KARL Popper and Thomas Kuhn, two great philosophers of science, agree that scientific progress involve the critical overthrow of theories and their replacement by alternative ones. For Popper the replacement occurs following the falsification of universal statements while for Kuhn change is necessarily revolutionary, involving more than a change in the claims made and questions asked but also in the way the world is perceived and a change in the standards that are brought to bear in appraising a theory. While these two philosophers are considered by many to propose rival accounts of science, both theories are relevant to understanding climate change science.
Popper would not have been impressed with arguments that climate change is the greatest moral issue of our time, or that believing in climate change and trying to correct it are simply a better way to live. He is also unlikely to be swayed by the thick reports from the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ even if they are an accurate summation of thousands of peer-reviewed technical papers. Popper would instead want the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) reduced to logically testable statements and attempts then made to falsify the statements.
Of course there are those who have written whole books claiming that Popper’s methodology creates too harsh a test for emerging scientific theories, tests that would have strangled at birth both Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution and Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. But both these theories, like the theory of anthropogenic global warming, are now mature and while they can’t be proven, there are aspects that can be tested. Indeed what sets science apart from other forms of intellectual inquiry is that science subjects its theories – what Popper describes as tentative claims to the truth – to observational tests that could disprove them. According to Popper it is criticism not justification that is the hallmark of rationality.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory. Kuhn would describe AGW as the current dominant paradigm because this is where the majority of professional scientists claim their allegiance. A key premise underpinning AGW that the burning of fossil fuels is having a direct negative impact on global climate has become an issue of considerable social, political and economic importance to the extent that some world leaders have described it as the moral issue of our time. Of course there are dissenters, commonly referred to as sceptics or deniers, and Kuhn would have correctly predict that these individual would be excluded from the scientific community as evidenced in the emails illegally obtained from the University of East Anglia in November 2009 and known as ‘Climategate’.
According to the Kuhnian point of view, a paradigm, for example AGW, embodies a particular set of experimental and theoretical techniques for matching it with nature but there is no reason to expect it to be true. It is only when mismatches between the claimed and the observed become an issue, and are pursued for political purposes as well as scientific reason, that steps will be taken to replace it.
Some argue support for AGW peaked in 2006, the year Al Gore released the documentary about climate change entitled ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ which went on to win him a Noble Prize. Last year, 2009, saw a surge in confidence from the so-called sceptics after Climategate and the failure by world leaders to reach significant agreement at the world climate talks in Copenhagen. But the concept of AGW remains deeply embedded in Western discourse with industrialized nations currently spend around $10 billion a year on climate change research and policy matters.
There are of course alternative theories of climate change, alternatives to AGW. But instead of progressing one or other of these theories, there has been a tendency for those opposed, sometimes as much to the social and political consequence of AGW, as the scientific theory itself, to fall back on the null hypothesis that plausible natural explanations exist for all the post 1850 global warming. But claiming that warming is natural, does not progress our understanding of climate change. Furthermore, according to the Kuhnian view of the history of science, it is only through the replacement of a theory with something more compelling that science progresses.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Maybe the old theory was right after all:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/25/rahmstorfschellnhuber-confirm-no-anthropogenic-climate-change/
The thing with theories is once they are published then they are in the protection of the science community. In their arrogance, they wrap a absolute do not critize or investigate label around it or you are critisizing the science community as a whole to their authority of being an expert. Who do you go to when a theory can be proven incorrect? Where do you go to when a whole new area of science is opened but it clashes with many of the current theories? With a new area of science, there would ONLY be one expert and that is the person who conquered that area of science. So who can peer-review this?
Science today is more of a bad tradition then actually figuring out how this planet works. 300 year old theories are still held up as LAWS when some hard research can prove them incorrect.
Physics could not understand how a circle in motion can compress and change mass and store and release energy as they have been using a circle as a non-moving form or a totally enclosed form in motion. A simple coil spring is against all the laws of physics and should not be able to do what it can do. Yet using it in motion breaks many of physics laws.
What benefit is there in studying a coil spring in motion?
It shows how after 4.5 billion years, we can have volcanoes and earthquakes while the planet is slowing down. The energy released(mostly gases) cannot go to the solid core, so it must come through the planets surface.
Popper would likely not consider climatology to be a science, nor AGW to be a theory. That’s because in the current state of the art, empirical falsifiability plays no role. The strongest claims made are expressions of likelihood — and even then, not in quantifiable terms of statistics.
It’s also good to bear in mind what a theory actually is. A theory is a model — and modeling is what climatology is all about. To date, none of the models work, i.e., have predictive and explanatory power.
So, do we have a ‘Need for a New Theory of Climate?’ A better question might be, ‘do we have a theory of climate yet?’ Looks like the answer is, ‘obviously not’.
