I’m talking about your argument on Briggs’ website for why the models predict tropospheric amplification for AGW.
What your argument basically comes down to is the fact that science is inductive and inductive conclusions can always be found to be wrong in light of further evidence. This is undoubtably true (as I have pointed out to Quartz many times when he has argued that there is no proof of AGW) but I fail to see what the point is. Do you suggest we abandon science because of this?
Perhaps, rather than being an amateur scientist, you would find it more to your liking to be an amateur mathematician because in mathematics you can prove things deductively and thus not run into this problem.
I think you have unwittingly undermined your own argument here by basically showing us that the science can never be known to absolute certainty. That means that there is always room for skeptics to argue that the science might be wrong, that there are uncertainties and things that are not understood within the current theoretical framework…and, indeed, your argument suggests that perhaps you are so strongly opposed to the type of policy solutions to AGW that you will require an essentially impossible level of certainty regarding AGW before you think that we should take any action.
Indeed, they can. And, I think it will be clear to them that you haven’t even tried to rebut my arguments in regards to the Douglass incorrect use of standard error instead of standard deviation to characterize the model uncertainty. In regards to the tropospheric amplification, I think it is probably not hard for readers of this thread such as Lobohan to judge how effective your arguments have been.
Now, I will be the first to say that all because one cannot rebut an argument does not make it definitively right. I admit that I can’t rebut everything you say from ClimateAudit in regards to temperature proxies and the like. However, I think an important difference is that I have freely admitted to not being really very knowledgeable about that stuff whereas the points that I am referring to above are not things that I brought up but rather issues that stem from statements that you made over at Briggs’ website without a trace of doubt whatsoever, so I actually assumed that you feel you are up on these issues. That, or you like to make very certain statements about things that you really don’t know much about.
Well, you can see above where you claimed that statisticians support your view… a repeat of what you claimed before. And yet, you have failed to provide any reference to support this…except a reference to the Briggs website, where I didn’t see any support from him whatsoever for your view in regards to the particular question at hand.
Lobohan, thanks for your post. I fear you have not been following the conversation. I said above to jshore:
Now here you are, on the same page of the thread, repeating jshore’s idiotic accusation.
I can see that I have underestimated the task of fighting ignorance … Lobohan, I have been writing computer programs, including computer models, since 1963, perhaps before you were born. And you want to tell me I “don’t believe in models”?
Given your demonstrated inability to comprehend simple English, I find it unsurprising that you think AGW and jshore are right, and I’m wrong … because obviously, you are either not reading what I have written, or you are not understanding it.
w.
jshore, thanks for your post, in which you say:
Perhaps I’m missing something here. I made two points:
-
The statements don’t represent the views of the members, and
-
I’m not the only person who doesn’t think the evidence supports the AGW claims.
Rather than deal with either of those, you make the unsubstantiated claim that I’m “spinning” the numbers. So:
Did the poll not say that three quarters of the respondents agree that the evidence substantiates the existence of AGW?
Does this not mean that one quarter of the respondents do not agree that the evidence substantiates the existence of AGW? Because that’s exactly what I said.
I’m not clear why you think I’m spinning the poll. What did I say about the poll that is “not in fact correct” as you allege?
w.
PS - If you cannot find anything in my statement which is incorrect, I’ll accept your apology for your unwarranted slur about my honesty. In fact, I’ll accept it either way, an attack on my honesty has no place on this forum.
Yes.
Well, this different phrasing is better than your "they show that one scientist in four does not think that the scientific evidence supports AGW " phrasing that I objected to although it still is likely to lead people astray (since, while it is technically true that the 1/4 do not agree, it is also likely that part of that group do not disagree either, being unsure). A more accurate phrasing is that one quarter of the respondents are apparently either disagreeing that the evidence substantiates the existence of AGW or are not sure. (The wording of that article itself is a little unclear on this point, as they seem to have mixed the discussion of two different questions…whether folks believe AGW is occurring and whether they believe that currently-available evidence substantiates this. Only 5% believe flat-out that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming. And, it is also worth noting that a higher proportion [84%] believe AGW is occurring than believe that the currently-availabe evidence substantiates this [74%].)
