The hijacking of threads

[socold]

May 1, 2009 19:09:34 GMT magellan said:

May 1, 2009 17:50:30 GMT nautonnier said:

I have some sympathy with this thread.

There is no doubt that the trace of CO₂ in the atmosphere will absorb then scatter, re-emit or collide to pass on the energy from less than 10% of the IR spectrum if a photon finds a CO₂ molecule to hit.

There is also no doubt that heat leaves the surface of the planet by convection and carried by water vapor rather than radiation although by at least the tropopause (where convection stops) it will have become radiation to continue outbound to space.

However, the AGW hypothesis appears to be that heat ONLY leaves the surface by radiation and ONLY passes through the troposphere by radiation. Thus the AGW hypothesis only uses radiation formulae to calculate the heat 'trapped' by CO₂ as the equivalent number of watts per square meter. It is then stated that yes 'clouds and convection are in some of the models but they are not fully understood'. In all the threads here the resort is always to Stefan Boltzmann and Beers laws - I have not seen one single mathematical approach to the carriage of heat to the tropopause by convection.

Having arrived at this construct it was built into the models as a solid assumption. The models were then adjusted by addition of assumptions on other variables, such as water vapor 'feed-back' aerosol 'forcing' values 'plucked out of the air' (Hansen) - the variables being altered until the output of the models matched the observed atmosphere at the time. These models were then iterated forward to [[use a word that is not forecast ]] project a trend (?) for the future climate.

The justifications for people building such models is then to argue about basic CO₂ physics or the formulae in the models, or the initial match of the models to the observed climate. Rather than whether they match now.

So we are now in the position that none of the models appear to be tracking actual climate. (Enter another argument about climate and weather), and hence the requests like Magellan's to show that actual observations of the atmosphere - evidence- matches the AGW hypothesis.

In most cases it appears that the evidence from observations doesn't match the forecasts of the models. SST are flat or dropping, there is no hot-spot in the tropical troposphere as forecast, the poles are not behaving in the way forecast etc. The response from AGW proponents has been to obfuscate the forecasts projected trends and anything/everything is as the models said it would be - antarctic staying cold - that was forecast - antarctic warming - that was forecast too -and there is more.

Normally in science we have a QED approach. A firm testable statement of what is required to be proved and how it will be shown to be proved/falsified. Then observations and metrics to identify and quantify the variables to be tested and they are compared to the hypothesized values. IF they do not match - the hypothesis has been falsified.

This does not appear to be happening with the AGW hypothesis; or at least the focus is continually altered to those variables that appear to support AGW until they too fail, and for some reason the focus is often on the non-AGW formulae - with the argument that if the opposing ideas can be shown to have problems then that justifies the falsified AGW hypothesis in some way.

Why not adopt the standard scientific approach of honourable scepticism - and if a hypothesis is falsified re-examine it to see where it has a fault?

So Magellan - why not list the evidence that you believe the AGW hypothesis needs to show.
Steve/Socold/KenF can then provide links to that evidence showing that the AGW hypothesis is supported

This is a standard 'defence' of a hypothesis. It _should_ be simple to do.

So Magellan - why not list the evidence that you believe the AGW hypothesis needs to show.

That was done in challenge #1
1) tropical tropospheric warming more than the surface i.e. the ubiquitous "hot spot" per IPCC AR4, ref. Santer et al 2005.
2) radiative imbalance of .85 w/m<sup>2[/sup in the oceans per Hansen et al 2005 (referenced in IPCC AR4). This is the supposed "proof" of CO2 AGW.

On 1, warmologists now claim they really didn't mean that.
On 2, there was no response.

Challenge #2 is to force the issue on Arctic ice melt, the latest poster child for CO2 AGW. Two years ago we were bombarded with "scientists say" press releases assuring the public the end was near for the Arctic and it was due to CO2 AGW. The evidence does not support that assumption.

We've been told over and over how much evidence there is, so these threads are warmer's opportunity to present it. At some point observational evidence must be the final determination in testing a hypothesis. Instead, the discussion always reverts to logical fallacy.

