.

Elwood, I think you just topped the list for the biggest straw man I have seen on the II message board.
I don't see that. If you have a data set that shows the average mean temperature going down, that wouldn't support the theory. You say it's deceptive, but you don't point to any specific act of scientific deception. Perhaps you could provide some actual references and evidence for what you are saying.

I've noticed, elwood, that you never offer any references to scientific studies when you discuss global warming. There are, I think, two possible reasons for this: 1) you haven't read any scientific studies, or 2) you have read scientific studies and didn't like what they say. Perhaps there is another possibility, but I don't see it.

Incidentally, the International Panel on Climate Change has published what are probably the most peer reviewed scientific papers ever written. These papers all point to what seems to be the inescapable fact that human activity is the main mechanism behind global warming. If you would, oh, I don't know, like to actually read some science on the subject, their website is a good place to start:
<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a>