The cite says that three of 'em are ranked together because they’re so close that any difference is statistically insignificant; you’re apparently incapable of deducing that the others aren’t ranked together with 'em because they don’t fall within the same margin of uncertainty. If I provide a cite that X is taller than Y, you’ll presumably reply that, no, we need a cite spelling out that Y is shorter than X. If I provide a cite that A equals B, you’ll presumably reply that, no, we need one specifying that B equals A. You’re clowning around, is all.
Er, no; I cut the quote there because it had already made – and neatly expanded on – use of the word “cooling”, which you falsely claimed I could only have gotten from a denialist website (assuming for the sake of argument that I couldn’t deduce it from the same opposite-of-warming phenomenon your quote references: the perfectly intelligible point that ‘last year was cooler than previous years’. Sure, your quote goes on to explain why that isn’t terribly important – but don’t gloss over that it makes a perfectly intelligible, and downright obvious, point all the same).
My complaint is that you’re refusing to supply a falsifiability criterion that you feel is good enough to satisfy the scientists. If you’ll obligingly make that clear every time you step into a thread to explain why a given attempt at falsification isn’t good enough – if you’ll always spell out that no hypothetical evidence could possibly be good enough to so falsify the predictions in question – then I’ll be quite delighted.
Though if you can spell out such a falsification criterion, I’d be equally delighted if you’d simply mention it right now.
No, I’m demanding a cite to see if you even understand what you are getting from all this, it is clear that the experts do not see cooling there, so the link cite I’m asking is from any expert that agrees that there is statistical significant cooling there.
But I’m not holding my breath that you will produce one.
Translation: I have nothing again. But good to see that you admit that you did misunderstood. The whole context shows that it still refers to a heating trend.
Why should I worry when you have demonstrated that there is no support for your opinions?
Not going to even give that straw that you are trying to grasp, first you have to even show that your original say so that -it is cooling since 1998 and the UN supports me on that- was based on something real, and not a rhetorical line that was misunderstood by you.
I honestly can’t tell any more whether you’re just playing around. Why do you think they ranked only those three years together as the warmest, if not because the other years were cooler? If the other years had been within the same statistically insignificant margin, wouldn’t they have been ranked together with those three?
I didn’t ask you to worry; you can quite unconcernedly, and even enthusiastically, spell out that you won’t name any such hypothetical falsification criteria. I said I’d be delighted to have you include that disclaimer; you’re more than welcome to be delighted when you do so.
First off, we may be talking past each other; let’s break it down into simpler items; I said, for a start, that it was cooling from '98 to '99; do you think the UN supports me on that modest claim? Answer yes or no and I’ll then move on to '00 or supply the cite, as appropriate
Second, it’s not that having you spell out the falsification criterion would give me a straw; your unwillingness to provide that criterion is the straw I want. If you won’t tell me what you think would make the predictions false, then you’re telling me precisely what you think about their truth.
It is clear you do not remember the 1995 “cooling” incident, A denier asked if there was no statistically significant warming since 1995 to Dr. Phil Jones from the CRU in 2010, it was a question designed to get only a sincere answer that could be distorted, and it was, to death:
So I have to say you do not know what statistical significance means here, there is no statistical significance between the 3 highest temperatures, what the experts are talking about is that whoever thinks one can find statistically significant change among the few previous years does not know what is talking about, or you have some source that is telling you that there is, because the experts quoted even say that:
So, no support for even the peculiar definition you are giving to statistical significance, it does not work that way and a bigger picture is needed.
[The Princess Bride]
Man in Black: Get used to disappointment.
[/TPB]
Sorry, but as shown, I do not think you even understand how wrong you are on your point, one should not waste more time on looking for a scientific falsification from a pseudo-scientific line of questioning, science does not work that way.
No. We are trying to achieve statistical significance.
I really am bemused by your focus on “falsification criterion.” Some say the U.S. economy would be in (pick one) better/worse shape without the 2009 stimulus. What would be your falsification criterion for that? If falsifiability is impossible, does that mean economics is not a science?