They are attempting to formulate an irrefutable hypothesis.</sup>

On #1 there is uncertainty with the measurements. It could be the models are wrong, or it could be the observations are wrong. We've seen something very similar before when UAH used to show no warming in the lower troposphre (globally). In that case it turned out to be the measurements that were wrong.

Same story with #2 ocean heat content. Errors have been found in recent measurements twice and it's not certain they won't change again.

Edit: Hansen seems to say the inbalance is reduced given the current record of ocean heat content being flat since 2003:

"Climate models, using typical presumed scenarios of climate forcings for the past century, suggest that the planet should be out of energy balance by +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2, but observations of ocean heat content change (averaged over the 11-year solar cycle) suggest an imbalance of only +0.5 ± 0.25 W/m2 (absorbed solar energy exceeding heat radiation to space)."
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/Copenhagen_20090311.pdf

[nautonnier]

Que?

Do I detect a wriggle?

These are simple enough questions it appears that you have admitted failure to meet any of them - is that correct?

[donmartin]

I do not mean to disagree with anyone. However, I did not understand that an hypothesis, or model, is "proved," but rather it may be validated at a specific time under known and recorded circumstances or conditions.

A model or hypothesis can reasonably exist without validation. The method of validation, not the validation per se, will indicate reliability in prediction, and it is the method which is most often the source of discussion and argument.

Also, hearsay ( ...having heard or read something...) is acceptable as evidence in modern dialectics in establishing a fact so long as it is reasonably necessary and reliable - and I suggest that in this forum, the onus of proving negation of the latter two conditions should be on the party denying acceptance.

Thank you

[magellan]

May 1, 2009 23:01:14 GMT socold said:

May 1, 2009 19:09:34 GMT magellan said:

So Magellan - why not list the evidence that you believe the AGW hypothesis needs to show.

That was done in challenge #1
1) tropical tropospheric warming more than the surface i.e. the ubiquitous "hot spot" per IPCC AR4, ref. Santer et al 2005.
2) radiative imbalance of .85 w/m<sup>2[/sup in the oceans per Hansen et al 2005 (referenced in IPCC AR4). This is the supposed "proof" of CO2 AGW.

On 1, warmologists now claim they really didn't mean that.
On 2, there was no response.

Challenge #2 is to force the issue on Arctic ice melt, the latest poster child for CO2 AGW. Two years ago we were bombarded with "scientists say" press releases assuring the public the end was near for the Arctic and it was due to CO2 AGW. The evidence does not support that assumption.

We've been told over and over how much evidence there is, so these threads are warmer's opportunity to present it. At some point observational evidence must be the final determination in testing a hypothesis. Instead, the discussion always reverts to logical fallacy.

They are attempting to formulate an irrefutable hypothesis.</sup>

On #1 there is uncertainty with the measurements. It could be the models are wrong, or it could be the observations are wrong. We've seen something very similar before when UAH used to show no warming in the lower troposphre (globally). In that case it turned out to be the measurements that were wrong.

Same story with #2 ocean heat content. Errors have been found in recent measurements twice and it's not certain they won't change again.

Edit: Hansen seems to say the inbalance is reduced given the current record of ocean heat content being flat since 2003:

"Climate models, using typical presumed scenarios of climate forcings for the past century, suggest that the planet should be out of energy balance by +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2, but observations of ocean heat content change (averaged over the 11-year solar cycle) suggest an imbalance of only +0.5 ± 0.25 W/m2 (absorbed solar energy exceeding heat radiation to space)."
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/Copenhagen_20090311.pdf

Yes, cracks are forming.......

You said OHC is uncertain, yet now post the imbalance is +.5 (with +/- 50 % as error), which is still much less than .85 he published in 2005 based on data from 1993-2003. Hansen is pulling numbers out of the air and the number cannot be correct anyway because the oceans are not warming.

Regardless, I emailed Roger Pielke Sr. recently on this very subject as he has blogged on OHC for the last 2+ years. His reply:

Thank you for sending. I agree there remain uncertainty in the ocean heat data, but they all still point to a lack of warming which is inconsistent with the global climate models predictions over the last 5 years. Even before that time period, the radiative feedbacks must be negative if the forcings given by the 2007 IPCC report are accepted as accurate.

