Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What could falsify anthropogenic global warning (serious posts only)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What could falsify anthropogenic global warning (serious posts only)

    Rule of this thread: No personal attacks. We are discussing the science, and ONLY the science. If you cannot abide by that, please post in the other thread.

    Now, it has been asked what would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The answer is simple, and there's more than one way to do it, but they all boil down to one thing.

    Find a significant flaw in the climate models being used.

    A significant flaw can (among other possibilities) be a mistake in the models, an error in the data, or a missing factor driving the change. Things like "But it's cold today" are not significant flaws. Things like "They used the word 'trick,' so it's all a hoax" are not significant flaws. Accusations of fraud, conspiracy, hypocrisy on the part of this or that proponent (especially accusations given without evidence) are not serious flaws.

    It's that simple.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Outis View Post
    Rule of this thread: No personal attacks. We are discussing the science, and ONLY the science. If you cannot abide by that, please post in the other thread.

    Now, it has been asked what would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The answer is simple, and there's more than one way to do it, but they all boil down to one thing.

    Find a significant flaw in the climate models being used.

    A significant flaw can (among other possibilities) be a mistake in the models, an error in the data, or a missing factor driving the change. Things like "But it's cold today" are not significant flaws. Things like "They used the word 'trick,' so it's all a hoax" are not significant flaws. Accusations of fraud, conspiracy, hypocrisy on the part of this or that proponent (especially accusations given without evidence) are not serious flaws.

    It's that simple.
    How about a 15 year hiatus in warming that no model predicted? Would that qualify?

    http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/...ature_2013.pdf
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      How about a 15 year hiatus in warming that no model predicted? Would that qualify?

      http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/...ature_2013.pdf
      If the 15 year hiatus were actually a hiatus (as opposed to a change in mechanism caused by the warming itself), it would. However, the very article you cite explains why the "hiatus" is occurring, and why it is not actually a "hiatus" in global warming, merely a hiatus in surface temperature rising.

      Serious question: Have you read the article?

      Also see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ur...qw&oi=scholarr

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        How about a 15 year hiatus in warming that no model predicted? Would that qualify?

        http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/...ature_2013.pdf
        No, it would not.

        Here is the second paper referenced by Kosaka / Xie regarding the "hiatus" in the global temperature profile during which the measured small temperature rise was not considered statistically significant.

        Is the climate warming or cooling?
        Easterling, Wehner (2009),
        Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08706, doi:10.1029/2009

        Abstract: numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21 st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.

        whole paper
        Of particular interest is this passage:

        The reality of the climate system is that, due to natural climate variability, it is entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of ‘‘cooling’’ superimposed on the longer-term warming trend due to anthropogenic green-house gas forcing. Climate scientists pay little attention tothese short-term fluctuations as the short term ‘‘cooling trends’’ mentioned above are statistically insignificant and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. On the other hand, segments of the general public do pay attention to these fluctuations and some critics cite the most recent period as evidence against anthropogenic-forced climate change. Here we analyze both the observed record and a series of climate model simulations for the occurrence of both positive and negative decadal trends in the globally averaged surface air temperature to show that it is possible, and indeed likely to have a period of as long as a decade or two with no trend in an anthropogenically forced climate.
        Basically it's not unusual to have flat or even negative short term runs mixed in with the long term positive trends. It's another example of what mathematicians call regression to the mean.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          If the 15 year hiatus were actually a hiatus (as opposed to a change in mechanism caused by the warming itself), it would. However, the very article you cite explains why the "hiatus" is occurring, and why it is not actually a "hiatus" in global warming, merely a hiatus in surface temperature rising.

          Serious question: Have you read the article?

          Also see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ur...qw&oi=scholarr
          Yes and like in my thread they blame it on La Nina. And I guess, from what I could understand, the heat was transferred to deep oceans. But again, what computer models predicted this before the fact - not after? The point being, if no models predicted this hiatus then how reliable are our models?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            How about a 15 year hiatus in warming that no model predicted? Would that qualify?

            http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/...ature_2013.pdf
            Not necessarily.

            If by "hiatus" you meant that rate of increase has declined - then no.

            If by "hiatus" you mean that the increase has stopped, hence it's a false alarm, then not necessarily. If for example, a sink for the heat was found, and by being a sink, more serious problems were being caused elsewhere, then our worries continue.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Outis View Post
              Rule of this thread: No personal attacks. We are discussing the science, and ONLY the science. If you cannot abide by that, please post in the other thread.

              Now, it has been asked what would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The answer is simple, and there's more than one way to do it, but they all boil down to one thing.

              Find a significant flaw in the climate models being used.

              A significant flaw can (among other possibilities) be a mistake in the models, an error in the data, or a missing factor driving the change. Things like "But it's cold today" are not significant flaws. Things like "They used the word 'trick,' so it's all a hoax" are not significant flaws. Accusations of fraud, conspiracy, hypocrisy on the part of this or that proponent (especially accusations given without evidence) are not serious flaws.

              It's that simple.
              I guess if the increase in CO2 concentrations continued but the increase in temperature rise stopped, and no reason for this could be found, then we would have to begin to wonder.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                Not necessarily.

                If by "hiatus" you meant that rate of increase has declined - then no.

                If by "hiatus" you mean that the increase has stopped, hence it's a false alarm, then not necessarily. If for example, a sink for the heat was found, and by being a sink, more serious problems were being caused elsewhere, then our worries continue.
                You know what - in light of the links that have been posted, and from what I can understand, they really don't have a clue what cause this hiatus.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  You know what - in light of the links that have been posted, and from what I can understand, they really don't have a clue what cause this hiatus.
                  I got an impression that one of the oceans was unexpectedly picking up the heat.

                  If so, then that can be it's own problem. Rather than atmospheric warming, we now have ocean warming.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yes and like in my thread they blame it on La Nina. And I guess, from what I could understand, the heat was transferred to deep oceans. But again, what computer models predicted this before the fact - not after? The point being, if no models predicted this hiatus then how reliable are our models?
                    The real data fell between the estimated error ranges. The error ranges are necessarily wide because we're dealing with a highly chaotic non-linear system that still has unknowns.

                    Having 20-50 vision may be "poor" but it's a heck of a lot better than being completely blind. Do you know of any models from the AGW denier folks that have made more accurate predictions or have smaller error tolerances? I'd love to see them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You know what - in light of the links that have been posted, and from what I can understand, they really don't have a clue what cause this hiatus.
                      That says more about your level of understanding than it does the scientific data. Do we know for a fact what caused the temperature flattening? No. But there is a quite plausible explanation that so far fits the measured data. Researching and continuing to refine the models is a lot more productive than standing on the sidelines flinging stones.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        That says more about your level of understanding than it does the scientific data. Do we know for a fact what caused the temperature flattening? No. But there is a quite plausible explanation that so far fits the measured data. Researching and continuing to refine the models is a lot more productive than standing on the sidelines flinging stones.
                        Ok, that is all I said. And you agree. So why slam me?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Ok, that is all I said. And you agree. So why slam me?
                          That is not what you said and I didn't argee.

                          There's a big difference between "really don't have a clue" and "plausible explanation that fits the data". BIG difference.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            How about a 15 year hiatus in warming that no model predicted? Would that qualify?

                            http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/...ature_2013.pdf
                            No, the time is too short.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              That is not what you said and I didn't argee.

                              There's a big difference between "really don't have a clue" and "plausible explanation that fits the data". BIG difference.
                              If we don't know for a fact, we don't know. It is supposition.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              4 responses
                              34 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X