So I can see Jen doesn’t want to discuss climate science anymore. So let’s do philosophy then…
a recent blog quote
“But it turns out that there are not enough mavericks in climate science to meet the media’s and blogosphere’s insatiable appetite for conflict. Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists. These are a toxic brew of retired physicists, TV weather forecasters, political junkies, media hacks, and anyone else willing to tell an interviewer that he/she is a climate scientist. Typically, they have examined some of the more easily digestible evidence and, like good trial lawyers, cherry-pick that which suits their agendas while attacking or ignoring the rest.
Often, they are a good deal more articulate than actual scientists, who usually prefer doing research to honing rhetorical technique.
Intelligent readers/viewers should demand to know the actual scientific backgrounds of these posers and recognize that someone with a background in particle physics or botany may in fact know very little about climate science. Does he/she have a background in atmospheric physics? Can they answer elementary questions about radiative and convective heat transfer, or about the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere? More precisely, does their expertise actually bear on the particular points they are making? It may sound elitist these days, but there is a point to credentials.”
more at http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1444
Nice try, Luke. Instead of trying to prove theories correct, Popper suggested that a scientist’s job is to try to prove them incorrect. The best theories are ones that make lots of predictions which can be checked against the facts.
El Gordo,
Did you also notice that Popper’s insistence on falsifiability makes him the patron saint of skepticism?
Luke,
You obviously have no credentials in philosophy. What you quoted is mere lamentation about perceived failures in journalism.
For the record – check out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/inconvenient-hurricane-facts/
Comment from: Luke October 27th, 2010 at 7:22 am
“Intelligent readers/viewers should demand to know the actual scientific backgrounds of these posers and recognize that someone with a background in particle physics or botany may in fact know very little about climate science. Does he/she have a background in atmospheric physics?”
So we can look forward to seeing that of Luke asap???
Philosophy is such rubbish really. What would Popper et al know about climate science. All simply soft systems waffle…. anything to distract from discussing real science.
Another Ian – same for you matey – but then none of us are writing the editorials or seeking the spotlight eh? And why is it that sceptics duck the real literature? E&E anyone?
Another Ian,
Luke’s apparent criticism about “actual scientific backgrounds of these posers” and denigration of those “with a background in particle physics or botany” is a rather stark admission of scientific illiteracy on his part.
Particle physics plays a role in the dubious science of climatology, as does botany. Indeed, the field is made up of so many diverse disciplines that it would be ludicrous to describe climatology as a ‘specialty’.
As a matter of fact, someone like Steve McIntyre is well-equipped to criticize the statistical manipulations of the Hockey Team for the simple reason that none of them are statisticians of any caliber, but insist nonetheless on performing statistical stunts.
Simply irrelevant Schiller. And discussing about 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 % of the issue. But that’s sceptics for you. Dismiss the main. Focus on trivia.
Luke,
It would be helpful if you were to describe what you’re talking about.
“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”
Karl Popper
Joe,
We agree there is much that modern physics can’t explain and that peer-review tends to prevents radical progress.
But such has been the history of science… and according to Thomas Kuhn the ignorance and stasis is best overcome when a critical number of thinking individuals get behind a new theory.
So I am proposing that climate science needs a radical new theory like Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect… to get some discussion going…
Joe Lalonde,
The coil spring analogy is very good. That fading energy is all neg feedback and the advent of man and his tiny increases of energy through FF burning amounts to little. The recycling of CO2 in this exercise is next to nothing.
Re Comment from: Luke October 27th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Hmm. I wonder if Ken will cotton on to this?
<>
Any new theory at all will do – so long as it doesn’t threaten business as usual, eh Jennifer?
I think that, as a philosopher, Jennifer makes a good biologist.
My god, its CJ Morgan snake oil salesman.
CJ Morgan
Was that quip really necessary?
Johnathan Wilkes,
Given that this blog claims to be a “forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment”, I think that it’s quite “necessary” for some of us to speak up for the natural environment, rather than disingenuously coming up with excuses for wrecking it.
Jennifer’s understanding of both Popper and Kuhn, as evident in her post above, hardly extends beyond that which can be derived from reading Wikipedia. She may well be a competent biologist, but her ‘philosophical’ arguments are superficial at best.
el gordo,
What is that you think I’m trying to “sell”? My point was that I think Jennifer is trying to “sell” a new “paradigm” under false pretences, simply because the AGW consensus among reputable climate scientists doesn’t suit the project of her masters. If anything, I think your “snake oil salesman” metaphor is far more applicable to her in this instance than it is to me.
CJ Morgan
“suit the project of her masters.”
who are her “masters”?
I don’t know about her understanding of Popper and Kuhn and I safely assume neither do you.
As to Wikipedia, I wonder how many people genuinely interested in facts would refer to it?
————————————————-
“for some of us to speak up for the natural environment”
Who are the “some of us” and what gives you the authority?
OK Jen – ” needs a radical new theory like Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect”
The emphasis is on “needs”
The problem is that given Miskolczi has proposed a new theory we now can’t “uninvent it”.
