Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Here's a couple links you might find interesting Alarikf.

www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech
www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/136.pdf

Particularly the first one is interesting, as it essentially says that the methodology used by Mann et al. was flawed when they created the familiar "hockey stick" graph that shows warming over the past century or so.

I'd also like to mention that a theory can be proven wrong without other theories to take its place.

The major problem with climatology, as I see it, is the uncertainties inherent in the science. If you think about it, trends in climate aren't always distinguishable over a mere millenia, and as I think both you and I agree, anything beyond a thousand years ago has too much uncertainty as to be nearly useless. When talking about climate, 1000 years is but a blink of the eye. Essentially, we don't know if what we're going through is a natural cycle with a period of a few thousand years.

I admit, global warming is currently a theory that has a lot of acceptance in the international climatological community. Yet I find myself to be a skeptic, in nearly all things. I doubt, I question, and until my questions can be answered, I will continue to doubt and question. I guess it's just the kind of person I am.

Note that I'm not saying we should do nothing. The opposite, actually. I think a lot more money should be put into researching better photovoltaics (solar power cells), tidal generating stations, wind power, hydrogen, cleaner coal powered generating stations (sequester the CO2 and other nastiness underground), and yes even on such dreams as fusion which may prove key in another several decades. The reasons to do so go beyond the global warming argument. As it is, we are all at the mercy of the big oil companies. We'll pay what they tell us to pay, because we have no choice in the matter. Reducing our reliance on oil companies will take away a lot of their power, and in my opinion, that alone is a good reason to pursue alternatives to oil. The fact that they're renewable and oil isn't is another good reason to do so. If global warming is indeed a fact, then it's yet another reason to do so. But it's far from the only reason.

Whew. Didn't mean for that to be so long!

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Whoa! Nice rants from alarikf. I'm less ambitious, so I'll try to be more brief. (Edit: I failed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif )

First, I have no hard feelings over alarikf's admittedly aggressive writing style. He's obviously passionate about the subject, so I'll give him some latitude. Besides, I find it quite amusing to read

"Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods."

and then watch alarikf do exactly that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

"Theories are never disproven UNTIL a better theory replaces them."

Actually, as Renegade 13 pointed out, theories are disproven by experiments and observations. A "better theory" may not come along until long after the earlier theory is discredited. Meanwhile, if you still want to apply the known flawed theory, you do so at your own risk. I wouldn't recommend it, however, any more than I recommend spending immense financial resources on the flawed "theory" (actually a hypothesis) of man-made "global warming".

"And that conclusion remains, to wit: 'Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.'

Apparently alarikf didn't read his own reference. His Wiki article points to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...Council_Report

which demolishes the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction. Yes, the original hypothesis is still "plausible", but only in the sense that the data neither support nor refute it. The bit about the last 400 years was never in dispute -- of course it's warmer today than during the height of the Little Ice Age (duuhhhh). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

"And that is exactly why they are good scientists..."

BWAHAHAHA! Consider this quote from Phil Jones, co-author of several "hockey stick" papers:

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Umm, "good" scientists are willing, if not eager, to have their work reviewed, scrutinized, and either confirmed or refuted.

"That is why said that it was wrong to claim that 'there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago.' ie: Today it is 2006 AD. We have detailed and accurate ways of measuring temps up until 1600, and less confidence back to 900 AD."

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif Is alarikf really that ignorant of temperature reconstruction methodology, or is he just being disingenuous here?

"Reliable" thermometers were available no earlier than roughly mid-19th Century. Temperature "measurements" before then are based on "proxies", i.e. indirect temperature measurements such as tree rings, boreholes, isotope ratios, etc. These are subject to great uncertainty and require elaborate statistical processing to be of any use at all, as Mann et al learned when the National Academy of Sciences broke their beloved "hockey stick".

Even direct measurements of "average global temperature" (whatever that is) are fraught with uncertainty:

"There are concerns about possible uncertainties in the instrumental temperature record including the fraction of the globe covered, the effects of changing thermometer designs and observing practices, and the effects of changing land-use around the observing stations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...erature_record

I could go on, but Real Life beckons. I'll check back for further posts anon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

BTW, alarikf, I'm not Ann Coulter. If you want to argue with her (good luck), go to her web site. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Both your's and R13's post revolve around a continuing flaw: you both continue to believe that "a theory can be proven wrong without other theories to take its place."

That is simply not scientific (or helpful) because you have presented no serious disconfirming evidence to support your claim. We haven't mentioned at all, for example, the causal mechanisms that link human activity to global warming. We've just been talking about the state of scientific opinion. And I claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study it beleive in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

What you have mentioned is that there are anomalies in the AGW research program. And I fully agree with that. There are anomalies, sure are, darn right. Lots and lots of them.

For example, last year in my hometown it was colder than the year before.

But, again, I say: "so what"? Scientific progress has nothing to do with the presence or absence of anamolies. Instead, it has everything to do with how well research programs stack up against each other in the face of these anomalies.

So, R13 is correct to state that " If a scientific theory can not explain anomalies that are proven to exist, then that theory must be examined very carefully, to determine whether or not it should be considered a valid theory anymore."

