[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You mean like trying to pass public opinion off as the antidote to pretty accurate computer models?

Feel free to show me a computer model that can accurately predict the weather for last month or the climate patterns for last year and we'll talk.

Because no such model exists that can accurately extrapolate KNOWN weather and climate data just so far back as thirty days.

Confusing climate and weather again?

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/aren- ... simplistic

[DrCaleb]

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/433601c3580e

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You mean like trying to pass public opinion off as the antidote to pretty accurate computer models?

No. Public opinion addresses the political side of this debate. It exists, it matters, and addressing it on a news site is 100% Kosher.

These "pretty accurate computer models" you have just pulled out your butt however are a fantasy. They don't exist in reality. It's just a "Hey Rocky watch me pull a 'pretty accurate computer model out my ass' moment.

Yes, you can go to a site like skepticalscience.com and find massaged figures suggesting the model predictions are more true than everybody says. Go ahead then. Produce them. I let you go once, but this time I'll show you why those graphs are fake.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Confusing climate and weather again?

No he wasn't. Basically he was asking you; if you can't even predict long range weather correctly, why are we to believe your predictions of climate catastrophe are any more accurate, or credible than say the Mayan prophesy of world's end in 2012.

Climate is not weather is not a credible answer to that question.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You mean like trying to pass public opinion off as the antidote to pretty accurate computer models?

Feel free to show me a computer model that can accurately predict the weather for last month or the climate patterns for last year and we'll talk.

Because no such model exists that can accurately extrapolate KNOWN weather and climate data just so far back as thirty days.

Confusing climate and weather again?

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/aren- ... simplistic

No, which is why I took care to separate the two in my post.

[N_Fiddledog]

As to weather the catastrophic human caused global warming theory is falsifiable let's start at the beginning.

It was postulated that warming of the predicted sort, that would cause a catastrophe would produce warming at both poles. The Arctic did warm. The Antarctic however did not. In fact it got colder.

No problem, the theorists simply lied at first, and said, oh yeah we said that was going to happen all long. More specifically they used the now overworked BS phrase "consistent with the models.

Later they simply invented some weird sort of magic math and told us to ignore the record ice growth and other observable cooling phenomenon in the Antarctic. The new Hocus pocus, Abracadabra math told us the Antarctic was actually warming.

However, the Antarctic simply got colder still, setting more records to the point that not even the inveterate liars at SkepticalScience dare to tell the whopper about a warming antarctic.

Falsifiable # 1.

The IPCC report stated a warming fingerprint would be found over the tropics. It wasn't. At least it wasn't by current methods of deriving temperature.

No problem. They simply invented a new way taking temperature. More precisely it was a new hypothesis to excuse failure in the old hypothesis. In this one it was something like you need to derive temperature measurements from wind measurements or some other such boolah boolah.

Falsifiable # 2.

The big one is, of course, there has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years. Those who tell you this is no surprise to the warmists, or the climate pause is "consistent with the models", are full of crap.

I can devote a lot of time and trouble to showing you data confirming that, but let's try something you warmists might find novel. Let's use our heads.

Your belief system does not just require warming. It requires futuristic, catastrophic warming. It requires at least 3 degrees of warming in a century. If the models actually accounted for say, a no longer unreasonable, 20 years of climate pause, what would the slope look like for the remaining 80 years. Show me that graph.

Falsifiable # 3.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

AGW is falsifiable simply by providing data that contradicts the theory that the Earth is warming and humans are contributing to it.

Nope, it doesn't work that way and you know better.

I don't have to provide the data values to prove that your theory is falsifiable, that's YOUR job or else I get to ignore your theory and mark down your mid-term paper because you failed to provide a proof.

YOU provide the set of values that would disprove your theory so other scientists and skeptics can test your theory against that set of values.

I do know better, and that is the exact opposite way science works. A theory is proposed that explains observational data (in this case), and then other scientists try to disprove that theory, usually by trying to prove the data does not fit the theory. The proposer doesn't have to build a scenario that disproves their own theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview

Uh-huh. And the same source notes that testability and falsifiability are essentially the same thing.

So now that we're on the same page perhaps you can illuminate me with how you can test your theory?

Because over the past twenty years I've heard no end of prognostications from the proponents of AGW and I have yet to see any of them come to pass.

None of them. (You know the list but I can repost it if you want.)

Naturally, that invites you to show me a clearly demonstrable instance where AGW was proposed to have a specific effect and then that specific effect did, in fact, occur.

This would constitute a test.

That's part of the scientific process is it not?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You mean like trying to pass public opinion off as the antidote to pretty accurate computer models?

