Is global warming falsifiable?

[tomndebb]

This thread has as its thesis the question whether the science behind AGW is falsifiable.

Random attacks on (or defenses of) undefined groups who propose specific efforts to ameliorate AGW are off topic.

Everyone wishing to argue those points may open a new thread to do so.
Continuing that discussion in this thread will be viewed as deliberately hijacking the thread.

Stop it.

[ /Moderating ]

[EdwinAmi]

they indeed expected to find problems with the evidence

Oh please. I don’t believe that for a second. The entire narrative. I’m betting it’s more like some group APPLIED for money from some Koch thing and through the overseer’s negligence got it. Or they just flat out lied

But, like I SAID, I don’t trust a statistical method. Unless they go to a lot of the sites, look at the conditions, and take building histories, it isn’t a “study” of that effect. Using very loose, broad data with very general assumptions to adjust is not studying for the albedo effect.

[GIGObuster]

@EdwinAmi

Oh please. I don’t believe that for a second. The entire narrative. I’m betting it’s more like some group APPLIED for money from some Koch thing and through the overseer’s negligence got it. Or they just flat out lied

No, in fact most that followed this issue knew what Muller was going for, his intension was indeed to falsify a lot of what the scientists were claiming, including the heat island city effect:

Bad, Badder,…BEST. The Video is here.

He ended up confirming what the scientists were reporting.

@EdwinAmi

But, like I SAID, I don’t trust a statistical method. Unless they go to a lot of the sites, look at the conditions, and take building histories, it isn’t a “study” of that effect. Using very loose, broad data with very general assumptions to adjust is not studying for the albedo effect.

Not correct either, Berkeley Earth used other proxies, other and more extensive data bases and different ways at examining the data.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@tomndebb

This thread has as its thesis the question whether the science behind AGW is falsifiable.

Based on what I have seen from EdwinAmi, I don’t think the poster has enough scientific knowledge to even understand what is being asked, let alone attempt to answer it it any meaningful way.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

EdwinAmi, have you considered following the evidence where it leads, rather than trusting your gut? Every time someone here says something, you immediately pipe up not with a source that supports your point of view, but with “I don’t buy that” or “that’s BS”. Even when they offer you multiple valid sources. And you don’t even offer a reason other than personal incredulity. You’re clearly not an expert on the subject, as the numerous times other people have provided sources to show that you’re wrong can clearly attest. It’s kinda getting silly at this point.

[phaemon]

@EdwinAmi

standard solar cells cost $15/watt, period.

Why take anyone’s word for this? Just go and Google for “1kw solar” and see what prices come up. If you’re right, they’ll be around $15,000. Divide by 1000 to get the price per Watt.

Then try it with “5kw solar” and see what you get (again, if you’re right it will be around $75,000). Divide by 5000 to get the prices per Watt.
So, what did you find?

[Lobohan]

I did the above and found that the first site I went to had 1kw systems for 2.50 a watt. That’s at onseie, twosie prices, not industrial rates.

Edwin, since you were wrong on that, isn’t it possible that you’re wrong on other things? Remember how sure you were.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Whoops, we scared him away.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Whoops, we scared him away.

I’m crushed.

[FXMastermind]

:rolleyes:

I’m sure fear was the reason

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@FXMastermind

:rolleyes:

I’m sure fear was the reason

Regardless of the reason, leaving while he was behind was the smartest thing the poster did in this thread.

You could learn something from him, actually.

[FXMastermind]

Nobody has responded to the science and data presented still.

@FXMastermind

I would love it if instead of vague commentary, the exact point could be refuted, with a source and everything. …

@FXMastermind

So lets use GISS anyhow, and simply destroy some of the ignorance and bad science being put forth, by those now attempting to tell you global warming is now causing colder winters, which is 100% against the global warming theory. (in essence, if the “new theory” is correct, then the old theory was wrong)…

Personal comments and vague claims with no evidence are not responses to specific points.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You could learn something from him, actually.

Evidently I was mistaken.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Nobody has responded to the science and data presented still.

