More Warming News!

[seer]

The wiggles aren't THAT big. The average growth in temperature is low enough, and the wiggles big enough that you need to look over a sufficiently long period. Its like looking at the Dow Jones Index of the stock market during a time of market growth. Day to day? Random up and down. Week to week? Random up and down. Month to month? Random up and down, trending slightly upwards... though local seasons interplay. Year to year? Random up and down, but a trend emerging. Decade to decade? Clear trend.

Obviously wiggles are big enough to be the main driver of warming for 25 years, 1975-2000.

[Cow Poke]

You mean cow farts don't find their ways out of a cow one way or the other?

Yeah, I should have said PREMATURELY venting cow farts to atmosphere. But if we did NOT relieve these cows of their gastrointestinal flatuational distress, we'd have the Animal Rights people down our throats. You just can't win!

[Leonhard]

No Len, I'm sorry these guys are saying that the main driver of the warming in those years was not man - that is in direct contradiction to what the warmists claimed. Well perhaps most of the warning over the last century wasn't driven by man either.

First of all seer, I don't like quote mining. And their scientific report said something different. I've read both news section done on them via interview, and their report abstract, so I'll highlight the appropriate thing here.

We find that the empirical EUN is wide enough so that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century does not necessarily require corresponding variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal. The empirical EUN also indicates that the reduced GMT warming over the past decade or so is still consistent with a middle emission scenario’s forced signal, but is likely inconsistent with the steepest emission scenario’s forced signal.

Which is what I've been saying here,the variability does not mean that the average temperature rise has changed, or halted. They're not saying that we have no evidence of global warming. They're saying that it might be inconsistent with the worst-case scenarios, but that its still consistent with the middle range scenarios.

“Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

[Leonhard]

Yeah, I should have said PREMATURELY venting cow farts to atmosphere. But if we did NOT relieve these cows of their gastrointestinal flatuational distress, we'd have the Animal Rights people down our throats. You just can't win!

Its not a fight worth fighting.

What we need is solar power and some wind turbines, lots of electrical cars, an electrical exchange so that people can sell electricity, and since at any given times there will be a huge number of electrical cars plugged in, 5% of their batteries can go to stabalising the national powergrid. Distributed, free market, superior to gas, long lasting, cheaper than coal in the long run... and I kinda wanna see gem blue fields silicon photovoltaics among the fields of gold.

[Paprika]

At least they admit that there was a hiatus in warming

Note how the core theory will not be exposed to falsification by data, in line with Imre Lakatos' observations:

All scientific research-programmes may be characterised by their ‘hard core‘. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this ‘hard core': it bids us to articulate or even invent with great ingenuity touchstone theories ‘auxiliary hypotheses’, which build up a protective belt around this core, and redirect the modus tollens on to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced in the defence of the thus hardened core.

In this instance the core of AGW is protected from falsification by the auxiliary hypotheses such as 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' or the like.

[Leonhard]

Note how the core theory will not be exposed to falsification by data, in line with Imre Lakatos' observations:

All scientific research-programmes may be characterised by their ‘hard core‘. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this ‘hard core': it bids us to articulate or even invent with great ingenuity touchstone theories ‘auxiliary hypotheses’, which build up a protective belt around this core, and redirect the modus tollens on to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced in the defence of the thus hardened core.

In this instance the core of AGW is protected from falsification by the auxiliary hypotheses such as 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' or the like.

This is not true, it would be possible to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, if say one identified a greater cause of CO2 in the atmosphere, if one disproved the water content positive feedback cycle, all that would effectively decouple human activity from the rise in temperature. Then it would just be a mystery why the Earth is getting warmer... pure divine act?

Even the notion that the Earth is getting warmer, which is well attested now could be disproved by say... three straight decades with no indication of warming.

[Paprika]

This is not true, it would be possible to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, if say one identified a greater cause of CO2 in the atmosphere, if one disproved the water content positive feedback cycle

As Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away the data.

Even the notion that the Earth is getting warmer, which is well attested now could be disproved by say... three straight decades with no indication of warming.

It could. It would be much more likely that the scientists would double-down - precisely as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.

The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.

[Leonhard]

...as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What findings are being "denied" by scientists here? Their article was published in Nature, so its not as if anything that's being discussed here is being "hidden under the mat", and they're not inventing whole cloth any new theories to "explain away" any findings here.

If you read the article you'd see that they're genuinely comparing the data to the predictions, and finding that this might not be consistent with the worst case scenario. So I think you're reading way too much into what's happening here, or you don't quite understand what they're doing.

As Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away. The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.

