Post by poitsplace on Jun 3, 2009 6:22:40 GMT
Some people unfortunately seek iron cast falsification criteria for the sake of it. They don't consider the whole package of what the theory says, the possible errors in observation as well as in theory. They just jump right in to announcing because Bar X was breached, therefore the theory is falsified.
We heard a whole earful from the creationists telling us that gaps in the fossil record falsified evolution. There were gaps, there still are some. They were a big problem for the theory and so the premature falsifiers jumped up and down screaming that the theory was falsified. But in the end it turned out that parts of the theory needed modifying (not even critical parts), not outright dismissal of the entire vast theory. If we had believed the premature falsifiers we would have incorrectly abandoned a valid theory for decades. The problem was that people were demanding a cast iron bar and if it wasn't reached they weren't just saying "this part of the theory needs revision" they were casting the whole lot out.
Please excuse the brief aside
Skepticism of climate change and denying evolution are radically different concepts. For a start we actually have thousands of years of verification of evolution through selective breeding, leading to the radical changes in the species that would in fact prevent mixing (for instance, if we had ONLY selectively bread chiuauas and great danes they would be considered different subspecies at least). Evolution deniers simply reclassify the problem away demanding that ONLY "natural" selection be allowed as evidence, thereby eliminating ALL experimental data. Even so the only competing theories were either very easily disproved or literally equate to "it's magic". Evolution can be verified through embryology, DNA evidence, taxonomy, paleontology, and even simple thought experiments and computer modeling. Even the so-called "gaps" don't actually give any new information and the occupants of the "gaps" can actually be predicted by the theories (and are often found, further verifying the theory).
The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming has none of this. With one notable exception ALL the data said to support anthropogenic global warming either point in the opposite direction, point toward greatly reduced affect, are completely inconclusive or literally have nothing to do with verification of the theory at all.
Not a single bit of "evidence" that is merely a proxy for our currently available temperature record is a valid piece of evidence in support of AGW. Melting ice for example is simply an indication that it's warmer.
The temperature has been rising for about 200 years. For most of this time, CO2 levels either remained the same or rose at such low levels that it's actually worth questioning the source of the CO2. Indeed an almost identical spike in temperatures occurred back in the early part of the 1900's. Along with your claims of "lag" it makes any further warming highly suspect...it was after all warming anyway. Similar temperature rises are seen throughout the holocene and other interglacial periods. This rise in temperature alone is simply not an unusual thing.
Another issue with the temperature is that there's an obvious cycle. The cause (or at least something closely coupled to the cause) has been found and its pattern still seems to hold. There can be little doubt that AT LEAST HALF of the warming observed during the 80's and 90's was the result of this cycle. Factoring in this cycle (instead of measuring from trough to peak to get the highest possible warming rate) gives us a warming rate that falls well short of projected AGW. The recent (rather obvious) start to the cooling cycle strongly supports this assessment.
The use of proxies to supposedly show this is an unusual temperature rise are also incorrect or at best inconclusive. The higher rate of increase is obviously just an artifact of tacking on much more accurate measurements. Looking at recent proxy data we see no such spike. The proxy data shows no evidence of unusual spike in temperature.
Computer models are also not a valid proof just as curve fitting does not show a proper understanding of what is causing the curve. The models DO NOT model reality they model the creator's perception. Financial models showed the exact same flaw. The models have been built to show CO2's affect on climate and tuned to the point that they reflect temperature.
One could just as easily build a model using any other criteria...ESPECIALLY if it happens to shows a general trend. With a few extra variables it could be demonstrated that computational capability is the main driver of climate...or information, broadcasting, life expectancy, the decline in the number of farm hands or even that ice its self causes warming/cooling. The most telling thing about the models is that they have failed on "short term" predictions. Even with a HUGE window they've missed it.
What you DO have is some anecdotal evidence that CO2 could theoretically do something to hinder energy's movement. Unfortunately to demonstrate this we've chosen an experiment in which we fire an external source of light through an enclosed system and ONLY look to see how much of the light of specific frequencies passes thorough. This ignores some other basic information though...like the massive amount of convection, the overlapping spectrum of CO2/water and the fact that since CO2 is already absorbing most of its chunk of the spectrum most of the energy is already exiting the system through other means.
Basically, you have a lab experiment with no connection to real-world conditions. They tried to model it but the models made the assumption of the relationship up front. They are only verifications of the preconceptions of the people making the models.