This data still remains the best to diagnose global warming and cooling, even with its uncertainties.

As SST is a reflection of OHC, shall we look at that?

[nautonnier]

May 2, 2009 6:55:13 GMT donmartin said:

I do not mean to disagree with anyone. However, I did not understand that an hypothesis, or model, is "proved," but rather it may be validated at a specific time under known and recorded circumstances or conditions.

A model or hypothesis can reasonably exist without validation. The method of validation, not the validation per se, will indicate reliability in prediction, and it is the method which is most often the source of discussion and argument.

Also, hearsay ( ...having heard or read something...) is acceptable as evidence in modern dialectics in establishing a fact so long as it is reasonably necessary and reliable - and I suggest that in this forum, the onus of proving negation of the latter two conditions should be on the party denying acceptance.

Thank you

Don Martin,
Something can only be negated if it is testable.

For example:

* The truth of the AGW hypothesis is shown by the antarctic getting warmer or getting cooler as either of these are forecast in the hypothesis that there is anthropogenic climate change.
* If glaciers shrink it is proof of AGW if glaciers advance faster it is proof of AGW

These are unfalsifiable and the hypothesis as such cannot be accepted as a formal hypothesis.

This is the major problem - whatever happens now in the atmosphere is called AGW unless the proponents disagree with it in which case it is called 'weather'

What Magellan is asking for is a clear statement of the evidence that the AGW proponents believe would support the AGW hypothesis. Then the evidence can be gathered and the hypothesis falsified or not. .

This should be extremely simple for the proponents and the opponents of the hypothesis except for one thing - the lack of testable statements in support of the Anthropogenic GW hypothesis that unambiguously support only that anthropogenic hypothesis.

The fact that there was global warming in the last 2 decades of the 20th Century is not _proof_ of Anthropogenic GW, although it is routinely presented as such.

What is needed is some metric that shows that it is unquestionable that there is at least one anthropogenic driver that accounts for the global warming. So far it seems that there are no such metrics -- or rather there were but each in turn seems to have been falsified.

Given this position - and the continuing claims that Anthropogenic GW exists despite each metric apparently being falsified, Magellan has asked by what evidence do the AGW proponents continue claiming the truth of their hypothesis.

It seems to be a fair request to me.

[steve]

Scientific understanding grows through disproof, not proof. I've read enough lectures about Karl Popper from "sceptics" to know this

[socold]

May 2, 2009 9:39:40 GMT magellan said:

You said OHC is uncertain, yet now post the imbalance is +.5 (with +/- 50 % as error), which is still much less than .85 he published in 2005 based on data from 1993-2003. Hansen is pulling numbers out of the air and the number cannot be correct anyway because the oceans are not warming

2003-onwards could just be variation in OHC. There is year to year variation in it.
www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

It remains to see if it lasts longer, the longer it lasts the bigger a problem it will be.

As SST is a reflection of OHC, shall we look at that?

SST is affected heavily by ENSO which has a negative bias since 2002.

[donmartin]

Magellan, if I interpret your comments correctly, you are saying that the AGW hypothesis cannot be validated as it provides a contradiction in terms: much like an hypothesis which states both: the Sun and universe orbits the Earth, "and" the Earth orbits the Sun, and both are evidently correct. However, every attempt at validation of the model would also negate the model. In other words, the hypothesis or model is little more than a guess.

The IPCC and its supporters appear to rely upon consensus as validation.

I can "prove" that the Sun orbits the Earth. Just look up into the sky and believe in epicycles. However, that proposition cannot be validated as "looking up into the sky" can clearly be shown to be an inappropriate method of validation. I can prove just about anything. Validation is the tricky part.

I gather, that in science, "reproducibility of results" is a method of validation.

I suspect those who support the AGW hypothesis and its supporting models have become aware of this issue intuitively, and thus lately speak of "climate change," which is not a hypothesis, but an empirical observation which is validated simpliciter retrospectively and lends spurious credence to all predictions.