A question about the accuracy of science

[jc456]

Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.

In contrast, global warming theory is easily falsifiable in many ways, and is thus defined by Popper as real science.

However, Popper is still kind of snake oil himself. Some things in science are too fuzzy to be absolutely provable or disprovable by any realistic means. As Feynman said, sort of refuting Popper, “If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

so climate change isn't settled?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.

In contrast, global warming theory is easily falsifiable in many ways, and is thus defined by Popper as real science.

However, Popper is still kind of snake oil himself. Some things in science are too fuzzy to be absolutely provable or disprovable by any realistic means. As Feynman said, sort of refuting Popper, “If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

Too hot-CO2
Too cold-CO2
Too dry-CO2
Too wet-CO2

Temperature changing-CO2
Too many hurricanes-CO2
Too much snow-CO2
Too little snow-CO2

Is there anything this magical molecule cannot do?
It is funny that no matter what magic it does, the fix is always higher taxes and more government control.

 

[Si modo]

Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.

....

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made? None of that post hoc ergo propter hoc that's out there - that's not science.

When THAT happens, the problem still exists of affirming a negative (ie. affirming a "denial").

You're correct. Popper would have many, many issues with the state of the science when it comes to climate change. He'd be just fine with the state of the pure sciences, though. They haven't been fatally polluted with activists in lieu of scientists.

 

[mamooth]

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made?

The outgoing longwave radiation decreasing in the greenhouse gas absorption bands.

The increase in backradiation.

The stratospheric cooling.

Those are all direct measurements, no models involved. And they're smoking guns for man-made greenhouse gas warming. There is no "It's a natural cycle!" theory that explains those direct observations.

Hence, we move on to Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct.

Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data. Heck, it's the only theory that explains the observed data, being the observed data contradicts all "Natural cycles" theories.

 

[mamooth]

Too hot-CO2
Too cold-CO2

Todd, why do you think cooling means warming? That's just whack.

Cooling doesn't means warming. Warming means warming. If the world went into a long-term cooling trend, that would disprove global warming theory.

 

[Si modo]

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made?

The outgoing longwave radiation decreasing in the greenhouse gas absorption bands.

The increase in backradiation.

The stratospheric cooling.

Those are all direct measurements, no models involved. And they're smoking guns for man-made greenhouse gas warming. There is no "It's a natural cycle!" theory that explains those direct observations.

Hence, we move on to Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct.

Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data. Heck, it's the only theory that explains the observed data, being the observed data contradicts all "Natural cycles" theories.

Links, please. Links to scientific papers, not blogs, etc., that is.

And recall, nothing that is post hoc ergo propter hoc because that is not science.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too hot-CO2
Too cold-CO2

Todd, why do you think cooling means warming? That's just whack.

Cooling doesn't means warming. Warming means warming. If the world went into a long-term cooling trend, that would disprove global warming theory.

Todd, why do you think cooling means warming?

Where did I say that? Link?

If the world went into a long-term cooling trend, that would disprove global warming theory.

I thought you warmers already gave up on that theory?
Now it's "climate changering"
Or is it "extreme weathering"?

 

[mamooth]

Lemme help ya out here. In theory -- It only takes ONE scientist to bring down an entire highrise tower of misconception or error.

And given that nobody has been able to touch global warming theory, that indicates how solid the theory. All those people looking for some error, anywhere, and coming up with nothing.

That's just how it works. YOU DEFEND positions. You debate the methodology and you analyze the data. He/She/It who presents the most UNIMPEACHABLE argument wins

And the mainstream climate side has done that.

BTW -- doesn't mean that the person WINNING that round HAS to offer another valid explanation. It can be done by REPLACING that explanation --- or finding that the initial idiot can't DEFEND his assertion.. Equally acceptable outcomes

The caveat being that you actually have to prove your case, as opposed to just asserting it over and over and waving your hands around wildly. That's where deniers have trouble.

BTW #2 ---- If you REFUSE to answer the questions, duck the debates or HIDE YOUR DATA --- you automatically lose.. You also lose immediately upon any appeal to consensus or authority...

So, more reasons why deniers always lose. I'll also add that the denier staple tactics of evasion-by-cherrypicking, conspiracy theories and making it all up should also be automatic disqualifiers.