It was replied many times before, I also referred in the past to this article from Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post/cold-winter-doesnt-mean-global-warm-2009-02-12/?id=cold-winter-doesnt-mean-global-warm-2009-02-12

Cold winter doesn’t mean global warming is over

Global warming is responsible for the overall upward temperature trend, and any snow outside our window shouldn’t convince us that Earth has stopped heating up, says Richard Heim, an NCDC meteorologist. “Most of the top 10 warmest years have happened in the last decade and a half,” Heim tells ScientificAmerican.com. “Global warming does not mean every year will be warmer than the previous year. Global warming means there’s an increasing frequency of warmer temperatures and a decreasing frequency of cooler temperatures, and that’s definitely what we’re seeing.”

So how to explain the relatively colder winters we’ve had in the latter half of this decade? Goddard attributes them to La Niña, a cyclical pattern of cold sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. La Niña in the first half of 2008, followed by a neutral period in the latter half, likely had something to do with it, Heim says, but adds that global warming is about long-term, rising temperature trends over time. “It’s kind of like a drunk driver,” Heim says. “The car is weaving back and forth, but it’s still progressing forward.”

That was from 2009, even in more updated reports the climate is not what FX claims it is by just concentrating on Februaries.

Warming Winters: U.S. Temperature Trends | Climate Central

Report Summary

While the U.S. as a whole has seen a warming trend that has raised annual average temperatures by 1.3°F over the past 100 years, warming varies seasonally, and it’s winter that has seen the fastest warming.

An analysis of data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network of weather stations shows that the coldest states are warming the fastest, and across the country winter warming since 1970 has been more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than over the past 100 years. Winter nights across the country have warmed about 30 percent faster than nights over the whole year. Some states cooled or failed to join the warming trend over the past 100 years, but since 1970, every state has shown winter-warming.

To better understand winter warming patterns we analyzed average-daily temperatures and overnight-low temperatures for December through February for the continental 48 states from 1912-2012 and 1970-2012.

We found:

Since 1970, winters in the top 5 fastest-warming states — Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Vermont and South Dakota — heated up four-and-a-half times faster than winters in the 5 slowest-warming states: Nevada, California, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. The five fastest-warming states have seen at least 4oF warming in winters since 1970.

Rates of warming (°F per decade) for average winter (Dec.-Feb.), 1970-2012.

Winter warming accelerated almost everywhere since 1970, and all states have warmed since that time. Nationwide since 1970, winters warmed more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than over the past 100 years.
 
In contrast, over the past century, winters in 13 states — 10 in the South — bucked the warming trend and either cooled significantly or exhibited a non-significant slight cooling trend.

Winter nights have warmed in all but one of the lower 48 states since 1970. Across the continent, winter nighttime temperatures have warmed about 30 percent faster than nighttime temperatures over the entire year. Since 1970, overnight winter temperatures in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Vermont have warmed faster than 1.29°F per decade, or more than 5°F in just 43 years.

@FXMastermind

Personal comments and vague claims with no evidence are not responses to specific points.

And I did link before to the reasons why the cherry picking should not be done, there was nothing vague about it, but accusations from FX are clearly refuted as it was when he claimed a few posts before that I had not linked to what I was saying.

As NASA/GISS reports, just using Februaries can misled one about the overall picture, and even if there could be even more warming reported if February could be dumped or ignored as FX is doing with other months, **real scientists do not do that.
**
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201410_gistemp/

Since GISTEMP data is freely available on the web, scientists and journalists often download maps showing the most recent month as soon as the data becomes available. While an individual month, or even a few months, offers interesting insight into the weather, such a short time period can be a distraction from deeper discussions of climate change. Monthly and yearly temperatures are closely tied to weather, while climate scientists are more concerned with decade to century trends.

For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980.

“When you look at all the red in that map, there is no doubt that April through September was unusually warm in most of the world, but it’s the decadal trend that is more significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, GISS director. “Earth has experienced rapid warming in the last few decades, and the most recent decade was the warmest of all. What has happened so far in 2014 extends this ongoing trend. But in the context of climate change, it does not make sense to try to derive much meaning from a single month—or, for that matter, even a single year.”

