Can Global Warming proponents formulate

We are the Borg.
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by ed »

a falsifiable hypothesis?

Just curious. Since it seems that every event is due to global warming I am sensing a sort of religious quiver to it.

So, can they? It is sorta a yes or no, actually.
JEROME DA GNOME
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:13 am

Post by JEROME DA GNOME »

No.
Doctor X
Posts: 75268
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by Doctor X »

ed wrote:Just curious. Since it seems that every event is due to global warming I am sensing a sort of religious quiver to it.
Obama not being Teh Natural Born Citizen is due to Global Warming?!1!

:shock:

--J.D.

P.S. I simply do not like smog. Smog . . . is . . . bad.
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

and is due to GW.

Funny thing is that if it is an oddity, it is weather. If it fits, it is climate. :lol:
JEROME DA GNOME
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:13 am

Post by JEROME DA GNOME »

ed wrote:and is due to GW.

Funny thing is that if it is an oddity, it is weather. If it fits, it is climate. :lol:
Classic confirmation bias.
Doctor X
Posts: 75268
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Post by Doctor X »

There is sadly two ideologies on the extremes of the issues--leaving aside trolling Cunttards--mucking up significance.

For me, I do not like pollution; I do not require global warming to reduce it.

--J.D.
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

well, is there one?
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

ed wrote:well, is there one?
Yes, but it's complicated and requires UN approval. You shouldn't worry your silly little head about it. Suffice it to say that there really is a point where all the proponents will agree they were wrong and it's really just the opposite: global cooling (requiring, of course, the exact same political measures to forestall/cure).
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by Geni »

ed wrote:a falsifiable hypothesis?

Just curious. Since it seems that every event is due to global warming I am sensing a sort of religious quiver to it.

So, can they? It is sorta a yes or no, actually.
1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp (suggest testing by replaceing venus atmosphere hey you never specified it should be easy).

3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.


Therefore increaseing CO2 levels will increase the volume taken up by the worlds oceans (you may or may not regard this as a bad thing).

You can falsify this either by dirrectly increaseing CO2 levels and measureing the result (set fire to enough coal seams). Or by showing one of the intermediate stages to be false.
En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

Or, you can look at the trends in lots of places and see if they are stationary or changing a lot (i.e. how many 50 year winters in a row does it take), in order to demonstrate change.

What kind of change is a lot harder.
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Post by DrMatt »

jj wrote:Or, you can look at the trends in lots of places and see if they are stationary or changing a lot (i.e. how many 50 year winters in a row does it take), in order to demonstrate change.

What kind of change is a lot harder.
The business of "predictions" in the historical sciences (including criminology) generally strains the brains of fools. They don't like their brains being strained, so they jump up and down with their fingers in their ears.
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

With GW, it's kind of self explanatory. With AGW, it's understandably a bit trickier.
That masked man
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:25 am

Post by That masked man »

Doctor X wrote:There is sadly two ideologies on the extremes of the issues--leaving aside trolling Cunttards--mucking up significance.

For me, I do not like pollution; I do not require global warming to reduce it.

--J.D.
But global warming changes the definition of "pollution". Now even those of us who do not smoke emit pollution every time we exhale. That's one of the things that really bothers me about the global warming crusaders. And then there are things like this.
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

That masked man wrote:
Doctor X wrote:There is sadly two ideologies on the extremes of the issues--leaving aside trolling Cunttards--mucking up significance.

For me, I do not like pollution; I do not require global warming to reduce it.

--J.D.
But global warming changes the definition of "pollution". Now even those of us who do not smoke emit pollution every time we exhale. That's one of the things that really bothers me about the global warming crusaders. And then there are things like this.
Well, water IS toxic after all.
JEROME DA GNOME
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:13 am

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by JEROME DA GNOME »

Geni wrote: 1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... ot.svg.png



Now keep in mind that the "new" most recent data is derived from a different technique.

Do you find a scientific problem with measurement comparisons using different techniques?


Notice on the chart the data comparisons using the same techniques are consistent.

Would not the logical scientific conclusion that the "new" techniques at deriving data are inconsistent with the old techniques and thus non-comparable?
JEROME DA GNOME
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:13 am

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by JEROME DA GNOME »

Geni wrote: 2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp (suggest testing by replaceing venus atmosphere hey you never specified it should be easy).

You have it backwards.


CO2 levels in the atmosphere FOLLOW temperature increases, not the reverse.