My point is simply that someone who has the highest standards for honesty and not exaggerating and such, as you do, should strive particularly hard not to phrase things in ways that are likely to mislead the reader. I will apologize for any insinuation and accept the notion that it was an honest mistake on your part.
intention: In addition to my comment above, I would ask one question and make one point in response to this. The question is just how overwhelming the numbers would have to be before you would say that the statement represents the views of the members?
The point is this: If the APS wanted to issue a statement regarding the extent to which the current evidence substantiates the existence of dark energy, I think a pretty poor way to do it would be to poll their whole membership on the question because, frankly, I as a member who is not active in high energy physics or cosmology have no freakin’ idea! Rather, I would suggest a better approach would be to craft a statement on the advice of acknowledged experts in the field.
My best to you.
There is consensus because a majority of scientists have reviewed the current evidence and believe it points to AGW. That is exactly the way it should be. I personally do not have the time or background to understand all the pros and cons of AGW. If I am to make the best informed decision that I can then I will lean heavily on experts who are more knowledgeable than either of us.
I’ll try to state it a different way: the consensus is not evidence that AGW is true; I don’t believe you’ll ever see a scientific paper use it as such. It is evidence that AGW is currently the best explanation of observed phenomenon. A subtle difference, perhaps.
They are generally accepted by the public and policy makers because they are the scientific consensus.
What kind of falsifiable predictions would you accept? As I am sure you know it is impossible to run lab experiments that duplicate the earth’s climate in toto. What we can do is run experiments on subsets of the theory. For example, we know without a doubt that CO2 is a green house gas.
Despite its wide acceptance Evolution has the same problem. A Creationist can give you a long list of “problems” with Evolution like objections over the Cambrian Explosion and the absence of macro evolution in the lab. In this debate over AGW I believe you are playing much the same game, using the doubt that is inherent in scientific theories to “show” that AGW is wrong.
There have been (and are) plenty of problems with current cosmological theories that violate falsifiable predictions. One example is the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Scientists then have to amend their theories, such as creating unknown substances like dark matter. Note that despite these seemingly grave issues few scientists are arguing that our base theories are egregiously wrong.
Hold on.
You have accepted that my statement was 100% true, we agree that a quarter of all of the scientists in the poll do not think the evidence “substantiates” AGW, which is exactly what I said. Yes, some of them are sure, some of them are unsure … so what? That’s always the case. If I said 73% of the American people don’t think Bush told the truth about the war, yes, some of them may be unsure, that’s always so about people who “don’t think X”. Some of them think Y, some think Z, some are unsure, and some don’t think at all. Do we really have to spell out this elementary shit in your world?
Because in my world, it is assumed that if you say “42% of the people said they would not vote for Obama”, that some of the people in that non-Obama group would vote for McCain, and some for Ron Paul, and SOME WOULD BE UNSURE. That’s how my world works, at least, we’re not required to restate the obvious.
So no, it was not an “honest mistake”, it was not a mistake of any kind, my statement was not in error at all. You were obviously not misled by it … so just how dumb do you think the rest of the readers are?
Thank you for your apology, but you gave with one hand and took with the other. MY STATEMENT WAS 100% TRUE, and you have admitted that, so take your accusation about an “honest mistake” and put it where the sun don’t shine. If I wanted to “mislead the reader”, you wouldn’t even notice … but I don’t.
w.
PS - you note an interesting point:
This means that about one scientist in ten believes in AGW even though they don’t believe in the evidence. Ooooh, that makes me have so much more confidence in the consensus, knowing that some of them are willing to believe a disputed hypothesis without having to mess about with that nasty murderer of convenient explanations … inconvenient evidence …
jshore, an interesting point. Unfortunately, that’s not what the statements purport to put forward. The statements do not purport to be “the advice of experts”, but to be a statement reflecting the views of the membership.
I agree that in many cases, depending on the advice of experts would be preferable … but only if it is clearly labeled as such, and not passed off as “the NAS says” or “the APS says”.