However given even Lindzen agrees that 2 x CO2 = 1 degree, would one not want to take on a few biggies like water vapour feedback, cloud feedback, and decadal oscillations. And how to represent uncertainty – as it is the seeming arrogance of scientific certainty that probably upsets most. The current 90% certainty on some aspects (for example) can’t come from a known probability distribution – they have to be expert opinion but quantified to standardise “expert uncertainty”.
So does one “need” to come up with a new theory? (nothing stopping anyone who can)
Or should one progress the already listed “known unknowns” of water vapour, clouds, decadal influences.
Is there a “Need” for a revolution from scientific first principles?
Of course you can think of plenty of reasons from political sceptic first principles.
But that gets to my quote from Kerry Emmaneul above – “But it turns out that there are not enough mavericks in climate science to meet the media’s and blogosphere’s insatiable appetite for conflict” – there’s obviously a big demand for blood blog sports and bad news.
So this is why I am perplexed (and miffed) that you would not want to celebrate CSIRO’s work on unravelling the impacts of STRi on autumn rainfall in SE Australia. But anyway …..
Presumably the counter to this is that many peptic ulcers ending up being a microbiological infection – not stress related at all. (so wrong paradigm and dry gully by previous researchers). However if you start fantasising that you’re Galileo and know something “special” – most likely you aren’t ! (first sign of ego getting in the way)
(If you want some philosophy – you could argue how much climate science should advocate politically in the AGW policy space.)
Jen has created an Open thread, to discuss philosophy and science, precious things. Popper wrote on prediction, but I have yet to read it.
Odds on large floods in south-east Australia next year are firming.
I came across this link provided by a kind blogger.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/behind-the-science/7982-a-challenge-to-the-qwarmistsq
It shows exactly why we need a new theory, because the “old one” is crap…if you believe in scientific process that is.
If you have a political agenda of course the AGW/CAGW is much better!
Luke and others,
The history of science suggests that moving to a new theory/research program/paradigm is always problematic even after key assumptions have been comprehensively falsified.
Lakatos claims this is because the hard core of a research program is rendered unfalsifiable by the methodological decisions of its protagonists.
Yes/No?
However, Ferenc Miskolczi appears to have falsified Arrthenius’s greenhouse law in the very process of finding an empirical solution to computing the Earth’s global energy balance and its greenhouse effect.
Yes/No?
CJ Morgan and others,
My opinions may be unpopular, but they are considered, and sincerely held.
And if you are interested in the philosophy of science I suggest ‘What is this thing called science?’ by A.F. Chalmer.
This is an accurate prediction.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Australia_NovMar_forecast.GIF
Q1: Well very little has been falsified at all. If you think it has it’s simply your value judgement. In fact more small pieces are falling into place every day IMO. What I will say though is that major uncertainties still remain ….errr …. uncertain …. progress is perhaps disappointing.
Q2: Nope by a mile – http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi Indeed most major sceptics aren’t even running it any more. Not even Roy Spencer believes and that guy is not short on lateral thinking. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
spangled drongo
The coil spring is only the example of the research I have been doing in motion and rotation.
Physics assumes in a circle, the center of balance is at the axis of a planet when actually it is 2/3 from the axis. Both sides have the same mass. But rotating that circle, the mass on one side compresses and shifts the center of balance. Simular to a car or person in motion, The shifting of the center of balance.
Luke,
I appreciate that Ferenc’s new theory has limited support, including amongst the sceptics, but that doesn’t make his theory correct or incorrect.
Do or don’t we agree that Ferenc appears to have falsified Arrthenius’s greenhouse law? But perhaps he wasn’t the first?
Jennifer,
Science and climate science in particular have made the error of studying only one area to the exclusion of all others. Individual areas that have boarders that cannot be crossed as traditional teaching from very young has instilled this as absolute fact from scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc.
Our planet and solar system does not follow mans rules or laws. It is an extremely complex and interacting system. Just look at all the different organs and complex systems are in the human body. This planet is just as highly complex with many different actions happening that can effect the whole.
All the physically insignificant changes that are happening with this planet have been ignored by science. But when all the physical evidence is put together, it suggests that this planet is suffering from pressure build-up.
Jennifer,
With respect, that’s exactly what I was getting at. As it happens, I have that very volume here in my private library – dating back to when I was an undergraduate student in the 1980s (and it’s Chalmers, btw). I agree that it’s a very good introductory primer to some key philosophers of science, including Popper and Kuhn, but it’s hardly a sufficient theoretical framework for arguing for a “New Theory of Climate”.
I have no doubt that your opinions are “sincerely held”, but that doesn’t prevent them from being philosophical fairy floss, I’m afraid.
Or worse. To answer Johnathan Wilkes’ question, given that you’ve worked as an industry environmental apologist for years until recently, who’s calling the tune now?
CJ Morgan,
I was not suggesting that Wikipedia, or indeed Chalmers, as a good basis from which to argue for a ‘New Theory of Climate’. I was going to have a go at coming up with something myself informed by Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, Lindzen, Miskolczi, Hansen, Spencer, Arrhenius and others. Oops forgot the Danish research on cosmic ray theory.
Also, I’ve never worked as an industry environmental apologist… you misrepresent me.