As the temperature increases the oceans, the largest source of CO2, release CO2 into the atmosphere.
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by EvilYeti »

ed wrote:a falsifiable hypothesis?

Just curious. Since it seems that every event is due to global warming I am sensing a sort of religious quiver to it.

So, can they? It is sorta a yes or no, actually.
Of course it is.

You can prove the earth is getting colder or that the billions of tons of GHG's we are pumping into the atmosphere have no effect.

Both would be pretty trivial to do, actually.

The rest of your statement is a strawman as no climate scientists would say any weather event is 'due' to global warming. Climate is much more complex than that. And its entirely not a 'yes or no' question, actually.

Btw, have you stopped beating your wife? That's a better example of a yes or no question.
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Falsifiable hypothesis?

What was the date Al Gore set? Do nothing about climate change and if the planet is still inhabitable by something other than a handful of starveling wretches ...

etc.
Al Gore is a climate scientist? News to me!

Here is a decent article on some of the proposed effects of global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Global_Warming

I don't see anything about starving wretches.
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

More on the scientific consensus of global warming...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html
JEROME DA GNOME
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:13 am

Post by JEROME DA GNOME »

EvilYeti wrote:More on the scientific consensus of global warming...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

Did you read???

The scientists approached...


You must now understand that the scientists surveyed where chosen to be surveyed?
EvilYeti
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
Location: San Diego

Post by EvilYeti »

JEROME DA GNOME wrote: You must now understand that the scientists surveyed where chosen to be surveyed?
You are a fucking idiot.
Drooper
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by Drooper »

EvilYeti wrote:The rest of your statement is a strawman as no climate scientists would say any weather event is 'due' to global warming. Climate is much more complex than that. And its entirely not a 'yes or no' question, actually.

Btw, have you stopped beating your wife? That's a better example of a yes or no question.
Well, that is a falsifiable statement. How about an IPCC lead author? I think that qualifies as a "climate scientist".

Kevin Trenberth:
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/docu ... nberth.pdf

See page 18 where his presentation slide entitled "How big is the effect from global warming?" provides one pretty specific answer:

"Implies 1" extra rain near New Orleans in Katrina"

I would suggest that this classifies as a Cimate Scientist saying a weather event was "due to" global warming. In this instance it was the severity of Katrina, or more specifically 1" of extra rain around New Orleans.
Drooper
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by Drooper »

To the more germaine issue of a falsificable claim, the best I can think of relate to projections/predictions/forecasts for long-term trends. Unfortunately they take a long time for sufficient data to accumulate in order to text. But I believe we have at least some falsifiable claims of sufficient vintage that can be objectively assessed. Here are two.

James Hansens projections for global average temperatures from 1988. We can compare with 20 years of subsequent data. The back ground is that Hansen present 3 scenarios (A, B, C). The scenarios varied mainly in the assumptions they used for future greenhousehouse gas emissions (GHGs). While relatively complicated, Hansen himself simplified the interpretation of the scenarios as follows:

A - Emissions growth continues growth rates of previous 20 years
B - Emissions growth remains constant
C - Drastic reduction in emissions (negative growth)

This from his original 1988 paper:

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff24 ... ansen2.jpg

Here I have superimposed data from 1988 onto a plot of his forecasts. What you will note is that global average temperatures have diverged below the trend he forecast under the assumption that emissions would be "drastically reduced".

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff24 ... ansen1.jpg

I consider that as claim falsified. This model failed badly.

Now example two. The previous might be criticesed as being only one man, only one claim. Consider the analysis conducted here:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/lo ... an-models/

Just to give a summary, Lucia analyses long-term temperature trends predicted by a suite of 16 global climate models and compared with actual long-term trends. The models increasingly over-estimate the trend in temperatures. It should be self evident which line is which.

In consider that a falsified claim.
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by ed »

Geni wrote:
ed wrote:a falsifiable hypothesis?

Just curious. Since it seems that every event is due to global warming I am sensing a sort of religious quiver to it.

So, can they? It is sorta a yes or no, actually.
1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.
That is an assertion that require proof.
2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp (suggest testing by replaceing venus atmosphere hey you never specified it should be easy).
This, without a lot of evidence, does not address cause and effect. Correlation does not imply etc.
3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.
OK
Therefore increaseing CO2 levels should increase the volume taken up by the worlds oceans (you may or may not regard this as a bad thing).
Fixed it fer ya.
You can falsify this either by dirrectly increaseing CO2 levels and measureing the result (set fire to enough coal seams).
This is a condition that is roughly equivilent to that required by religious fanatics. It is not a reasonable condition.