It makes sense, and that's the current view of the science of philosophy, when contradictory evidence to a given model comes in you don't automatically dismiss the model, as there's a whole number of reasons why you have such evidence. Could be simple that some variable is off somewhere, some auxiliary assumption is wrong, rather than the core principles themselves.

To not do this wouldn't make for good science. Then we'd be throwing out the theory of electromagnetics the moment someone had a glitch in a detector.

[Paprika]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What findings are being "denied" by scientists here?

I didn't say "denied". Don't put words in my mouth.

If you read the article you'd see that they're genuinely comparing the data to the predictions, and finding that this might not be consistent with the worst case scenario. So I think you're reading way too much into what's happening here, or you don't quite understand what they're doing.

The greatly reduced rate of warming is being explained by 'natural variations', as I said.

It makes sense, and that's the current view of the science of philosophy, when contradictory evidence to a given model comes in you don't automatically dismiss the model, as there's a whole number of reasons why you have such evidence. Could be simple that some variable is off somewhere, some auxiliary assumption is wrong, rather than the core principles themselves.

To not do this wouldn't make for good science. Then we'd be throwing out the theory of electromagnetics the moment someone had a glitch in a detector.

Indeed. Lakatos wasn't endeavouring a negative critique but a description of how science works; no one is saying it is all bad.

But what the core-protecting phenomena he describes can also lead to, for example, is ossified group-think where the core is to be protected in spite of varied contraindicating or contradictory evidence.

[Leonhard]

I didn't say "denied". Don't put words in my mouth.

I apologize, you're right, the quote tags shouldn't have been there.

The greatly reduced rate of warming is being explained by 'natural variations', as I said.

They're not adding any new explanations here. Those random fluctuations are present. The models remain unchanged. Cutting out all the technical description they simple compared the models to these fluctuations. I wouldn't call making a comparison, and concluding one of the models might not fit will anymore, to be explaining things away.

As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.

Indeed. Lakatos wasn't endeavouring a negative critique but a description of how science works; no one is saying it is all bad. ... But what the core-protecting phenomena he describes can also lead to, for example, is ossified group-think where the core is to be protected in spite of varied contraindicating or contradictory evidence.

I don't disagree with you. Though that cuts both ways. In the seventies Ronald Reagan could get away with saying things like "Trees pollute more than cars." which he did. After the academia became overridden with liberals, and the conservative party started losing their hands on the engineers and physicists... in the sixties if you were an engineer, you were typically a conservative, I think there's been this mentallity of suspicion against anything scientists come up with.

Historically it makes sense, but I don't think its productive to disagree with them on the issue of global warming. So far it means that the liberals in the US gets to look like the scientifically suave platform.

[Jedidiah]

As Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away the data.


It could. It would be much more likely that the scientists would double-down - precisely as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.

The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.

But as they say, "the science is settled."

[Leonhard]

But as they say, "the science is settled."

You can actually be fairly well justified in this, when the core assumptions hasn't changed, and only been ever more verified over a period of several decades. I think american conservatives (and it is a very american phenomenon), underestimate how much evidence actually support this.

[Jesse]

You can actually be fairly well justified in this...

No, you actually can't. That is not how science works. There has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as "settled science". All science is variable. The only thing you can be sure of in science is that it will change as new data and hypotheses are introduced.

[Leonhard]

No, you actually can't. That is not how science works. There has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as "settled science". All science is variable. The only thing you can be sure of in science is that it will change as new data and hypotheses are introduced.

That depends on whether you dismiss the notion of objective truth, if you do, nothing can ever really be settled and will always merely be a question of political narrative.

And sure I don't think science will ever get everything 100% certain, and there will always be finer points to fiddle with. However fundamental revolutions in science are extremely rare once things have been settled for a while.

Is it possible that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed and that its main conclusion is false? Yes, and I can imagine the evidence that would show this, but at this point its really unlikely.

[Jesse]

That depends on whether you dismiss the notion of objective truth, if you do, nothing can ever really be settled and will always merely be a question of political narrative.

And sure I don't think science will ever get everything 100% certain, and there will always be finer points to fiddle with. However fundamental revolutions in science are extremely rare once things have been settled for a while.

Is it possible that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed and that its main conclusion is false? Yes, and I can imagine the evidence that would show this, but at this point its really unlikely.

My only bone of contention lies in the idea of claiming "settled science" in an area of science where it could not possibly be the case. For the area is too wide. I have only seen the proponents of AGW use this terminology. You do not see scientists in the area of physics, biology, etc. make such a claim. Nor would they ever dare too because they know their field is too wide and variable.

Is there global warming? I personally believe there is since we should be naturally warming from the last ice age. Does that mean it's man made? No. The jury is still out on that part of it. There is no "settled science" here.