Because, as the APS has clearly said, there is disagreement among the members on the question. The editor said, presumable referring in part to APS members, that “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The honest thing to do in that case is either do as you suggest, and put out a statement saying “The 14 person Council of APS does not have an opinion on the matter, here’s the opinion of the particular experts that we 14 happen to like. Opinions expressed are those of the 14 Council members alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS members.” That would be the truth.
But instead, they put out a statement that:
Note that they are claiming to speak for the 50,000 members, and people definitely have interpreted it that way … and you accuse me of trying to “mislead the reader”?
w.
intention, thanks for the reply.
Well, that was one co-editor in one newsletter of one of 39 units of the APS. And, in the link I gave to the interview with the other co-editor Al Saperstein, he said
Well, what you are basically proposing I guess is that no organization executive committee ever speak for the entire organization (unless they have presumably polled their membership and the result has exceeded some presumably very overwhelming threshhold that you have not elaborated on). In my opinion, I have elected these folks to speak on behalf of the organization…and if I think they are doing a poor enough job, I should elect someone in the next election that wants to change the policies.
I was not misled by it because I was intimately familiar with the poll numbers, having posted the link to the poll. But, I am happy to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves whether your statement was the most clear and straightforward way of putting it or whether there was a certain amount of spin in the way that you phrased it. It is not really a question for me or you to decide on our own.
That’s not a particularly charitable interpretation of what that 1 in 10 believes. I imagine that they think the word “substantiates” implies a higher level of proof than they are comfortable with saying but that they do believe that the balance of the evidence shows this.
Deeg, thanks for your reply.
Thank you for noting that “the consensus is not evidence that AGW is true”, people need to hear that more. No scientific paper cites the consensus. jshore and a host of other folks cite it all the time, saying the consensus knows best and we should just submit to their vastly superior understanding.
Yes, they are … remind me what that has to do with science.
Here’s where we get into trouble. For example, both greenhouse theory and models agree that if the warming is from GHGs, we should see a very distinct “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. Now, I’d accept that as a testable hypothesis. But when it was tested and found to be untrue … the model makers merely claimed that the evidence is wrong.
Heck, I’ve tried to say that, since tropospheric aerosols are generally short-lived in the atmosphere, that we should find evidence of their supposed cooling effect in the areas where they are emitted. Neither the models or the evidence supports that one … but Gavin just says something about how the models are so complex that there’s no reason to assume that effects should actually happen where the purported causes are … which makes that one untestable as well.
The list goes on. Currently, the debate is whether Hansen’s predictions in 1988 have been fulfilled or not. But there’s always the explanatory mantra that “natural fluctuations” are causing the recent cooling, so that’s not testable either. Funny how when it’s too hot, it’s because of AGW, but when it cools down, it’s “natural fluctuations” … but in any case that’s not testable either.
Sometimes the models make what you think would be a testable prediction, like that in a warming world we’d only have a little more water in the air. When it was noted that the world was warming and there was lots more water in the air, the response from the modeling community was on the order of “yes, we know the models are not perfect, but they’re basically right” … so model predictions are not testable either.
So, in answer to your question, I’d accept a lot of things as testable predictions, but the AGW folks don’t like them, and the AGW hypothesis doesn’t make many of them. What’s your suggestion? Because if a hypothesis doesn’t make falsifiable predictions, if there’s no way to test it … then it’s not science, it’s a belief system.
Which explains why there are 47 different kinds of string theorists, all of which are claiming that the current base theories are egregiously wrong?
I said that theories are accepted as long as no flaws are found which topple that theory.
Yes, some testable predictions, if found false, will lead to very minor adjustments in an existing theory. Others will require that the entire construct be overthrown. Surely people know this. Are you getting jshore’s disease, where when I say if major flaws are found the theory is overthrown, I am also required to say that if minor flaws are found, the theory is merely refined?
Sheesh …
w.
And, I am going to correct you every time you say this. I suppose in the world that you reside in, perhaps this statement is correct since it is technically true that we expect to see this if the warming is from GHGs; however, we also expect to see it if the warming is from any other mechanism (at least any mechanism that I am aware of). It is a consequence of what is called “moist adiabatic lapse rate theory” and the observational data of fluctuations on the monthly to yearly timescales supports it. Yes, the data for the multidecadal trends does not all support it (although I think some, like the latest versions of the RAOBCORE re-analysis of the satellite data, do) but this is exactly the timescale over which the data is known to have significant issues that could contaminate the long term trends.