Or by showing one of the intermediate stages to be false.
The first two are mere assertions. This example is logically unsound.
Segnosaur
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:31 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by Segnosaur »

Geni wrote:
ed wrote:a falsifiable hypothesis?
1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp (suggest testing by replaceing venus atmosphere hey you never specified it should be easy).

3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.

Therefore increaseing CO2 levels will increase the volume taken up by the worlds oceans (you may or may not regard this as a bad thing).

You can falsify this either by dirrectly increaseing CO2 levels and measureing the result (set fire to enough coal seams). Or by showing one of the intermediate stages to be false.
Actually, there is one minor problem I can see with your argument...

The maximum density of water occurs when the temperature is 4 degrees celcius. Some of the water in the oceans is warmer than that temperature. Other water is colder than that. So, any global warming will cause SOME ocean water to increase in volume (water at the surface, close to the equator), but cause OTHER water to decrease in volume (water in the arctic, or in the extreme deep). I'm sure its been discussed somewhere (although I haven't come across any sources that I trust), but its at least possible that an increase in average temperature could cause a decrease in ocean volume, depending on just what water is being warmed.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high

Of course, that's just dealing with ocean volumes as they change with temperature; there is still the issue of added volume from the possible melting of ice sheets on land in the arctic/antarctic.
Luke T.
Posts: 27094
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by Luke T. »

Geni wrote:
ed wrote:a falsifiable hypothesis?
1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp (suggest testing by replaceing venus atmosphere hey you never specified it should be easy).

3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.

Therefore increaseing CO2 levels will increase the volume taken up by the worlds oceans (you may or may not regard this as a bad thing).

You can falsify this either by dirrectly increaseing CO2 levels and measureing the result (set fire to enough coal seams). Or by showing one of the intermediate stages to be false.
So here's what I get from this post. CO2 increases temperature. An increase in temperature increases the volume of space that water takes up. Therefore, increase CO2 and temperature will increase and then you should see an increase in ocean volume.

Um.

Kind of going around your ass to get to your elbow.

Just measure temperature.
Luke T.
Posts: 27094
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Post by Luke T. »

I think what we need for a falsifiable hypothesis is something along the lines of "This much man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causes this much of an increase in the world's temperature".

Right now, it looks the temperature is measured and then it is said, "Man did most, if not all, of that."
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

I don't buy highly aggregate temperatures. I'd rather see a cross section of geographies.
Cool Hand
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

ed wrote:I don't buy highly aggregate temperatures. I'd rather see a cross section of geographies.
Same here.

There is local and regional variation. Some regions are getting warmer, some colder, and some remain relatively stable. Why this might be surprising to anyone is rather puzzling.

Does it make sense to add them up to get a net resultant change? To what legitimate scientific end?

CH
Last edited by Cool Hand on Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by Geni »

Luke T. wrote:
Geni wrote:
ed wrote:a falsifiable hypothesis?
1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp (suggest testing by replaceing venus atmosphere hey you never specified it should be easy).

3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.

Therefore increaseing CO2 levels will increase the volume taken up by the worlds oceans (you may or may not regard this as a bad thing).

You can falsify this either by dirrectly increaseing CO2 levels and measureing the result (set fire to enough coal seams). Or by showing one of the intermediate stages to be false.
So here's what I get from this post. CO2 increases temperature. An increase in temperature increases the volume of space that water takes up. Therefore, increase CO2 and temperature will increase and then you should see an increase in ocean volume.

Um.

Kind of going around your ass to get to your elbow.
Depends on your POV.
Just measure temperature.
That would produce the result that global warming is happening faster than we think it is (urban heat island effect causes issues).
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Luke T. wrote:I think what we need for a falsifiable hypothesis is something along the lines of "This much man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causes this much of an increase in the world's temperature".
Rather hard to do since you have to track things like changes in albedo, latent energy issues due the melting of ice and the various ways CO2 can be absorbed.
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

Geni wrote:
Luke T. wrote:I think what we need for a falsifiable hypothesis is something along the lines of "This much man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causes this much of an increase in the world's temperature".
Rather hard to do since you have to track things like changes in albedo, latent energy issues due the melting of ice and the various ways CO2 can be absorbed.
Is CO2 a cause or an effect? "Hard to do" does not really cut it when the implications are so far reaching.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

ed wrote: Is CO2 a cause or an effect?
Unless you are prepared to disspute the existiance of the greenhouse effect riseing CO2 levels cause warming.
"Hard to do" does not really cut it when the implications are so far reaching.
Aparently it does with estimates of global oil, gas and metal reserves.
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Post by xouper »

Geni wrote:
Luke T. wrote:I think what we need for a falsifiable hypothesis is something along the lines of "This much man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causes this much of an increase in the world's temperature".
Rather hard to do ...
And yet some people seem to think it is a fait accompli.