No. Public opinion addresses the political side of this debate. It exists, it matters, and addressing it on a news site is 100% Kosher.

These "pretty accurate computer models" you have just pulled out your butt however are a fantasy. They don't exist in reality. It's just a "Hey Rocky watch me pull a 'pretty accurate computer model out my ass' moment.

Yes, you can go to a site like skepticalscience.com and find massaged figures suggesting the model predictions are more true than everybody says. Go ahead then. Produce them. I let you go once, but this time I'll show you why those graphs are fake.

I don't know if Dr. Caleb has ever said much about catastrophic global wamring. This Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a recent acronym over at Watt's Up With That. It used to be just AGW. I guess they are hedging their bets in the likely event that AGW continues to more noticeably manifest itself.

I signed on for AGW, niot CAGW.

[bootlegga]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

bootlegga bootlegga:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Good thing science is fact based, not opinion based.

Stop bringing logic into this!

Better yet, stop talking about having it, and actually try to produce some.

So far you're like these little kids with their little fists balled up, who have convinced themselves they have power they've seen in their comic books.

Given that your MO is to post some video or picture that usually spends more time bashing political opponents than it does addressing the issue, you have no credibility on the topic of logic.

As such, I'll listen to you if I want to hear how awful Obama is or how stupid the Democrats are, but not on important issues.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

As to weather the catastrophic human caused global warming theory is falsifiable let's start at the beginning.

It was postulated that warming of the predicted sort, that would cause a catastrophe would produce warming at both poles. The Arctic did warm. The Antarctic however did not. In fact it got colder.

No problem, the theorists simply lied at first, and said, oh yeah we said that was going to happen all long. More specifically they used the now overworked BS phrase "consistent with the models.

Later they simply invented some weird sort of magic math and told us to ignore the record ice growth and other observable cooling phenomenon in the Antarctic. The new Hocus pocus, Abracadabra math told us the Antarctic was actually warming.

However, the Antarctic simply got colder still, setting more records to the point that not even the inveterate liars at SkepticalScience dare to tell the whopper about a warming antarctic.

Falsifiable # 1.

The IPCC report stated a warming fingerprint would be found over the tropics. It wasn't. At least it wasn't by current methods of deriving temperature.

No problem. They simply invented a new way taking temperature. More precisely it was a new hypothesis to excuse failure in the old hypothesis. In this one it was something like you need to derive temperature measurements from wind measurements or some other such boolah boolah.

Falsifiable # 2.

The big one is, of course, there has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years. Those who tell you this is no surprise to the warmists, or the climate pause is "consistent with the models", are full of crap.

I can devote a lot of time and trouble to showing you data confirming that, but let's try something you warmists might find novel. Let's use our heads.

Your belief system does not just require warming. It requires futuristic, catastrophic warming. It requires at least 3 degrees of warming in a century. If the models actually accounted for say, a no longer unreasonable, 20 years of climate pause, what would the slope look like for the remaining 80 years. Show me that graph.

Falsifiable # 3.

My belief system says that every extra CO2 molecule oxidized from oil and gas radiates about 50% of the infrared radiation it absorbs back towards the planet. Consequently, in accordance with radiation physics and Greenhouse Theory, you get an increase in near surface earth temp and a decrease in higher altitudes. And more carbonic acid in the water.

Given the mass of hydrocarbon we've oxidized, that should be measurable, and I think it is--in CO2 concentrations and in the change in temp over the last 150 years. Yes, we haven't had anything much in 17 or 18 years, but it is still quite hot by 19th and 20th century standards, and it doesn't seemed to have gotten cooler either.

I don't buy the IPCC sensitivity factors myself, but I could be wrong. Not all AGW proponents are end-of-the-world Cassandras. It's not a sy]ure thing; it's trying to quantify an uncertainty, a risk--which humans are notoriously bad at.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My belief system says that every extra CO2 molecule oxidized from oil and gas radiates about 50% of the infrared radiation it absorbs back towards the planet. Consequently, in accordance with radiation physics and Greenhouse Theory, you get an increase in near surface earth temp and a decrease in higher altitudes. And more carbonic acid in the water.

Given the mass of hydrocarbon we've oxidized, that should be measurable, and I think it is--in CO2 concentrations and in the change in temp over the last 150 years. Yes, we haven't had anything much in 17 or 18 years, but it is still quite hot by 19th and 20th century standards, and it doesn't seemed to have gotten cooler either.

I don't buy the IPCC sensitivity factors myself, but I could be wrong. Not all AGW proponents are end-of-the-world Cassandras. It's not a sy]ure thing; it's trying to quantify an uncertainty, a risk--which humans are notoriously bad at.