BUT, disproving a theory (or 'research program') doesn't happen until a better theory comes along. No theory is disproven, except maybe in political circles, until a better theory comes along.

An analogy would be me telling a child "the sky is blue becuase of X" and he replies: "No it isn't" And I say "well, then what is the reason?" and he says" I dont' know but I do know it's not becuase of X!"

What good does that do? None whatsoever. The kid could keep on like this ad infinitum, and no progress is made.

Another example: Before newton, people believed in the copernican model, or in ether, or that something else kept the planets in their orbits. When did they get proven wrong? NOT when people pointed out strange anamolies in their preedictions - they'd been doing that for centuries - but until people had something better to replace copernicus with, did he get cast aside. And that happened when Newton came along. Ok, so, then when was newton cast aside? Anamolies in his theories built up for almost two hundreds years, IIRC. But did people say he was wrong? No. They simply said his theory wasn't good enough. He was only cast aside when Einstein came along. And what did Einstein do? He said, yeah, ok, Newton is pretty much right, but let me show you this better theory that explains as much as Newton did, and then a bit more. And then Newton was cast aside. And so then in the inter-war era a bunch of physicists studied anomalies in Einsteins' theory, for decades. But at no point was Einstein cast aside until Quantum mechanics was 'discovered'.

In other words, to simply claim a prevailing/commonly accepted or debated theory is "wrong" without putting forth a counter proposition means one is simply being contrary for the sake of argument. A person who argues for no reason other than to argue has a strange motivation. One that is, perhaps, just knee-jerk dogmatic at its' core.

So, to reliably call into question the AGW research program, you have to present another research program, and it must:

1) Explain as much as AGW does
2) Make predictions that can be tested (ie: are falsifiable)
3) Explain at least some current anomalies in the AGW research program

Do I sound like a stuck record yet?

Now, a few posts back, I made an honest proposal. It was "provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong. What criteria would need to be met for you to change your mind? Tell me that, and then I'll go and test it. And answer me this: if I meet your criteria, then will you change your mind? If I take whatever reasonable test you propose, and meet it, then do you think it possible to change your mind?"

If you are not willing to do that, then that is strong evidence that your beliefs are based solely on dogma, habit, ideology, or self-interest, because it indicates that you are unwilling to change them based on testable criteria (ie: facts).

Now, as to your comment about this Jones fella. No scientist worth his salt would be accepted if his work wasn't reproducible. If he actually did say "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" then he is not a decent scientist - again, for a scientist to withhold data is just professional suicide. Do you have a reference?

Given the highly politicized nature of the global warming debate, and the proclivity for right-wingers to seize upon a single anomaly and use that to loudly claim that AGW is totally inconcievably mind bogglingly wrong, I suspect that Jones is a bit wary of releasing his data and then having someone make outrageous claims by some non-scientist who take some small portion of the data out of context. I'm sure you know what I mean.

But, more to the point, there you go again: you find a single anomaly, this one person, and based on that single datum claim that the entire body of AGW is therefore disproven.

Where would we be today if that had been done to Newtonian physics or modern chemistry or any other famous research program in the past? I can see it now: "Hey, newton, your theory sounds good, but although you predict 99.99% of the movement out there, you can't predict pluto's orbit, so your theory is obviously TOTALLY WRONG."

Huh? Makes no sense to do that, right? We'd still be in caves if that was the way we "did" science, because every time a new theory came along someone would say "hey, it doesn't prove every single thing, so it's obviously 100% totally completely irrevocably wrong and if our government spends even one penny on this then the terrorists have already won!"

And that is why scientific progress relies upon competing research programs, rather than simply people spending their time looking for anomalies in existing theories.

Again, I eagerly await a better research program than AGW.

Thanks,

AMF

PS: Oh, I totally agree that "Temperature "measurements" before the mid-19th Century are based on "proxies", i.e. indirect temperature measurements such as tree rings, boreholes, isotope ratios, etc. ...Even direct measurements of "average global temperature" (whatever that is) are fraught with uncertainty...etc"...This is all sort of a 'duh' statement to me, and I thought I had addressed this point in my earlier post, so I saw no need to elaborate.

But, in any case, the only thing your statement is doing is saying "Hey, its' hard to measure historical temperatures"

To go from that to "AGW is wrong" is, for the reasons outlined above is erroneous and irrelevant - until it leads to a theory or set of theories that supplant AGW.

And, of course, it will *always* be hard to measure historical temperatures, and we will always have to rely on proxies. But "proxy" does not equal "false". Hell, if we took that attitude, the entire field of astronomy would be thrown out wit the bathwater.

I repeat, again and again, that theories will always have anomalies and some of them are inevitably based on artifacts of the data measurements, such as these. But that is irrelevant to 'disproving' the theory in question.

Again, I eagerly await a better research program than AGW. Until is happens, well, it's all just whistling past the graveyard.