Joe,
What is your most compelling physical evidence?
Jennifer,
The growth up mountains is pressure rising from the atmosphere.
Blamed on global Warming but the cold atmospheric winds at those levels would keep areas too cold unless the pressure pushed those winds up.
The “Theory of Climate Change” is based on nothing more than the precautionary principle; and sophistry; its twin modus operanti are authority and consensus. The defining characteristics of its supporters are arrogance and condescension; to say that the science is settled is just about as unscientific as you can get; as is the dismissal of Miskolczi who has not been refutted anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature; linking to blog diatribes, no matter how civilzed, such as the Nick Stokes wiki effort, does not change the fact that Miskolczi has changed the paradigm scientifically; the irony is his theory is consistent with both MEP and the philosophical concept of the governing AGW spiritual idea of gaia.
Jen – to your question – NO !
Jen – may I suggest your need for falsification is somewhat misplaced. It isn’t easy as climate is a complex problem.
Isn’t a better question – in a sea of climate variability and changing land use – ENSO, PDO, IPO, AMO, SAM, AO, tree clearing for agriculture affecting albedo, surface roughness etc ….
how might one detect a climate change signal emerging from that fog of variability. And if there was a God – would he hand the answer to you on a platter? Or do you reckon it would be like King Arthur’s sword emerging from the lake.
Might one even expect counter-intuitive feedbacks as circulation systems reorganise themselves. How would you tell these phenomena from natural changes?
How many years is a “trend”?
What level of statistical significance do you need against risk?
What do we do about scientific uncertainty (which incidentally cuts BOTH ways_
Luke poses a good question for a change…..”What do we do about scientific uncertainty (which incidentally cuts BOTH ways)”
Well now that you have acknowledged that there is indeed a considerable degree of “scientific uncertainty”, as relates to Climate, Luke… It would be wise indeed to inform the public of that “uncertainty”….. Because many people that believe in AGW’s more catastrophic effects, have not been informed of that “uncertainty”
…. and knowing of this “uncertainty”, many would not be in favor of trashing Australia’s economy because of an exaggeration perpetrated in the main, by CJ Morgan’s activist eco fascist mates….. 😉
OK, here’s an hypothesis.
The recent financial downturn has led to a reduction in carbon emissions in developed nations. The reduction has been quantified. Warmists claim that CO2 exerts its effects via back-radiation, which would be reduced as CO2 emissions are reduced, leading to a measurable reduction in temperatures of ground-based thermometers.
If this reduction can be measured, we can treat the hypothesis as a theory. If not, we discard the hypothesis and move on.
Jennifer,
In order to understand the most compelling evidence, you had to know how gases cannot press down onto the planet as it is fairly solid, so, must move up. Most people would say that heat rises. Okay, then why is the pressure changing the surface salt on the oceans at only a couple inches and is expanding since 1970.
Science made a huge error in following the theory that global warming has caused the salinity in the oceans to change. No one double checked with science as to how a warming planet cannot possibly change the ocean salinity. They just followed the conclusions as it all fell into the Global Warming gambit. Oceans have been rising steadily 3mm a year so if anything, the salinity should be diluting slightly. The only way heat can change ocean slinity would be a massive amount of evaporation to concentrate the salt. But this would effect ALL the salt in the water and not just a couple of inches of surface salt. The changes of balanced gases has been an increase if heavier CO2 gases that mostly stay near the surface. Water in compressed gases of hydrogen and oxygen but has a complex ability to include salt and trace elements.
A cook could have told scientists their theory of salinity changes sucked.
Funny thing is the U.S. government had this researcher testify to her theory on Global Warming causing salinity changes.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=897
Still no real discussion about whether Ferenc has/has not falsified the core of AGW theory … Arrthenius’s greenhouse law.
Do we agree that Arrehenius’s greenhouse law is at the core of AGW theory?
Luke?Cohenite? Others?
[PS I’ve just deleted several comments that were repetitive and/or off topic and edited a couple of comments to reduce the personal attacks on Cohenite etcetera. Bewared if you become repetitive and continually play the ‘man’ rather than the issue you will be deleted.]
Jennifer,
How unsurprising that you wouldn’t answer my question.
May I suggest that you reread Kuhn? There’s no precedent for overthrowing a scientific paradigm on the basis that it describes a physical reality that is economically inconvenient for industry.
You could also reread the chapter in Chalmers about ‘The Limits of Falsificationism’. I hope this helps.
Jennifer; I have to say Arrhenius made a lot of mistakes; from a previous thread Alan Siddons noted this:
“Comment from: Alan Siddons June 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
From Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe (1906), by Svante Arrhenius
“…The heat rays of the sun now are to a large extent of the visible, bright kind. They penetrate through the glass of the hot-house and heat the earth under the glass. The radiation from the earth, on the other hand, is dark and CANNOT PASS BACK THROUGH THE GLASS, which THUS stops any losses of heat, just as AN OVERCOAT PROTECTS THE BODY AGAINST TOO STRONG A LOSS OF HEAT BY RADIATION. Langley made an experiment with a box, which he PACKED WITH COTTON-WOOL TO REDUCE LOSS BY RADIATION…
“Fourier and Pouillet now thought that the atmosphere of our earth should be endowed with properties resembling those of glass, as regards PERMEABILITY OF HEAT. …we have been supplied with very careful observations on the PERMEABILITY TO HEAT OF CARBONIC ACID and of water vapor.”