Some believe that we are approaching another Ice Age, and that Global Warming will thus be a temporary condition lasting only a few centuries. If, indeed, an Ice Age begins before, say, 2400 AD, will that falsify Warming?
Mr. Pepper drove his kids cross-country on Interstate 80, promising them they would get to an elevation of 8640 feet. After Donner Pass (which did not reach that elevation), they went downhill for a long time with Baby Pepper in the backseat shrieking “How many more downhill miles do we need to go before you admit that your 8640-feet claim is falsified?”
Someone following this thread might be curious what, if anything, The Other Waldo Pepper believes or intuits about temperature trends. Can you answer that, or is it all just about “falsifiability” rhetoric?
Interesting. See, the link I posted to the WMO used that phrase differently and explicitly: “Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998 … The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.”
So when they’re using the phrase “statistically significant”, they’re referring to a fairly straightforward concept: either the variance is less than the specified hundredths of a degree, in which case it’s not statistically significant – or it’s more than that, which is.
Hey, I’m just copy-and-pasting the WMO’s terminology, here. If, say, '07 had fallen in that same hundredths-of-a-degree margin of uncertainty as the other three years, it would’ve been ranked along with them as warmest by dint of showing “no statistically significant difference between global temperatures”; it didn’t, and so it wasn’t.
If the WMO had spelled out some different use of the term, I would’ve used that. It didn’t, so I didn’t. I just posted the link.
My line of questioning is irrelevant; whether you can offer falsification criteria is a single and separable point, it stands alone regardless of who requests it. Science currently holds that no mass can be accelerated to the speed of light in a vacuum; if anyone asks what could falsify that claim, a physicist could briskly answer that accelerating a mass to that speed would do nicely – and he could of course do it regardless of whether the questioner started off by saying something pseudo-scientific about astrology or alchemy or whatever.
Is there nothing comparable you can say about falsification here? You can of course make it decidedly more complex – but to the extent that there is a prediction being made, it should be susceptible to some sort of phrasing, no matter who asks.
Piffle; you’re not even making a prediction about warming.
Well, first off, let me be clear: are you saying that climate science is like unto economics in that sense? Second, though, while we of course can’t do the experiment both ways with regard to something like the stimulus and watch the differences shake out in the road not taken, we can nevertheless make falsifiable predictions ahead of time: that we’ll avoid a depression, given a specified definition of “depression”, after spending the stimulus money in the prescribed fashion; that consumer spending will rise or decline past a certain designated margin of error; GDP this, unemployment that, pick a criterion, pick eight criteria – and while you’re right that we’ll never know what would’ve happened without the stimulus, we’ll at least know whether the falsifiable predictions came to pass.
It is. I offer no predictions about whether next year will be cooler or warmer than this one. I offer no predictions about whether the next decade will be cooler or warmer than the previous one. I make no 8640-foot promise; I merely want the falsifiability criterion from folks who do predict cooling or warming, as I would from folks pushing a stimulus or touting the benefits of a particular exercise regimen or whatever. It’s the first question we should ask when such predictions get made, and we can learn a lot from folks who can’t answer it.
And, forgive me; on the off-chance you’re serious, for the sake of completeness:
If he pegged it to the cross-country trip, then we’ve got a hard deadline, right?
I can’t say, until I know what warming has been predicted. If they’re saying “we’re in for 500 consecutive years of no cooling below a one-degree margin”, then yes, I suppose an Ice Age before 2400 AD would do it – but if they’re only predicting, say, a two-degree rise by 2100, then an Ice Age by 2400 wouldn’t do it. I don’t know what will falsify the warming prediction until I know exactly what that prediction is.
I actually was serious about the I-80 trip example, and the fact that it, unlike climate change, has clear certainty supports my point. Suppose instead that the driver is semi-literate, and only remembers that a respected friend told him “at some point you’ll go over a 8600-foot pass.” What does he tell the kid? (Obviously the analogy, not exact.)