Until you can show me a theory or body of theories that explains global warming better than AGW, then you are simply saying "no, you're wrong" without actually furthering the debate.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

That's a rather long post to reply to all in one shot, so I'll divide it up, and respond to each part separately.
I must fundamentally disagree with you. A theory most definitely can be proven wrong without another theory to take its place. I'll give you a couple examples to make my point:

Take a look at mathematics. Mathematical theorems are extremely difficult to prove, due to the fact that there are so many permutations to look at, that it is impossible to look at them all and categorically state that the theory has been proven (is a law). However, it is possible to prove a mathematical theorem wrong; to do this, you only have to find one instance where the theorem can not adequately explain the results. There, it's proven wrong. But according to you, that's not good enough. No, first you have to have something to take its place. Think about it for a moment, and you'll realize just how ridiculous it is. Saying that something can't be proven false unless there's something better to take its place is just ridiculous on so many levels.

Lets go for a somewhat simplified example. Lets say that I make a claim; the sky is blue because the ocean is blue. Now, this is obviously wrong. It can be proven wrong very simply, just by showing that the ocean is not actually blue as it appears, but is clear (or very nearly). Yet before humanity knew of nitrogen, before humanity knew of space beyond the atmosphere, before humanity knew the true causes of what makes the sky appear blue, there was no better theory to explain why the sky was blue. Does that mean that my theory shouldn't be thrown out the window? I don't think so. My theory simply isn't satisfactory, since it doesn't fit the data.

Admittedly, my example is simplistic in the extreme, but I hope it gets my point across.
I couldn't disagree more. Science has everything to do with anomalies. I'll restate again what I have said before; if a theory can't explain the anomalies it leaves behind, then that theory is obviously flawed, if not totally incorrect.

Let me give you another example, this one related to math. If I have a theory that says (2x) / (xy) = 2 where "x" and "y" are both variables. My theory can be proven to be correct, in some instances. For example, if x=0.6 and y=1, then my theory is proven correct for those variables. Yet if you make x=0.6 and y=2.5, then my theory obviously is incorrect, it has anomalies.

This is again a simplistic example, yet it illustrates my point. My theory explains the result for some values of x and some values of y. However, anomalies exist. But what if you don't have a better theory, what if someone hasn't thought of something that better explains things? You're saying that we should keep accepting (2x) / (xy) = 2 since there's nothing better, even though it is obviously deeply flawed, and in fact, totally incorrect.

I hope I've shown that even theories that are completely, utterly, undeniably wrong can still yield results that seem to make sense in the "real world". However, just because a theory explains some things, if there are continuing to be anomalies, the veracity of that theory has to be cast into doubt. Just because there's nothing better, doesn't mean it is correct, or should be accepted as correct, even partially.
No, it means the prevailing theory is not satisfactory.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are other theories that explain the current gradual increase in temperature. One such theory is that it is part of a natural cycle; unfortunately, this hypothesis is rather hard to prove or disprove. However, that doesn't mean it is without merit.

I am unable to do so as I am not a climatologist, nor even a scientist in any field. However, I put the same challenge to you. Explain some of the anomalies that exist in the theory of global warming. If you can't "then that is strong evidence that your beliefs are based solely on dogma, habit, ideology, or self-interest", to quote you.

This is exactly true. Yet it seems that almost everyone is so transfixed by the "threat" that global warming supposedly poses that no one is willing to fund anything that has to do with a competing theory. After all, a bunch of people think global warming is true, so it must be true! Better keep pouring money into it! [/sarcasm]

This is so wrong, I can barely believe you have said it. The entire theory of global warming is based upon historical temperature measurements. If the accuracy of those measurements is cast into doubt, then the entire theory must as well be cast into doubt. That seems blatantly obvious.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that astronomy relies on something other than direct measurement. Astronomy is, for the most part, much more based in science fact rather than science projections than climatology. Astronomy utilizes many direct measurements of things like stellar spectra, direct optical wavelength observation of various stellar formations, observations in pretty much every wavelength that is useful, direct observations of supernovae, planetary nebulae, etc. Astronomy is rooted firmly in the cold, hard, accurately measurable facts, unlike much of climatology.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Ah. I think I understand the fundamental problem here.

"Both your's and R13's post revolve around a continuing flaw: you both continue to believe that "a theory can be proven wrong without other theories to take its place."

There is no flaw. A theory either matches reality or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with it. You don't need a "better theory" to know there's something wrong with the old one. Sorry, but it's as simple as that.

Now alarikf admits there are "lots and lots" of "anomalies" in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) so-called "theory". What he doesn't seem to understand is that if a system has known flaws, any predictions drawn from it are unreliable, i.e. they may be true but they may not. I consider it the height of stupidity to commit massive resources to solving a "problem" predicted by a system alarikf admits is not a true representation of reality.

"So, to reliably call into question the AGW research program, you have to present another research program..."

Wrong. I (or climate skeptics in general) don't have to do anything but point out "anomalies". AGW fans claim their "theory" predicts a problem and they want to throw money at it. Fine, but it's up to them to prove their case. As alarikf has pointed out, so far they haven't. Sorry again, but that's the way science works.

"An analogy would be me telling a child "the sky is blue becuase of X..."

Good analogy, because if alarikf told a child that, he'd be wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And the child wouldn't be objecting for objection's sake; he'd probably point out that at night the sky is mostly black. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And more importantly, he doesn't have to know why the sky is black, just that it isn't blue as alarikf predicted. Of course alarikf could modify his claim to "the sky is sometimes blue" but that wasn't the original "theory", was it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

"...provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong..."