See here's the thing - if you're not telling me you have evidence of a coming climate catastrophe, and I have to give up freedom and treasure to combat this unseen enemy only you and the truly evolved as you see them know about, then you and me don't have an argument.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Nope, it doesn't work that way and you know better.

I don't have to provide the data values to prove that your theory is falsifiable, that's YOUR job or else I get to ignore your theory and mark down your mid-term paper because you failed to provide a proof.

YOU provide the set of values that would disprove your theory so other scientists and skeptics can test your theory against that set of values.

I do know better, and that is the exact opposite way science works. A theory is proposed that explains observational data (in this case), and then other scientists try to disprove that theory, usually by trying to prove the data does not fit the theory. The proposer doesn't have to build a scenario that disproves their own theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview

Uh-huh. And the same source notes that testability and falsifiability are essentially the same thing.

So now that we're on the same page perhaps you can illuminate me with how you can test your theory?

Right, they are the same thing. But nowhere did it say any theory is incomplete unless it has a way to disprove itself. Newtons Theories on Gravity do not do this, Einsteins' theories on General and Special Relativity do not do this - why should theories on global warming?

It's not my theory, but the way any theory is dis-proven is the same; observations that do not fit with the theory can call the theory into question. If we all suddenly fly off into outerspace, Newton was wrong about gravity.

This also goes to 'the science is in'. Gravity, Evolution, Relativity may all be 'theories' in the classical sense, but there is so much science backing them up they are pretty much concrete fact. But the possibility they may be wrong is always there.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Because over the past twenty years I've heard no end of prognostications from the proponents of AGW and I have yet to see any of them come to pass.

None of them. (You know the list but I can repost it if you want.)

Naturally, that invites you to show me a clearly demonstrable instance where AGW was proposed to have a specific effect and then that specific effect did, in fact, occur.

I've seen a lot of predictions too. (I want my flying car, dammit!) I'm not sure of your list, but if I recall it falls into Zips 'Catastrophic' warming category.

I've never made any warming predictions, but the ones I see happening are: increasing land surface air temperature, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, tropospheric temperature, ocean heat content and specific humidity.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of- ... s/?ts=land

Things like; melting arctic ice, melting permafrost, marine animals that are being poisoned by diseases found in kitty litter, glaciers not only melting but the rate of melting is accelerating and never a year where glaciers are being replenished. Many such predictions coming true, and some things that were unforeseen.

As I've posted in the past, the model predictions of average global temperature are somewhat conservative compared to actual recorded temperatures. Predictions were lower than what we actually recorded, and that does not bode well for us.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This would constitute a test.

That's part of the scientific process is it not?

Indeed it is! But models for global warming run into the decade long range. Testing on that scale takes a while. But so far, recorded temperatures are following or exceeding predictions. That's what the anti-global warming crowd seems to forget - all it takes is observations that don't fit the models to invalidate the models. Once we start to see yearly average global temperatures falling year after year after year, we'll know the Earth is not warming.

But they aren't. The theory passes the test for falsification.

And just to go back for a second:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Feel free to show me a computer model that can accurately predict the weather for last month or the climate patterns for last year and we'll talk.

Because no such model exists that can accurately extrapolate KNOWN weather and climate data just so far back as thirty days.

Confusing climate and weather again?

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/aren- ... simplistic

No, which is why I took care to separate the two in my post.

But climate computer models and weather computer models are very different beasts. Like comparing apples to pole dancers. I easily found climate models that have accurately predicted things like stratospheric and tropospheric warming, ocean surface temperature and arctic warming today that were made 10 and 20 years ago. When we add today's data into them, the predictions they make for 20 to 50 years out is bleak.

[Xort]

I think that global warming isn't a serious threat. But maybe it would be more accurate to say, the cost of adjusting for global warming isn't a big a threat as trying to counter CO2 emissions with taxes, trades or credits.

That is, if global warming is caused by humans, and if the change in the climate (not just warming) is always going to be bad, and that it's going to do less actual harm than the slowed roll out of energy technologies in the developing nations around the world.

That said for reasons unrelated to CO2, I'd like to see an end to coal burning for power, and the development of cost effective synthetic liquid fuels.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

See here's the thing - if you're not telling me you have evidence of a coming climate catastrophe, and I have to give up freedom and treasure to combat this unseen enemy only you and the truly evolved as you see them know about, then you and me don't have an argument.

No, we don't. And yet we still argue! I think we both just like arguing.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

See here's the thing - if you're not telling me you have evidence of a coming climate catastrophe, and I have to give up freedom and treasure to combat this unseen enemy only you and the truly evolved as you see them know about, then you and me don't have an argument.

No, we don't. And yet we still argue! I think we both just like arguing.