It seems that even though that was posted before was somehow ignored by the one that ignores the other months of the year. He is also ignoring the clear and non vague evidence presented before and from the experts.

[FXMastermind]

This was debunked before, and it’s actually a good example of the blindness and belief that the alarmists lives in.

@GIGObuster

Warming Winters: U.S. Temperature Trends | Climate Central

They call it a “report”, and claim

While the U.S. as a whole has seen a warming trend that has raised annual average temperatures by 1.3°F over the past 100 years, warming varies seasonally, and it’s winter that has seen the fastest warming.

This is a false claim, and it says something that nobody in any official capacity has taken them to task for publishing false claims. Hell, people use their “research” as if it’s true. It’s not, and it’s an example of why peer review is important.

You, and I mean you, each individual reading this, can know if it’s true or not, in a minute or so. Of course if you are abosultely convinced it has to be true, the facts aren’t going to matter at all.

But for anyone with a scientific view of things, it’s easy enough.

Compare their graph of 1912-2012 with the GISS winter trend 1912-2012

Their use of colors hides the reality, which is easy to see with the GISS graphic

GISS winter trend, 1912-1952

GISS winter trend 1912- 1972

GISS winter trend 1912-1995

now look at the GISS winter trend for 1995-2014

I don’t expect a believer to be able to see it. But for anyone looking for the actual state of things, it’s pretty easy to see. Just how climatecentral fools gullible people is another topic. But this is an example of how global warming can never be falsified.

Remember, the claim made is “While the U.S. as a whole has seen a warming trend that has raised annual average temperatures by 1.3°F over the past 100 years, warming varies seasonally, and it’s winter that has seen the fastest warming.”

Here’s summer 1915-2014

Here’s winter 1915-2014

They lied. It’s not true. But the facts don’t matter, which is why nothing can ever matter, global warming isn’t scientific.

[tomndebb]

@FXMastermind

Remember, the claim made is “While the U.S. as a whole has seen a warming trend that has raised annual average temperatures by 1.3°F over the past 100 years, warming varies seasonally, and it’s winter that has seen the fastest warming.”

Here’s summer 1915-2014

Here’s winter 1915-2014

They lied. It’s not true. But the facts don’t matter, which is why nothing can ever matter, global warming isn’t scientific.

So, in your alternative universe, a rise of 1.03 is less than a rise of .95? That would explain a number of your beliefs.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

This was debunked before, and it’s actually a good example of the blindness and belief that the alarmists lives in.

That was not a falsification.

@FXMastermind

now look at the GISS winter trend for 1995-2014

This continues to be a cherry pick, and as the statisticians pointed before, a very suspect point to make.

Statisticians reject cooling claims by global warming skeptics

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It has been a while since the superhot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson, author of the book “Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis.”

Now why did they do that with 1995 too? Because it is also one of the favorite years that allows deniers out there to use their preconceived notions and to continue to ignore the big picture by using short trends.

@FXMastermind

They lied. It’s not true. But the facts don’t matter, which is why nothing can ever matter, global warming isn’t scientific.

Even if one is generous on what you mean by a lie that “lie” only would apply to the winters not warming as much as all the other months and Eppure si riscalda - And yet the winters did warm; and the reality is that the world and the USA is warming.

But the reality is that for that declaration of a lie FX will not find any active researcher from the places he cherry picks his data willing to support his claim. He never came back with such support.

As it was pointed before there was no lie, what it needs to be falsified are the results obtained with the methods used in the study:

Using state average values, we computed linear
trends for annual averages of mean temperatures
and minimum (overnight low) temperatures.
Given the long record at our disposal, we computed
trends using two different starting points. The
oldest date available with sufficiently complete
coverage across the contiguous U.S. was 1912,
which conveniently covered the past 101 years,
so our first set of analyses cover the time between
1912 and 2012. Our second set of analyses spans
1970-2012

We chose the latter 43-year period guided by
the knowledge of a well known acceleration of
warming, at the global level, that began in the
seventies. This accelerated global warming has
been attributed to a concurrence of natural factors
(changes in ocean temperatures according to
intrinsic multi-decadal variability of the system)
and the effect of clean-air regulation in countries
of the industrialized world, reducing the amount
of pollution particles (aerosols) in the air, known
to have a cooling effect (see above).