Has NOTHING to do voting, polls, or the size of the team.. It's really "an individual sport".. Got it? Great....

Consensus, while not sufficient, is necessary, and pointing out that denialism lacks it _is_ a valid destruction of denialism.

 

[mamooth]

Where did I say that? Link?

"Too cold-CO2"

I thought you warmers already gave up on that theory?

You ought to give up creating all the weird stores about what we supposedly did. If you actually had an evidence backing you up, you wouldn't have to fake everything like that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have to laugh at the idiots here that denigrate the accomplishments that science given us. The very machine they post their drivel on, is a result of the work of the scientist they denigrate. Ah well, they know they have completely lost.

How much have you seen them mention the 'pause' lately. Hard to do with it looking like we will have three record years in a row. And we are well past the half way point to 2 degrees. We will blow right by that.

Funny how so many theories held in vogue for very long periods have been proven false or severely flawed but today theories that are far from proven are held sacrosanct

That in itself is a denigration of science is it not?

 

[mamooth]

Links, please. Links to scientific papers, not blogs, etc., that is.

Before I spend time doing so, can I get your pledge that you'll quit it with the "but I need more!" evasions after this round?

I educate those willing to learn for free. Those playing games, I'm less patient with.

And recall, nothing that is post hoc ergo propter hoc because that is not science.

That's nice. But since nobody here or involved with the science has used or suggests using that fallacy, I wonder why you keep bringing it up.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Science is science but theories are funded".. The surprisingly readable book "Neanderthal Man in Search of the lost Genome" by Swedish PHD, Svante Paabo (2010) inadvertently offers insight into the sleazy world of modern science and scientists. Guess what, they cheat, steal, offer fraudulent data in exchange for money and fame and in short they are just like us common folks except a bit less concerned with honesty. If you translate the information offered by Paabo to the lavishly funded "global warming theory" there is no question that the scientific community would be the hired gun of any administration that funded the "research". Why would federal drones with oversight responsibility for global warming data question the data as long as the data coincides with the theory the federal government is paying for?

This is true to a large extent... HOWEVER -- the patrons of science can't force you to change the actual science. All they really want -- is for you to LEAP over your scientific integrity and make highly qualified assertions, claims and exaggerations about what your science really shows. But what appears in the BODIES of the work are still objective dispassionate work (for the most part).. The patrons want you to release AMPLE press releases, do interviews and get exposure for the cause. NONE of those things usually delve into the actual data and methodology that you used.

To find the CORRUPTION --- you look to groups of scientists themselves. The ones ATTEMPTING to protect the feeding trough by roughing up colleagues, blackballing dissenters, and generally COORDINATING RESULTS to appear to form a consensus that the public or the decision-makers understand. And there's ample evidence of that in the GW honey pot. It's really a HANDFUL of powerful dogmatic activists hiding in lab coats that are the "corruption" aspect of the problem. The vast majority don't want to be associated with pranks and propaganda..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where did I say that? Link?

"Too cold-CO2"

I thought you warmers already gave up on that theory?

You ought to give up creating all the weird stores about what we supposedly did. If you actually had an evidence backing you up, you wouldn't have to fake everything like that.

Todd, why do you think cooling means warming?

Where did I say that? Link?

"Too cold-CO2"

Ummmm.....Too cold-CO2 ≠ cooling means warming.

But thanks for admitting your lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warming is warming, cooling is climate change

heads they get more government funding, tails they get more government funding

 

[Si modo]

Links, please. Links to scientific papers, not blogs, etc., that is.

Before I spend time doing so, can I get your pledge that you'll quit it with the "but I need more!" evasions after this round?

I educate those willing to learn for free. Those playing games, I'm less patient with.

And recall, nothing that is post hoc ergo propter hoc because that is not science.

That's nice. But since nobody here or involved with the science has used or suggests using that fallacy, I wonder why you keep bringing it up.

I'll make no such pledge. I can't imagine any scientist would make such a pledge about not needing more.

I will make a pledge to keep an open mind when reviewing a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

If you're curious why I bring up the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy,it's because too many use it in these sorts of discussions.

 

[mamooth]

I'll make no such pledge. I can't imagine any scientist would make such a pledge about not needing more.