Perhaps this analogy would work better: The Law of Averages tells us that Red will occur about as often as Black at the roulette wheel. Suppose that after 20 spins we have 17 Reds, 3 Blacks. What would you have me say when you ask “How many more Reds must we see to falsify the Law of Averages?”
Pretty much, yeah. From the first one: “Broecker overestimated the amount of global warming by 2010 slightly, by a bit less than 0.2°C. This is probably mainly due to his slight overestimate of climate sensitivity, and potentially due to the increased cooling effects over the past decade.” I figure that means being off by 0.2°C isn’t enough to falsify it – but that’s never actually spelled out, y’know? They don’t go on to specify that, say, “if he’d overestimated it by 0.7°C we’d be raising an eyebrow, and if he’d been off by 1.2°C it’d be laughably wrong,” or whatever.
From the second: “For the 7 climate models shown there, the temperature change to 2100 varies from 2 to 4.5 °C”. Be that as it may, how big a miss would falsify any given model? Would we call shenanigans at a 1.9°C rise? If not, how about 0.9°C? Or a nice round zero?
I don’t know how close you feel they can miss it and get a pass, and I don’t know how close GIGO feels would be appropriate – maybe you’d both give different answers? Does it depend on whether one of you signs on for the 4.5°C model and the other for the 2°C model? Either way, would any indications prior to 2100 be relevant, or does it all come down to the finish line such that we’re like kids in the back seat (a) watching dad do plenty of downhill driving in between stretches of flat land while (b) getting told not to count any evidence against the At Some Point claim until the exact moment our cross-country trip is actually over?
Well, yeah; no analogy is perfect, but one that hinges on portraying those who predict warming as like unto a semi-literate guy who only remembers a prediction he was told with no supporting evidence is a metaphor that goes to eerie places in entirely too much of a hurry.
Well, now that you’ve posted the link to lots of talk about 2100 as a hard deadline, sure. But before that, I was scratching my head: of course we can name a falsification criterion, I thought; it’ll come to pass by the end of the cross-country trip, or it won’t.
Again, though, there’s nothing magical about 2100; they figure we’ll get the predicted warming by then because we’re steadily getting partway there, right? It’s less analogous to peaks or cliffsides that can rise up after a long stretch of plains and valleys, such that something should be showing up for falsification – within what margin of error I’m not sure – by 2050? Maybe something should be on the radar by 2020, but maybe the short-term disclaimer (with, of course, no clear definitions for “short term” versus “long term”) swallows up such variations by adding that “scenarios do not include unknowable events - for example, volcanic eruptions or changes in solar forcing. These effects are believed to be small in comparison to GHG forcing in the long term, but large volcanic eruptions, for example, are known to exert a temporary cooling effect.”
I don’t know whether, say, GIGO thinks anything could happen by 2020 to falsify – or even cast doubt on – current predictions by experts. Maybe he thinks we need to wait until 2050, maybe 2070; possibly 2100? I genuinely don’t know, but I’d love to hear his answer – complete with whatever margin of error he prefers.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure. But at some point, wouldn’t both of us check our premises? At least to ask whether it’s a crooked wheel?
Yes. You’ve finally said something that makes sense.
So, for a follow-on question: Is it your belief that, despite that this last decade is the warmest decade on record, it’s still so cool as to make you wonder if AGW is on the verge of falsification? And all because 1998 was unusually warm?
I’d ask you to contemplate the roulette example further, realizing that it’s not just crooked wheels that can have a run of Reds.
And, at the risk of sounding snarky, if your goal is to learn, I’d suggest reading about random signals, or signal/noise ratios, or even getting a feel for temperature trends, rather than repeating the same unanswerable question about falsifiability.
I am a scientist and all science is evidence for or against a hypothesis. Either you have an argument that you are able to convince someone to agree with or you don’t. There have been innumerable instances of accepted dogma being challenged. It is always an uphill battle. Just because most scientists agree on one hypothesis does not make it “true”. The blind insistence that one hypothesis is correct and the only way to explain a phenomenon is not science.