As you see, Arrhenius consistently confused convective loss with radiative loss. A glass box, a coat, a wad of cotton, all reduce the cooling effect of moving air. They do not and cannot trap IR like wind in a bottle.”
As well as this Arrhenius limited his measurements of the thermal radiative spectrum to 9.7u whereas CO2 dominantly absorbs at the 14.77u band; so Arrhenius was not directly measuring CO2; he also used thermal radiation at 100C which includes the 4.2u CO2 active band but is not relevant to Earth conditions. CO2 does absorb at the 14.77u band but has done so mostly at levels below 100ppm; additional CO2 has an exponentially declining heating affect as described by the Beer-Lambert law.
Arrhenius’s CO2/greenhouse ‘law’ is at the “core of AGW theory” and it is the reason why that theory is wrong.
CJ Morgan….. Your remark to Jennifer….. [“I have no doubt that your opinions are “sincerely held”, but that doesn’t prevent them from being philosophical fairy floss, I’m afraid.”]
This is the crux of the argument isn’t…. The very same could be said about the AGW hypothesis.
As for “paradigm”… it merely means a shift in thinking to a “new way of thinking”….. Just because everyone has grabbed the arse end of a bad idea, doesn’t make the idea right…. Science isn’t consensus, politics is.
Popper would be the first to dryly point out that you are talking apples and oranges here CJ…….;-)
“There’s no precedent for overthrowing a scientific paradigm on the basis that it describes a physical reality that is economically inconvenient for industry.”
CJ Morgan,
You’re not a little sceptical that it describes a physical reality?
Theories always have a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty. Certainty, as even an academic said on the ABC this morning, leads to ignorance whereas uncertainty, OTOH….
Cohenite…. That’s a damn good post by Allan Siddons….. I assume those are direct quotes from Arrhenius’s body of work?
…In which case it shows him up to be extremely unsophisticated in describing his Greenhouse/CO2 “law” and by modern standards of observation and experimentation, to be wrong.
As far as I am concerned that without CO2, the temperature on this planet would pretty much be the same, given where it is located in it’s orbit and that it would always have Water Vapor in its atmosphere due to the heat budget associated with that distance and hence WV would be, as it is now,….. the significant gas in regulating temperature within the climate system…. I am not going to deny CO2’s thermal properties, but I will question its significance to that of Water Vapor.
Thus to my mind Ferenc Miskolczi’s hypothesis is much more valid than Arrhenius’s childish description of the properties of a CO2/ Greenhouse and their effect on global temperature.
So in short, water vapor regulates this system’s temperature, not CO2….. CO2’s effect on WV is small. CO2’s effect on temperature is small…… CO2’s biggest effect is upon the biology of this system…. not its temperature…. and CO2’s mechanism for its effect on biology is well understood with very little uncertainty…. Completely explainable without controversy.
Wood and Bohr falsified Arrhenius’ GH theory 100 years ago:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
They are direct quotes JH; but as you can see the firm is still pushing CO2 over water:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
The gist of this shambles is that CO2 is more dominant as a ghg because water condenses out of the atmosphere and therefore has a lessor GH effect. The irony is however, that AGW does not model condensation as this thread on a new paper about condensation shows; note that gavin schmidt takes three comments before he realises that they are talking about pressure not density:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/momentary-lapse-of-reason/
Jen – you seem to be insistent that Miskolczi has disproved greenhouse. Well not much more I can say then – if you want to believe – despite significant criticism go ahead.
What’s at the heart of AGW are radiation transfer codes.
You don’t seem to want to discuss the issue of attribution at all.
(And specially for Cohers delectation – Investigating the possibility of a human component
in various pacific decadal oscillation indices Ce´line Bonfils • Benjamin D. Santer Clim Dyn
DOI 10.1007/s00382-010-0920-1 9 Oct 2010) the gist – PDO is contaminated by an AGW signal – bye byes PDO index . LOL
Luke, Cohenite and others,
According to various philosophers of science there is theory, and then there the ‘hard core’ of the theory…
More fundamental than radiation transfer codes… what is the ‘hard core’ of AGW theory? If you like what is the essence of AGW theory in one or two sentences?
It could be the Moet speaking but in response to luke’s Santer paper showing an anthropogenic footprint in PDO: complete garbage. CO2 cannot impact on SST or OHC because LW does not heat the ocean only TSI does and the correlation between TSI and PDO and OHC is conclusive.
J. Hansford,
AGW isn’t a philosophy, it’s a scientific theory.
spangled drongo,
Of course I’m “a little sceptical” about whether the AGW theory describes and explains physical reality. Indeed, my certainty about it is only about 90%, just like the IPCC.