Within the Warming Winters state-by-state
interactive, the smoothed trend is obtained by a
quadatic curve modeled using local fitting (akin
to computing a moving average along the time
series). The fit is performed using the loess()
function in the R statistical software package
(freely available at http://www.r-project.org/).

Using cherry picks that are discouraged even by Wood For trees and other experts will not falsify a study, I do not think the deniers out there will bother to investigate and be another Muller that just confirmed the results, and I do not expect FX to ever publish to show how everyone is wrong.

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

So, in your alternative universe, a rise of 1.03 is less than a rise of .95?

While it’s quite possible you missed that their claim is for US winters, and confused the global data with the US, I’m sure after this is pointed out to you, an apology and gratitude will be your response, because that’s how Science! works.

I crack myself up. Of course it might be possible, that you just didn’t grasp the GISS data is to illustrate the US changes. Nobody, and I mean nobody is saying the 100 year trend globally is anything but up.

[tomndebb]

@FXMastermind

While it’s quite possible you missed that their claim is for US winters, and confused the global data with the US, I’m sure after this is pointed out to you, an apology and gratitude will be your response, because that’s how Science! works.

I crack myself up. Of course it might be possible, that you just didn’t grasp the GISS data is to illustrate the US changes. Nobody, and I mean nobody is saying the 100 year trend globally is anything but up.

No. What you missed is that Louisiana is not “the U.S.” While there is a bit more cooling in the lower Mississippi and Ohio valleys, a review of New England, the Great Lakes, the Great Plains, the Rockies, the Southwest, and the West Coast all demonstrate more warming in your images–and Alaska is much warmer.

So, are you now going to apologize for your lack of geographic knowledge or your inability to correctly read a map?

More to the point, are you going to engage in a serious discussion, or are you going to continue to spend more effort making (unwarranted) snide remarks than actually discussing the issues? Your attempts to pretend you have something to laugh about are pretty much the hallmark of trolling and that is going to bite you if you do not rein it in.

[ /Moderating ]

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

Remember, the claim made is “While the U.S. as a whole has seen a warming trend that has raised annual average temperatures by 1.3°F over the past 100 years, warming varies seasonally, and it’s winter that has seen the fastest warming.”

Here’s summer 1915-2014

Here’s winter 1915-2014

They lied. It’s not true. But the facts don’t matter, which is why nothing can ever matter, global warming isn’t scientific.

But as Tom pointed out, “So, in your alternative universe, a rise of 1.03 is less than a rise of .95? That would explain a number of your beliefs.”

@FXMastermind

While it’s quite possible you missed that their claim is for US winters, and confused the global data with the US, I’m sure after this is pointed out to you, an apology and gratitude will be your response, because that’s how Science! works.

So why the hell did you post graphs that were completely irrelevant to your claim? Did you think that maybe no one would look at them? Did you think that anyone on this board thought you had a shred of credibility left?

It’s not just that global temperatures are more relevant, it’s also that the US temperatures bear out the same trend. It can be seen here in the NOAA NCDC temperature chronologies for the continental US, specifically the following:

For Dec-Feb in the period 1896-2014, the US winter temperature trend has been +0.19°C per decade. For your preferred period starting in 1915, it’s the same: +0.19°C per decade.

For the six-month period of October-March, the trend from 1896 has been +0.17°F per decade.

The annual US rate has been +0.13°F per decade.

**So the US, along with the rest of the globe, has been warming, and winters have been warming faster. **

I really just wanted to say that I have been on this board a little less than a year, since January, and in that time I must have seen at least a hundred posts from FXMastermind pontificating about climate change. And every single one of them has been wrong. Or misleading. You can pretty much take anything he says and invert it to the exact opposite to get a roughly accurate scientific assessment.

The talking points are straight out of denialist blogs. I wrote a sort of meta-post here and again here that links to his earlier posts and, ultimately, to many dozens of examples of where his preposterous claims are refuted. I’m not wasting my time refuting this crap any more, but once in a while I will point out its ridiculousness.