It’s not that I wonder whether it’s on the verge of falsification; it’s that I wonder what would falsify it. Absent that, I reluctantly settle on pointing out the lack of warming since '98 – or, as your cite put it, “the increased cooling effects over the past decade.”
Well, some number of years of no warming since '98 would eventually falsify it, right? As per all seven of the models in your other cite? And we keep getting closer to the point where it would be relevant? It’s not a terribly good test for falsification, and I’ll promptly swap in yours or GIGO’s or anyone else’s whenever their predictions are at issue – but in the absence of one, it’s my default.
No, it’s not just crooked wheels that can have such a run. But it’d be just as wrong to say it’s never a crooked wheel.
How is it unanswerable? My sole objection to your first link was the lack of a stated margin of error. My primary objection to your second link was the lack of a stated margin of error. The climate report from the World Meteorological Organization spelled out their margin to a hundredth of a degree; why, then, should that be the last stumbling block, making otherwise answerable questions into unanswerable ones?
No they are referring to “statistically insignificant” (That is what that “no” makes it) you are even getting that wrong, and they are comparing only the top 3 years, the point there was to show those numbers in a decadal perspective, the previous decade had one top year, the next decade 2, besides high marks, global warming is noticed on how often the high marks appear as it means that is very likely that those high marks will be the next “normal” state.
But the bigger point is that what is good for the goose…
On the previous “it has not cooled myth year”, the reality was this:
Of course the misinterpretation to what Phil Jones said did not had to wait to show up, even when he said that it was only just, the value he was talking about for the “just” was just over 90%. Very close to significant. Now remember that the myth claimed that there was cooling going on (2010 was not accounted yet), So what was the significant reading for the cooling?
Likewise, the trend from 1998-2010 does not show any statistically significant cooling.
Once again, from a note assigning the 3 top years with insignificant statistical difference you pulled an statistically significant cooling with no evidence or good support whatsoever.
Yep, they even say that it is a myth to say that that it has cooled since 1998, as the point does refer to statistics, you do have to produce any expert that supports your points, I have done it several times already, there has been no significant cooling since 1998 and your only support from the UN was based on a misunderstanding. What it is conspicuous about this charade is that there are no significance values assigned to the so called cooling from 1998, the evidence points at deniers just pulling the “statistically significant” cooling from 1998 out of thin air since even independent experts still report a warming trend.
you’ve addressed nothing. The car is a money losing failure. Now unless you can provide evidence that GM is a charity whose purpose is to hire people to lose money then you have no argument.
Again, you’ve addressed nothing because there is no short term emergency. We do have a serious financial crisis at the moment and if that isn’t resolved then money will be pulled away from R&D.
California is going down in flames as we speak. It is the Chevy Volt of the United States and is in danger of defaulting. It’s easy to spend other people’s money but staying on budget takes skill.
Funny thing about China: They’re building 2 power plants a week. They aren’t leading anybody in anything beyond trying to make a buck with dirt cheap labor which is where our business will go if we raise the cost of energy in the US.
You don’t seem to understand that there are environmental consequences to raising costs to businesses. It will accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to 3rd world countries which will use more fossil fuels in their productions methods. When jobs leave this country tax revenue shrinks and the first expense that will get thrown out the window will be research dollars. The next thing to go will be money used to encourage government pet-projects.
In the real world, we have a serious unemployment problem and a heavy debt load. In the broader view, there are many countries on the brink of default. The real crisis today is a financial one.
OK, suppose humans are causing “global warming”?
Where are all the (supposed) horrible results?
Hurricanes (in the Eastern USA) have actually DECREASED in numbers and severity.
Rainfall amonts have not changed appreciably.
Polar bear populations are increasing (despit Al Gore’s tearjerker propaganda).
Where’s the beef?
California pays more in federal taxes than it receives - California is subsidizing states like Alaska, Mississippi, Virginia, etc. that receive far more in federal money than they pay in Federal taxes All Credit Types Are Welcome | LendingStore.com