However, if I could be just as reliably certain about which horse is going to win the Melbourne Cup (or preferably another horse race that offers better odds), I’d be willing to bet $10K on it. You faux-sceptics are like some smoker who goes to 9 doctors who tell him he’s got lung cancer, but only believes the 10th who tells him he hasn’t – just so he doesn’t have to give up the habit that will ultimately kill him.
CJ Morgan,
1. Accepting AGW is a scientific theory… what do you consider its hard core?
2. And re. AGW as philosophy, according to some IPCC heavy weights, AGW is also a philosophy eg. Mike Hume on the social meaning of climate in his book ‘Why we disagree about climate change’ (Cambridge Uni Press, 2009).
CJ Morgan,
Don’t worry about a horse. Just give me 18:1 odds [90% certainty] for that $10K that you can prove the following ten points:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries.
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other `greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate.
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate.
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities.
5. The incidences of malaria and other infectious diseases are now increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past.
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in polar regions, is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions.
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes.
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency.
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of global surface temperature trends.
Well?
That should be 9:1 odds. I was getting confused with the IPCC’s 95% certainty [which is actually 19:1]
Cohenite – your reaction on PDO was simply to quick. Who has religion now?
“LW does NOT heat the ocean” – OMIGOD ! Rush to Nature and publish.
1. irrelevant
2. “are having dangerous” – framing proposition – and time
3. They can
4. “dangerously” – framing
5. Not enough data – but forest borers are responding how poikilotherms do
6. humanity almost rendered extinct with climate catastrophe in past
7. nope – it is unusual
8. unproven – wait a while and see
9. yes they have
10. yes they are despite limitations
WHAT and amazing list of nonsense Spanglers. How can you lot possibly begin to consider “the philosophical” implications. Sheeesh ! All you’ve done is parrot a sceptic talking point list.
spangled drongo
That $10 K will not be worth any thing in the not too distant future.
Our planet developed the ultimate defence for the protection of water based on a pressurizing system. Water would sooner freeze than loose it’s mass through evaporation and dispersement.
A freezing planet cannot grow food, so what good will currency be?
Governments all base their economies on the market system. But if the food supply is in danger of running out due to “weather” changes, will they let the populous know?
Of course not, it would kill the countries economy and the currency backing the country.
The good of the country WILL ALWAYS outweight the good for the populous.
The Global Warming scam is far better at keeping the worlds populations distracted from looking into what is really happening until it’s too late.
At least the scam artists who raked in millions will be in the same boat as eveyone else when the currencies collapse.
Jen – you don’t get any more hard core than Fortran. It’s mathematically explicit not rhetorical.
AGW theory is that an increase in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, NOx etc) from anthropogenic emission sources will cause a change in the Earth’s energy budget resulting in broad scale changes in climate including circulation systems. Feedbacks will ensure that changes are not necessarily intuitive or constant. Impacts are likely to be uneven and there may be winners and losers.
The potential speed of change may make it it difficult for natural ecosystems and human populations heading towards 9 billion to adapt to these changes. The issue is a major issue for risk management under uncertainty and tackling it is a grand challenge problem given fossil fuel use is integral with our standard of living.
Sorry Luke the ‘precautionary principle’ is flawed, based on a false premiss. Gaia is a philosophy which even Lovelock concedes has been taken too literally.
I am in agreement with cohers comment that ‘CO2 cannot impact on SST or OHC because LW does not heat the ocean only TSI does and the correlation between TSI and PDO and OHC is conclusive.’
Concurrent with advancing a new, testable hypothesis regarding climate change, we should encourage a new paradigm.
According to the current paradigm, scary things that humans cannot understand are caused by humans. That’s actually made explicit in the latest IPCC report.
What ‘precautionary principle’? This is about evidence based science.
(1) adverse climate has plagued humanity forever
(2) haven’t run a major climate shift with 9 billion humans
(3) most people working on seasonal forecasts have already twigged that their indices may be compromised from AGW e.g. SOI, Nino regions … now PDO joins the club
Guys; I’m distressed by this argument for gambling as a parallel to science where chance of a win is governed by the amount to be placed. Neither am I impressed by the idea of returning to first principles via Popper n Co and Fortran is a language!
Jenifer has been scratching in the dust like a hen seeking excuses for not recognizing AGW, rising salinity and anything else likely to be associated with climate and bad practices since the blog began.
What really counts are the plodders, those who can grow from the knowledge within the practice. What comes first? We most likely got our tough steel alloys as used in modern tools from the production research in long lasting automobile springs. Likewise hardened steels relate to our need for piston rings and turbine blades. No odds needed hey.
Chances, cyclones, and hard core science has to be separated from the Melbourne Cup if we are going to unravel say the challenge from metallurgy where mineralization is on average less than 1% of the ore body. We did not learn about Popper while refining an ever varying complex mix.