So, where the observation data is most reliable it supports the models, where it is least reliable there seems to be some disagreement. And, at any rate, this is not a test that distinguishes between greenhouse gas warming and other warming mechanisms. A better distinction is what the stratosphere is doing since greenhouse gas forcing predicts it should cool whereas solar forcing predicts it should warm. And, observations (with much better signal-to-noise ratio than those in the mid and upper troposphere) show that indeed the stratosphere is cooling.
…This is a recording…
Saying that the prediction is more complicated than just saying “it is cooler where the aerosols are emitted” is not the same as saying that no testable predictions can be made. It could be that predictions can be made but that the predictions need to be made by assuming a distribution and running the models rather than just making overly simplistic approximations. In fact, I think this is the sort of thing that is done in the attribution studies involving aerosols but I am not really up on that work.
And yet, tests of his predictions have been performed and the predictions have faired quite well (although one doesn’t have great signal-to-noise statistics over only a 20-year period), particularly considering the primativeness of the model compared to current models and considering the fact that the model had a climate sensitivity (4.2 C, I believe) that is on the high end of current estimates.
Could you elaborate on what you are referring to? Perhaps you are talking about precipitation? (If there were really lots more water in the air than the models predicted, that would imply a higher water vapor feedback and a higher climate sensitivity.)
jshore, another comment on this. You have raised an interesting question, but the way you are looking at it is so 20th century. We no longer have to pick a threshold and say “over 90% and it represents the members, under 90% it doesn’t”.
Here in the 21st century, it is dead easy to poll the membership of something like the APS. Stick a polling page up on the members-only website, and send them an email. Done, two weeks tops. If you want to just poll the high energy physicists among the membership, that’s easy too.
So in the 21st century, why should any scientific organization put out any statement which purports to represent the views of the members without polling them? Well, my first guess would be that they have a point of view and want to get it across without being bothered by inconvenient numbers like 75% … but then perhaps I’m just cynical, and the real reason they don’t do it is because they’re intellectually lazy, or they haven’t thought about it, or they’re still stuck fifty years ago, I don’t know … but I don’t like it, I don’t want other people claiming to speak for me, and I don’t elect them to speak for me. I get into enough trouble just speaking for myself … the leaders were elected to run the organization, not to pretend that they can somehow mystically divine the members intentions and speak for them. That’s old-school, 20th century thinking.
w.
You are misrepresenting the argument (deliberately, I presume.) Nobody is saying that AGW is true because there is a consensus but rather there is consensus because AGW is (likely) true.
By the way, for those of you not allergic to RealClimate, here is a nice post summarizing the recent peer-reviewed literature that represents the latest attempts to understand and correct for the various errors in the radiosonde (balloon) data.
jshore, you say that “Hansen’s predictions have fared quite well”.
For those who would like a more nuanced view than comes from RealClimate, the home of scientific censorship, you could try this site. Unlike RealClimate, which just throws dissenting scientific opinions in the electronic waste basket, at ClimateAudit all scientific opinions are heard.
The real problem is the models, which predict just about everything possible and making the predictions very hard to falsify. This allows you to say that, as long as one of the models is near the observations, that the models have been validated.
Hard to falsify is not unfalsifiable, however. There’s an interesting new paper just published by Dimitri Koutsoyannis, which bears on this question. The abstract says:
jshore, in passing, just wanted to say that you are an honorable opponent, always full of surprises. Despite their occasionally driving my blood pressure through the roof, I greatly enjoy our discussions. Your comments on the Koutsoyannis paper would be much appreciated.
w.
Your puerile, nasty, and untrue assertion that I am deliberately misrepresenting the argument has no place on this board, and is personally very offensive. Come back when you’ve learned not to make ugly, false allegations about the motives of someone you don’t know, and we’ll continue this discussion.
w.
And Deeg, while you are thinking about politeness, you can consider this as well. If nobody is judging the truth value of scientific statements based on the consensus, how do you explain this statement:
w.