What alarikf really means is I should provide him with a test that will prove he is right. Fine. All he (or the AGW advocates) have to do is prove their "theory", i.e. remove the "anomalies", match reality, prove that their apocalyptic predictions are true. They could start by proving that the last 25 years are in fact the warmest in 1000 years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

"Do you have a reference?"

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062706E

The quote is at the top of the page; on the referenced PowerPoint it's on slide 4. Jones' colleague Michael Mann said pretty much the same thing to the Wall Street Journal Februay 14, 2005.

With regard to uncertainties in temperature proxies,

"This is all sort of a 'duh' statement to me..."

Unfortunately that statement doesn't agree with his earlier claim:

"We have detailed and accurate ways of measuring temps up until 1600, and less confidence back to 900 AD."

In fact we don't, as alarikf now apparently agrees.

Finally (whew!),

"Again, I eagerly await a better research program than AGW. Until is happens, well, it's all just whistling past the graveyard."

My point exactly. Now can I buy an SUV? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Renegade, my apologies for stomping on your points, some of which (OK, many of which) you made better than I did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

On the bright side, I can always claim "great minds think alike". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Don't worry, I didn't feel stomped on at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Hunpecked and Renegade: alarikf is right here. You do not throw out an entire theory as invalid just because some data does not fit the model, but other data fits perfectly well. If you are going to throw out a theory that works in some cases, you need to present another theory that explains the data that fits the existing theory, and also explains some of the data that does not fit the existing theory. Until then, you only add on constraints to the existing model stating under what conditions the model is reasonably accurate, and under what conditions the model fails.

Renegade, your mathematical example is contrived. That is a simple equation, with two unknowns, that can trivially be shown false for values of y not equal to 1. I would propose that this "theorem" remains perfectly valid as long as we are restricting y in this way. It will even predict results with reasonable accuracy as long as y is very close to 1. What alarikf is saying is that it would be preposterous to use the example of x=0.6 and y=2.5 to throw out the entire statement when it works perfectly well with y=1.0. This is the same reasoning behind the Copernican->Newtonian->Einsteinian models for how the planets move the way they do. Children are still started off with a model like the one of Copernicus (minus the ether part) for the solar system. I know I believed that the orbits of the planets (except for Pluto) was perfectly circular. And that's alright for the basic rote learning of small children, who aren't expected to know the dynamics of motion yet. The theory is later supplanted in school by the Newtonian model for physics, where I learned that Pluto wasn't the only odd one, and all the planets had elliptical orbits, and for 99+% of situations, Newton is perfectly adequate. Einstein added more that explained difficult bits like how Mercury's orbit acted the way it did without the influence of another planet, and how things change around black holes, etc. Each iteration of the model came about because we got more data, and the data was more accurate, and the model changed based on this. But if we use Einstein's model of gravity, we will still get results that look a lot like what we would get with Copernicus' model. And if I only use y=1, the equation (2x)/(xy) = 2 will still hold. You can complain all you want about some anomalies, but if a lot of the data still fits, and you don't have a better model, any good scientist MUST use the best existing model, or supplant it with an improved version.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

To stop global warming everyone needs to simply stop farting. The amount of methane gas released each year by flatulence (sp) is greater than the entire sum or toxins released into the air by all of the self obsorbed air bags of the world.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Well, I would say the sulfur dioxide is more worrisome (and smelly), but yes, you may be right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

AT, I saw that episode of South Park. If you hold in your farts, you spontaneously combust. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Will: I must disagree with you as well. Seems like I'm being a rather disagreeable person today, doesn't it?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

To qualify that statement somewhat, I'd say that you're mostly correct, just not totally. For most scientific fields, you would be correct, as the current, most accurate theories in most scientific fields don't require drastic and expensive climatic intervention due to their doomsday predictions.

The whole "global warming" scenario is rather unique. Remember; the global warming theory says that it is an unusual rise in temperature. That has not been proven, therefore the theory can not be accepted as truth. If the day comes when it actually is proven, then it can be accepted as fact.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I think what Renegade is saying is that the *Data* that the theory is based on is not clear, therefore the theory is too imprecise to base a plan of action on.

What Alarikf seems to be saying is that the theory still has the most consistant data that fits the facts and that the temperature is rising drastically, therefore we must take steps to lower it.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

We aren't spouting off doomsday scenarios here. The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

What alarikf is saying, and what I'm saying, is: the data supports the model that humans have had an impact on the rise of temperatures in the world. You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model. To deny the hypothesis, you must show that something else accounts for the data. You may introduce doubts about how much data is explained by the model, but by scientific reasoning, you cannot throw it out entirely unless you replace it with a better model OR show that the data does not fit the model after all.

So, sorry, but I'm not seeing why you have an objection. We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature (to within fractions of a degree). We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries (to within a few degrees when averaged out). We also have data that goes back for millenia from the arctic and antarctic ice shelves. It shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The western Industrial Revolution has been steadily pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the temperature has steadily been rising. Model fits. Where is the problem here?