Recognition itself at the personal level is a complex process and it comes from the practice. Given a plastic lens, my brain was slow to cope with the brightness and perspective is altered by changing differentials. One hopes to improve by constant reference to the old ways. No Fortran in that.
The irony is med research including human vision depends heavily on the math
Time to clarify usage of terms.
Hypothesis = an idea resting on the notion that an experiment will either falsify it, or elevate it to the level of being a theory.
Theory = working model based on non-contradictory evidence.
Law = theory that has stood for so long that explanations of phenomena are forced to acknowledge their primacy.
Paradigm = a mixture of all of the above, which forms a ‘world picture’ or ‘covering principle’, which allows all of the above to function consistently as explanatory of phenomena.
Now that that’s settled, it’s obvious that AGW is not even an hypothesis, as it has not offered anything that resembles an experiment involving falsifiability. After two decades, it still has not risen to the level of being a theory.
Boo hoo, ask your average philosopher.
Jennifer,
40 years ago, we were given a warning by the start of the salt changes.
How much more time is left before the warning is up.
And we haven’t done a thing about it.
Schiller OK with your categories but one problem Schiller – the IPCC, most science academies, and most policy groups advising government totally disagree with your classification of AGW.
Sorry it’s simply your own personal opinion and alas therefore changes nothing.
Face it sceptic “science” isn’t good enough to win the debate – but will delay and confuse. Isn’t this the real tactic learned from tobacco wars?
Luke,
IPCC is a political organization with a political, (big government,) agenda.
Science academies represent the majority of scientists, whom are dependent on government grants,
(taxes, aka redistributed wealth,) for professional survival.
Policy groups… if you disagreed with them you would call them special interests!
Government funds “science” which justifies more government,
and those of us who are not feeding at the government trough suffer for it!
Luke,
Can we simplify what you have proposed as core AGW theory to:
“An increase in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, NOx etc) will cause a change in the Earth’s energy budget.”
And can we agree that this is a falsifiable hypothesis?
Yep !
And so I think you’ll find Lindzen and Spencer will give you around 1 deg C for 2X CO2 (as one driver).
Next.
How could the above hypothesis be falsified?
I think the definition of AGW is too generous and avoids the extravagant hyperbole attached to AGW. For instance the IPCC assumes that the equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS] for 2XCO2 to be in the range of 3.26-3.8C +-0.69-0.92C.
The IPCC bases its assumptions about ECS on CO2 retention and delayed responses to increases in CO2. This is patently preposterous. CO2 does not have a long atmospheric residency nor is there a delay in climate response to increases in CO2. Beenstock et al have shown that CO2 only has a warming affect as long as it is increasing; once CO2 stabilises there is no further affect. This is well grounded in physical phenomena which I have already referred to; namely that LW radiation, the method by which CO2 warms, cannot penetrate and therefore warm the oceans, only TSI can. Since the oceans are the Earth’s energy reservoirs if they cannot be warmed by LW and CO2 there is no delayed effect.
On this basis the warming effect of CO2 has occurred since CO2 started increasing in 1900; during this time temperatures have increased ~ 0.6C. TSI has been responsible for ~ 0.16C of this and natural variability for about 0.3C; that leaves about 0.14C for warming due to the increase in CO2, which has increased about 40% since 1900. This disproves CO2 based AGW since 40% of 3.26 is 1.3C which is what temperatures should have increased if AGW is correct.
Cohenite,
Can you provide a definition?
First paragraph Jennifer; ECS = AGW.
Looking at the Vostok ice core it is clear that temperatures increase before CO2 begins to rise, but this reality is completely ignored by the modelers.
Closer to our time, another freezing winter in the UK looks certain, following a string of others, yet it is only weather to the warmists because they require 30 years of data.
So AGW is not a falsifiable hypothesis?
Cohenite, I can’t see a definition in the ‘first paragraph’.
What about:
AGW is embodied in the law described by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1906. In its original form, Arrhenius’ greenhouse law reads as follows:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. The simplified mathematical expression is
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
Arrhenius calculated values for the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric carbon dioxide and speculate that changes in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide would change the Earth’s surface temperature.
Arrhenius initially estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C, but later adjusted this down to 2.1 °C including water vapour feedback.
The 2007 IPCC report, written one hundred years later, calculates the value between 2 and 4.5 °C.
Luke?
Sorry equation doesn’t look right – as this web template doesn’t seem able to handle the symbols. But you get the idea?
SST continues to fall, but Spencer is not making any prediction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-thru-27-Oct-2010.gif
For the sake of Gav, I bet there will be a big drop this time and we can rely on the data.