:roll:
ed
Posts: 41469
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

Geni wrote:
ed wrote: Is CO2 a cause or an effect?
Unless you are prepared to disspute the existiance of the greenhouse effect riseing CO2 levels cause warming.
"Hard to do" does not really cut it when the implications are so far reaching.
Aparently it does with estimates of global oil, gas and metal reserves.
You are making a claim with far reaching implications, it is up to you to support that claim. Thats science 101.

We are not talking about reserves and that being the case your remark is simply obfuscation.

Either one can make a falsifiable hypothesis or not. If not we have entered the world of religion.

Your earlier effort failed in that regard. You do realize that, no?

Funny, given all the hoopla I thought that my request was a really simple one.

ETA I suspect that you will draw parallels to cosmology or somesuch and I think the argument that I make still holds. If you can't test it the conjecture is simply a conjecture. This is relevent because of the massive impact that "combating global warming Inc." would have on lots of things.

We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit. Why regulate emissions, for example? Why be carbon neutral?

Hasn't anyone asked these questions?

I'm not being coy, I just have not followed the arguments... now I am beginning to wish I had.
gnome
Posts: 25954
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Can Global Warming proponents formulate

Post by gnome »

Segnosaur wrote: Actually, there is one minor problem I can see with your argument...

The maximum density of water occurs when the temperature is 4 degrees celcius. Some of the water in the oceans is warmer than that temperature. Other water is colder than that. So, any global warming will cause SOME ocean water to increase in volume (water at the surface, close to the equator), but cause OTHER water to decrease in volume (water in the arctic, or in the extreme deep). I'm sure its been discussed somewhere (although I haven't come across any sources that I trust), but its at least possible that an increase in average temperature could cause a decrease in ocean volume, depending on just what water is being warmed.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high

Of course, that's just dealing with ocean volumes as they change with temperature; there is still the issue of added volume from the possible melting of ice sheets on land in the arctic/antarctic.
Segnosaur! The same, from TOP, the only guy on there who's a bigger Trekkie than I am? :P

Welcome aboard!
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

ed wrote:You are making a claim with far reaching implications, it is up to you to support that claim. Thats science 101.

Supporting it is fairly easy. We know CO2 levels are riseing and we know that CO" creates a greenhouse effect. We have no reason to think that the greenhouse effect will stop working once a certian level of CO2 is reached (in fact we know it doesn't from the issues with venus.
Either one can make a falsifiable hypothesis or not. If not we have entered the world of religion.

Your earlier effort failed in that regard. You do realize that, no?
You lack of understanding as to what falsifiable isn't my problem. If you wish to alter your request to "falsifiable with currently availible technology within a reasonable timeframe" please just say so.

ETA I suspect that you will draw parallels to cosmology or somesuch and I think the argument that I make still holds. If you can't test it the conjecture is simply a conjecture. This is relevent because of the massive impact that "combating global warming Inc." would have on lots of things.
You can test it.
We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit.
That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).

For CO2 not to cause a greenhose effect requires our understanding of the behavior of CO2 and electromagnetic radation to be complete bollocks. Which is somewhat unlikely. It would also cause the problem that we would be unable to explain the surface temp of venus or why liquid water can commonly be found on the earth's surface (without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of earth would be probably a bit bellow -10C).
xouper
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Post by xouper »

Geni wrote:
We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit.
That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).
Wow. That is totally awesome. From now on, whenever I need something scientific explained to me, I'm coming to you for edification.





:roll:
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

xouper wrote:
Geni wrote:
We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit.
That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).
Wow. That is totally awesome. From now on, whenever I need something scientific explained to me, I'm coming to you for edification.
Was there some part of that you wished to dissagree with?
sparks
Posts: 17370
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Post by sparks »

Good Christ ed, what have you done? :)