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Exactly

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I guess what I consider to be logical and obvious isn't so obvious and logical to others. I've stated my opinions, and the facts they are based upon, for long enough. I've written enough in the past 30 posts or so that explains my opinions and why I believe the global warming hypothesis to be deeply flawed and overstated. Essentially, I see no further constructive purpose in continuing this debate. I guarantee that, unless you provide me with evidence based on much more solid scientific grounds, you won't convince me that the global warming hypothesis is anything other than an idea that a rather large number of people have jumped on. After all, jumping on the bandwagon is easy.

I'll rejoin the conversation if anything new comes up; for the last page of posts, it has all just been reiteration and the same old arguements. Please do note however that my withdrawl from the arguement is not a concession to your points of view; it is merely that I'm tired of repeating myself and getting nowhere.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Renegade,

I know that this all this philosophy of science stuff sounds fatuous, or silly, or pointless. When I was first exposed to it all, it took me many hours over many months to really get my head around it. It is, certainly, counter-intuitive, and I had lots of trouble with it.

But, trust me, this is how scientific progress works - research programs 'compete' in the manner described above. Old theories cannot be disproven without a newer and better theory to take their place. The entire history of the scientific progress of the human race is essentially based on this.

People who are much smarter than I (and probably most people here) have spent decades discussing the issue of "how do we know progress when we see it?" Everything I've sid above, in my own poorly worded way, comes straight out of the mouths of people like David Hume, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and so forth.

I sympathize greatly with your frustration. (I don't mean for that to sound arrogant - it probably does - sorry). I spent many hours in classes arguing the exact same thing as you have been to my professors. Eventually, I came to understand what they were saying, and why they were right. I can only say that it was extremely enlightening for me, and quite formative.

With that in mind, I can only urge you to not give up on this line of reasoning - I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or stupid (although, again, I recognize that my manner of speech does sometimes come across like that - again, very sorry for that) - I am just trying to impart that same enlightenment that I felt when I really, finally, after years, understood what scientific progress and the growth of human knowledge was all about.

Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume (see especially the problem of induction)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper (see especially section on philosophy of science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos (see especially section on research programs)

For a counter-vailing view of all this, Thomas Kuhn is interesting (although largely debunked and I don't think anyone puts much stock in him anymore - I could be wrong on that). The Wiki article on him is sparse, but it has good links elsewhere I suspect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

And let me say "thanks" for allowing me to debate this topic, especially given that I often come across like an arrogant SOB with a bad attidude.

Philosophy of science is a subject I find fascinating and close to my heart, and getting practice in discussing it with critics it is invaluable.

Thanks,

AMF

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I think part of the confusion is a misunderstanding of terms. In formal logic, there are statements and there are theorems. A statement can be proven false by a single counter-example (which in turn usually means a flaw in logical reasoning to arrive at that statement, or false premises). A theorem is a collection of statements, which counter-examples do not disprove; a counter-example to a theorem merely shows that the theorem is incomplete. It is much more difficult to disprove a theorem, because you need to prove false ALL the statements in the theorem, not just a few. I didn't do much to help in the confusion since I took your example of the algebra equation (normally a statement) and pretended it was part of a model or theorem, when I said it is still right for y=1.

I really would like to understand your reasoning, but from everything you've said, I can only conclude that you haven't had much experience in the hard sciences. It is fine to question theorems to gain a better understanding of them, but to just reject them out of hand you really do need to present an alternative. Otherwise, you are just an admitted novice that is rejecting the claims of experts in a field just because you don't like some of the evidence. That isn't science, that is dogma. Even the articles you linked do very little to the theory as a whole; the author of the Technology Review article claims to still think that human action has caused a rise in global average temperature. The Marshall paper basically says that the 90's was the warmest decade in the approx. 140 year direct temperature record, and held the position that indirect temperature estimates for before 1860 are incomplete in that it only takes into account local temperature (meaning, they want a more widespread and comprehensive study, eliminating as many assumptions as possible from the data analysis). Both basically say we need more information to refine our understanding of human impact, but neither one comes anywhere close to denying human impact. For both, the prevailing theory of global warming still holds.

Anyway, this isn't really a bandwagon issue. Most climatologists say that there is global warming because the data fits, and all competing theories (sunspot cycles, 20th century as end of the ice age, etc.) don't fit the data as well. The best fit model wins, and it has survived quite a bit of scrutiny in the 80s and 90s. After all that scrutiny, it is only natural that the experts would come to accept it as the best current theory.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Ah, but what if you have a theorum that fits some of the facts, but whose use proves futile in solving the problem? Supposing that no-one has a theorum that fits the facts better, and supposing that no-one knows why it doesn't work, does not that disprove the theorum anyway?

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Just a quick note the climate data shows that the rise in CO2 was evident AFTER the rise in temprature. Which is consistant with the arctic tundra and bogs heating up and releasing the gases that have been locked in since they were frozen. Yes Humans have had a small impact on global warming but are far from being the cause. What we are really good at is trashing our environment and we should be concentrating on keeping a clean planet. BTW CO2 causes plants to increase output of food and oxygen.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this debate to make me feel stupid! And no, you didn't really come across as arrogant (well, maybe a time or two, but I did too), mostly just passionate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'm not rejecting the theories out of hand. I have no doubt that the Earth's mean temperature has been rising for the past century or so. What I call into question is why this is happening. What we need is more exhaustive study, so that anomalies can be explained, the theories revised to account for the anomalies, etc. I guess what I'm essentially saying in my usual roundabout and excessively verbose way is that the theories should not be taken to be complete. They aren't until they can explain more of the glaring anomalies. Some people seem to think that the theory of global warming is complete and infallible; it isn't.