I will make a pledge to keep an open mind when reviewing a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Fine. Review away. I'll get you started with these. Lots more where that came from.

Harries (2001)
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

Griggs (2004)
http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/3006745/paper.pdf

Chen (2007)
https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

Wang (2009)
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

Philipona (2004)
Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect - Philipona - 2004 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Evans (2006)
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

 

[mamooth]

To find the CORRUPTION --- you look to groups of scientists themselves. The ones ATTEMPTING to protect the feeding trough by roughing up colleagues, blackballing dissenters, and generally COORDINATING RESULTS to appear to form a consensus that the public or the decision-makers understand. And there's ample evidence of that in the GW honey pot. It's really a HANDFUL of powerful dogmatic activists hiding in lab coats that are the "corruption" aspect of the problem. The vast majority don't want to be associated with pranks and propaganda..

As was agreed before, invoking reality-defying conspiracy theories instantly disqualifies all of the speaker's arguments. So buh-bye.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made?

The outgoing longwave radiation decreasing in the greenhouse gas absorption bands.

The increase in backradiation.

The stratospheric cooling.

Those are all direct measurements, no models involved. And they're smoking guns for man-made greenhouse gas warming. There is no "It's a natural cycle!" theory that explains those direct observations.

Hence, we move on to Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct.

Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data. Heck, it's the only theory that explains the observed data, being the observed data contradicts all "Natural cycles" theories.

Links, please. Links to scientific papers, not blogs, etc., that is.

And recall, nothing that is

post hoc ergo propter hoc because that is not science.

Thank you in advance.

Very good, Si.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full.pdf

California is currently in the midst of a record-setting drought. The drought began in 2012 and now includes the lowest calendar-year and 12-mo precipitation, the highest annual temperature, and the most extreme drought indicators on record. The extremely warm and dry conditions have led to acute water shortages, groundwater overdraft, critically low streamflow, and enhanced wildfire risk. Analyzing historical climate observations from California, we find that precipitation deficits in California were more than twice as likely to yield drought years if they occurred when conditions were warm. We find that although there has not been a substantial change in the probability of either negative or moderately negative precipitation anomalies in recent decades, the occurrence of drought years has been greater in the past two decades than in the preceding century. In addition, the probability that precipitation deficits co-occur with warm conditions and the probability that precipitation deficits produce drought have both increased. Climate model experiments with and without anthropogenic forcings reveal that human activities have increased the probability that dry precipitation years are also warm. Further, a large ensemble of climate model realizations reveals that additional global warming over the next few decades is very likely to create ∼100% probability that any annual-scale dry period is also extremely warm. We therefore conclude that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of co-occurring warm–dry conditions like those that have created the acute human and ecosystem impacts associated with the “exceptional” 2012–2014 drought in California.

 

[Old Rocks]

Does this fit the bill, Si?

Expert credibility in climate change

Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pretty unequivical, Si.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17169.extract

Detection of Climate Signals
Studies of climate change by means of optimal detection of faint signals embedded in natural variability have been underway for several decades now (1⇓–3), and some more recent ones are referred to in refs.4⇓⇓–7. These studies are also sometimes referred to as “fingerprint” studies. The idea is that if the space–time pattern of response to one or more external stimuli, such as greenhouse gas increases, is known from, for example, a model simulation or analytical model, then there is an optimal way of weighting the observed data stream over the same space–time domain in such a way as to determine whether the response is really in the data stream. It boils down to construction of a statistical model in the framework of which some kind of statistical significance test can be performed.

Most of the studies of this type have focused on the surface-temperature field because we have a fairly good record of it over the last 150 y, along with well-estimated uncertainties. Moreover, the surface-temperature field is a good indicator of the global-scale response pattern of such global-scale forcings as the carbon dioxide, volcanic dust veils, aerosols, and solar fingerprints. In addition, the surface-temperature field is one of the most important to human habitability of the planet. Finally, the large-scale surface temperature is the easiest to model because it is the most closely connected with and insinuated from the global balance of absorbed solar and terrestrial emitted energy fluxes (4, 5).

By now many studies have found that the response signals in the surface-temperature field—because of such forcings as carbon dioxide increases, atmospheric aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and solar changes—have been successfully detected at high