I also think that it is entirely possible that there is a better theory to account for the world's climate today, just someone hasn't thought of it yet. Essentially, I'm a skeptic. I require a lot of convincing.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I still like the reverse Dyson Sphere idea. It beats my idea of reversing global warming by immediate implementation of a Nuclear Winter. C'mon folks lets get it over with!

Hey doesn't Dyson make Vacuum cleaners? Man that would suck!

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Spoken like a true evil genius 4 a better tomorrow.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I certainly agree with you here 100%, and I hope I never made the claim that it is an infallible research program - in fact, no research program is infallible, I think, by definition.

Certainly quite possible as well - although, and this is just my uneducated opinion, I believe that any future research program will accept AGW as it's hard core, and build upon it.

Yay! Me too. Skepticism is necessary attribute of human progress and civilization. Those who lack skepticism are simply dogmatic zombie horde types who just eat brains. Or something like that.

AMF

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

From Will:

"The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

And many politicians, like Al Gore. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Unfortunately some people, like alarikf, seem to have bought into the alarmist scenarios (I doubt he'd be "physically sickened" by climate skeptics unless he really believed in Doomsday). The current "climate" (ouch) of hysteria has already led to expensive "corrective" action not justified by the actual science.

"You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model."

I'm skeptical of the hypothesis because a lot of data don't fit the model.

"We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature..."

We don't. As I pointed out in an earlier post, even direct historical measurements are uncertain due to location, changes in location, lack of coverage (especially the oceans), changes in instrumentation, land use changes, etc. etc. Note also that satellite and balloon measurements show less warming than ground stations.

"...(to within fractions of a degree)."

We're confusing precision with accuracy here.

"We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries..."

See my earlier posts on climate proxies and the "hockey stick" debacle.

"It [ice cores] shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature."

Correlation is not causation. And as Gozra pointed out, it's an open question whether carbon dioxide changes preceded or actually followed temperature shifts. (All this assumes, of course, that ancient ice bubbles are as pristine as paleoclimatologists like to believe -- more uncertainty.)

But who knows? Maybe one day the ice drillers will find one of those Viking SUVs that caused the Medieval Warm Period! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

From alarikf:

"Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:"

I read the Popper references, and I think I see the source of our confusion. From the Wiki article:

"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."

In other words, a theory can be falsified (i.e. shown to be incorrect or at least incomplete) by a single "anomalous" observation, even in the absence of a competing theory. This is essentially what Renegade and I have been arguing.

From the Stanford reference:

"If the conclusion is shown to be false, then this is taken as a signal that the theory cannot be completely correct (logically the theory is falsified), and the scientist begins his quest for a better theory. He does not, however, abandon the present theory until such time as he has a better one to substitute for it."

This is apparently what alarikf (and Will?) has been arguing, i.e. we seem to be arguing related but different topics.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the "don't abandon until you have an alternative" argument. Presumably if the falsified theory is still useful within its newly demonstrated limits, then we can continue using it for limited applications. If, however, the theory is all wrong or the consequences of misapplication are sufficiently horrific, then perhaps we should abandon the theory entirely and forego its supposed benefits until a better theory is formulated and tested.

Of course, since AGW is a hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Doubt away, but I believe the part that "sickened" alarikf (and myself as well) was the part where untrained and uneducated individuals attempt to dominate debate on the issue, on either side. Meaning both the people predicting the end of the world because of global warming, AND the people that are saying it has nothing to do with human impact. Both types of individuals are motivated by some kind of personal gain instead of a desire to reach the truth.

Good! That's what we have been trying to say. Your and Renegade's earlier posts seemed to imply an outright denial of the hypothesis, which would be wrong. You need more to deny it, but being skeptical is part of the game. As for a lot of data not fitting the models, sounds like you've been listening to a bit too much talk radio; it's fairly common there to take something like the "hockey stick graph" and therefore conclude that all the data in all studies are just like it. That is not the case, since I agree that that particular graph is wrong, but do not agree that it in any way disproves anthropogenic global warming.

I'm sorry, but we do. There are countless records dating back to the late 1800s that are very accurate in terms of temperature, specific location, and specific time. Go to any small-town historical society, and you can probably take a look at a general store owner's log book, that will contain things like how many bags of flour Mrs. Wilson bought on a particular day, a letter came in for Mr. Smith, and what the temperature reading off the thermometer on the front porch was. Also, your "confusing precision with accuracy" statement is a non sequitur, since the words are synonyms for the same thing... We have time and location data to go along with the recorded temperatures, over a fairly wide area; what more do you want? Sure, there isn't data for oceans etc, but that is not needed for looking at trends in the data. In this case, having data for a single location over a long period is much more enlightening than having data coverage for all locations at any one particular time.

Correct, correlated data does not imply causation. It suggests causation, in one direction or the other. And yes, it could be that increased temperatures somehow causes more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere, but the problem is that does not make any sense. The other problem is that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas identified in the theory, so showing that in some cases the curve of carbon dioxide concentration follows after the curve in temperature is insufficient to show that carbon dioxide has no effect. You must also take into account dihydrogen monoxide gas, methane, fluorocarbons, sulfur compunds, etc. For all you know, there could be a spike in other gasses that resulted in the temperature spike, and as those subsided, CO2 rose up, and your anomaly is debunked.

And you joke about medieval SUVs, presumably as part of the argument of "hey, there have been lots of temperature fluctuations in the past, and we had nothing to do with it". We aren't denying that there are "natural" processes at work here (meaning processes that we do not control). What we are saying is that there appears to be some effect that humans have on these natural processes, and you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation.

I mentioned dihydrogen monoxide gas earlier... this site linky is a good example of how scientific data can be mischaracterized in the hands amateurs. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover exactly what this dangerous chemical is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Ahhh, cross posting... bleh.

Anyway, there are multiple concepts flying around here, but AGW is a hypothesis, yes, and one that has not been falsified yet (and it will be a hard one to falsify; in logic notation it is ∃x(AGW) and to falsify it, you must show that ∀x(~AGW), where x is some set of conditions, ∃ is the "there exists symbol, ∀ is the "for all" symbol, ~ is the not operator, and AGW is, of course, our hypothesis). The theory or model that we have been talking about is our understanding of how various factors influence temperature throughout the world, including the affects of solar output, surface and atmospheric albedo, greenhouse effects, ocean and atmospheric currents, geothermals, and countless other factors and their interactions. THIS is the theory that must be replaced by a better one, and the AGW hypothesis is an element of this theory. Current opinion says there is not an alternative theory that leaves out the AGW hypothesis that explains the data as well as the current theory with the AGW hypothesis.

--edit: logical symbols fixed? maybe? nope... in your minds, please replace ∀ with an upside-down capital A, and ∃ with a backwards capital E... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

From Will:

"Doubt away, but I believe the part that "sickened" alarikf (and myself as well) was the part where untrained and uneducated individuals attempt to dominate debate on the issue, on either side."

Um, the "sickened" bit was the prelude to "There is NO debate on global warming", "You're...helping to doom the planet with shortsighted biases", "the future of the entire planet", and "I can understand why people don't want to pay a bit more in taxes to save the planet". It was pretty obvious that alarikf had bought into the Doomsday scenarios (note "doom the planet" above) and he was specifically irked at climate skeptics. His later posts have been more moderate, but alarikf's first post to this thread made a lasting impression. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

"As for a lot of data not fitting the models, sounds like you've been listening to a bit too much talk radio"

No, I've been reading up on science, for example the bit about "dihydrogen monoxide" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif being the principal infrared-absorbing gas (please, not "greenhouse" gas), and the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide largely overlapping that of water vapor. As a professional programmer I know that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, no more, no less ("Surprise! Our model shows man-made global warming, just like we predicted!"). My brother the geologist and fellow "climate skeptic" has been very helpful with ice core data.

On the other hand alarikf seems to have been listening to Al Gore. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

With regard to uncertainty in temperature records, Will's "general store" is a perfect example. What brand of thermometer was it? Was it calibrated? Was it in the shade? Did it get rained on? Was it close enough to the side of the store that it was warmed slightly by the coal stove in winter? Did it have gradations for every degree? Every two degrees? Was it read at the exact same time every day? Was it always read by only the store owner? Was he nearsighted? When the original thermometer was replaced in 1902, how closely did the new thermometer match the old? Was the store in the woods? In town? Surrounded by wheat fields? Near a big lake? When the store was torn down in 1935 and city hall did the temp records, how did that affect the readings? What about when the new airport (30 miles from the old general store) took over in 1962?

Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here!

"Also, your "confusing precision with accuracy" statement is a non sequitur, since the words are synonyms for the same thing"

[counts to ten] No, children, they're not. Example: That state-of-the-art Acme thermometer over there, the one that measures temps to three decimal places? Well, it's in an ice water bath and it reads 5.142 decrees Celsius. It's very precise (three decimal places!), but not accurate (it should read zero).

"...it could be that increased temperatures somehow causes more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere, but the problem is that does not make any sense."

Actually, as Gozra pointed out, it does; melting tundra, bogs, and such.

"...you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."

No, as long AGW enthusiasts fail to demonstrate a causal relationship, climate skeptics only have to point out holes in the hypothesis. And for catastrophic AGW, the bar is even higher. And as for the hypothesis that the earth's climate can be predictably adjusted by "tuning" one variable (i.e. carbon dioxide), the bar is higher yet.

Will, why does your linky point to a dental HMO? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif I was just going to ask the same question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Thanks for pointing out the bit about the thermometer in the general store, I was about to say pretty much the same things.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

o.O

I typed in the address wrong. It should be www.dhmo.org instead of www.dhmo.com

Precise/Accurate: we're going off different definitions then. If you say a thermometer in an ice bath reads 5.335 Celsius, I would say that it is not precise. In fact, I would say it is wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

But that isn't the point. The purpose of examining the records is not to find that it was X degrees at time Y. The purpose is to find how the temperature changed at a specific location over a long period of time. Even better is if you can get lots of records in a relatively small geographic area, and average them for specific time periods. Multiple measurements leads to better data sets. We're looking for trends here, so inaccuracies in measurement are irrelevant as long as those inaccuracies are consistent. For an example of this, look at graphs of the calculated average global temperature. There will be several data sets graphed usually. They will change in the same manner, but the magnitude will vary between them (or, the graph of their derivatives will match up very closely, so the plots are off by a constant term).

And increased temperature causing increased CO2, I said that does not make sense with the permafrost melting in mind. There have been cycles of warming and cooling in the past, and past warming would presumably cause CO2 release. But when it re-freezes, the permafrost does not magically take it all back. So it does not make sense that CO2 would go back down when temperatures do. Yet that's what the graphs show. A more likely scenario is that increased carbon dioxide along with other factors, results in an increased heat retention; you say it's IR absorption spectra, I say it acts a lot like a greenhouse does, hence greenhouse gas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

When you get down to it, the gasses labeled as greenhouse gasses have been shown to be in higher concentrations when temperatures rise. AGW points out that a lot of the increased concentrations are due to human actions. Sure it doesn't prove a causal relationship, but me dropping a pen onto the floor doesn't prove a causal relationship with gravity, either. It does, however, demonstrate that the model fits the data, and that is a necessary and sufficient condition in science. The "opponents" have only taken pot-shots at specific graphs or studies, without demonstrating a better model that explains all the data that the current model explains. So, like I said, you can be skeptical (which is good, so the model can be refined to be even more accurate). But unless you have something better, you can't put forth a denial.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Might it be...just maybe...the dreaded *gulp*...water?



http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

HP and R13,

Honestly: let's just not discuss anomalies in AGW at all. I have never said that AGW is perfect, no one ever has. You keep talking about anomalies in the research program, and then claiming that invalidates the theory. That is entirely NOT the point, and two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Once more:

If you only point out that data is imprecise, or that there are holes in a hypothesis, then you are showing nothing except that anomalies exist. You have to come up with an alternative that better explains the phenomenon in question if you want to question a theory. Otherwise, you're just showing your ignorance of how science works.

I've tried to illustrate this in the above posts with analogies to Copernicus-Newton-Einstein, but you both keep coming back to talking about anomalies in AGW, as if their existence alone threw AGW into question.

I'm not making my point well, so I'll use Will's words: "you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."

EVERY THEORY IN THE UNIVERSE has anomalies. The presence of anomalies alone is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is how well a different theory accounts for those anomalies. And if a new theory can account for those anomalies, and can explain everything the old theory did and more, then it "wins" and the old theory is tossed out.

Again, two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Re: "Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here!"

No, what you are doing is the same thing that those untrained in philosophy of science have always done: throwing out an entire research program based on one question about the data (not even really an anomaly) without suggesting an alternative. It's bad science. End of story.

It's the kid-dad analogy:

Kid: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Because of X.
Kid: No it's not!
Dad: ok, then what causes it to be blue?
Kid: I don't know, but it isn't X!
Dad: Well, we'll have to continue to say it's caused by X until you come up with something better.

That...is science.

QED.

AMF.

PS: As for my 'sickened' statement, what I said, in full, was: "Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe."

I don't see how that is ambiguous - to wit, I get disgusted with people when they make important decisions based on what appears to be their ideologies, or dogma, or self-interest, rather than an understanding of the facts and, more importantly, scientific methods. Full stop. No interpretation of "what I really meant" is needed, or desired.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I should probably have specifically responded to this as well.

Re:

This is certainly true, and is what I have in part been saying all along.

If such a theory existed, then to derive a replacement research program is a trivial matter. But, really, until you have an alternative, you have to go with what you have in place at the moment, because to do otherwise is non-rational because it would have no logic inherent in it. It would be, for example, totally ad hoc, self-contradictory, incoherent, etc…it would essentially be like saying “well, every possible thought we have given on this matter is so terrible that we have no possible explanations for it, and we can’t think of anything better” – even the most bizarre phenomena that mankind has ever experienced don’t fit that. At the very least, the explanation for something like that would be “The Gods make the sky blue because they like the color blue.” This at least is a theory, albeit a very silly one that would, thereby, be relatively easy to supplant with a better one.

This is why I use the phrase ‘research program’ not theory or hypothesis (when I remember to…). We do risk getting into obtuse terminology here, but a research program is a theory or succession of theories that is, at least in principle, empirically testable. These theories share “a hard core, a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, and a heuristic, i.e., problem solving machinery. Thus, in the Newtonian programme, the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation are the hard core. Anomalies in the motion of planets are dealt with by considering factors that may affect the apparent motion, e.g., refraction of light or the existence of a hitherto unknown planet. The problem solving machinery is the vast body of classical mathematical physics.”

In AGW, the hard core would be the belief that human activity contributes to global warming. I’d have to give some thought to what the negative and positive heuristics would be...but it’s a long weekend coming up, so don’t hold your breath…

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

AMF