Sorry, I meant the first paragraph of my post about ECS; for me AGW is ECS which is defined at BOX 10.2 here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html
If we use Arrhenius’s definition: “If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. The simplified mathematical expression is
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)”
then AGW is already defeated since 1900 because CO2 has not increased exponentially and there is an r2 correlation between CO2 and temperature of 0.44 for the 20thC which means temperature has not increased in “arithmetic progression” in any event.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg
“From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Something cohenite wrote “Since the oceans are the Earth’s energy reservoirs if they cannot be warmed by LW and CO2 there is no delayed effect” caused me to google “ocean heat long wave radiation” and it’s crap as usual by just thinking about that cup of cold tea in the microwave
If I want to know something about climate science now, I would look up that recent Wiley
article by this guy 2010
http://www.getboulder.com/visitors/articles-f06/climate-change6.html
Brilliant gavin; now take your cup of tea, ovaltine, bonnox or whatever you drink out to the backyard, at night, when luke’s LW backradiation is isolated and at maximum and see how long it takes to warm up. Then do a comparison of the energy levels of that LW and that of the microwave. Crap as usual and patronising without a skerrick of justification.
Well a couple of points:
(1) It’s not Arrhenius – it’s what’s in the GCM radiation transfer codes (back for Fortran !)
(2) You don’t have a closed single factor experiment here – you have all manner of feedbacks – melting Arctic ice and land use change all affecting albedo; CO2 feedback from a thawing tundra; PDO; AMO; a quiet Sun; oceanic circulation; CO2 fertilisation of plants albeit limited by nitrogen as Liebig’s Law of the Minimum kicks in.
Can AGW be falsified – well depends on the time frame
Cohenite accumulates reasons why it isn’t happening
Luke accumulates reasons why it is happening
Uncertainties are high – a big one being what humanity does (if anything) about CO2 growth in the atmosphere. The other uncertainties are the often discussed known unknowns.
Cohers, knowing Gavin and his penchant for real world experimentation will most likely do just that …. He will strangely find that his Chamomile tea cuppa packed snugly in his insulated open esky doesn’t freeze into permafrost overnight. At some point Cohers I have say “denier”.
BTW Gavin – challenge Cohers to the ice cube melting test.
This squabbling is entertaining. But you are not using your heads!
But this scientist says or this study says
A great majority of our science IS incorrect.
WHY?
Do they factor in everything or study one specific area?
Do I have confidence in the Ice Core readings?
No, that is someone interpretation of them.
What they miss is a constantly changing planet.
Ice cores go back what up to 4 million years out of 4.5 billion years?
Water has a very fascinating relationship with salt concentrations and the constantly changing factors that keep changing the water as well. Our planets rotation has slowed in that time which means that the centrifugal force was grater as well. Our planet was also closer to the sun. So, the salt concentrations had to be much greater or we would NOT have water.
Why does Mars not have water today? Lack of salt concentrations.
Ice Ages are never the same each to the same factors.
What prompted evolution from water mammals into land mammals?
The evaporation process. THERE WAS NO WATER ON LAND BUT HEAVILY TRAPPED SALTED WATER! The geology shows much sand and rock and little else. Much later plants and animals came when the evaporation process was changing the salt process.
Quite a partnership with atmospheric pressure as a cooling mechanism.
Jennifer,
I would propose that the issue that has become so noisy in the public square is not if CO2 will change the energy budget.
The issue is if these changes will lead to dangerous global warming ‘global climate disruption’ according to the latest re-branding effort.
The climate- and therefor drivers of the energy budget- have changed constantly over time. So it is unreasonable to define any human influence as the problem. There has to be damage outside the range of normal change risks for there to be a problem.
I think the evidence is clear that nothing is occurring that is outside the range of historical variability or is very troublesome.
Let us not worry about ‘the public square’ or what is in the ‘Fortran code’.
Let us for a moment concern ourselves with philosophy and climate science and what we agree about…
There seemed to be gathering agreement that about one hundred years ago there was the beginning of a theory based on a mathematical equation proposed by Arrhenius along the lines that if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression?
Is there agreement that this theory existed but has since been modified?
Why and how was the theory modified?
Fortan code = mathematics = formulae and structure of a model = consequences. You have to worry about it.
If we don’t know what GCMs, which produce the said range of temperatures, are actually doing in terms of radiation modelling, we’re just playing around.
Jennifer,
Evolution was ‘modified’ into eugenics, in no small part by Arrhenius, ironically.
Arrhenius’ idea about CO2 was modified into a theory of catastrophic climate change.
Both eugenics and catastrophic climate change were a result of the blending of science and social movements.
And then again, there’s Al’s philosophy:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation
And what I luv about the philosophy of AGW is that cold is just weather but hot is that rotten, man made, CO2 induced, CLIMATE.
However, with -41f in Siberia, at least no more about that Russian heat wave.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/russian-heatwave-update-41f-forecast-for-siberia/
Popper would have been in sympathy with this comment from Hendrik Tennekes.
‘From this perspective, those that advocate the idea that the response of the real climate to radiative forcing is adequately represented in climate models have an obligation to prove that they have not overlooked a single nonlinear, possibly chaotic feedback mechanism that Nature itself employs.’
More issues to settle:
1. Falsifiability of AGW hypotheses can be conducted for both increases and decreases in supposed ‘greenhouse gases’.
2. Time scale for the impact of ‘greenhouse gases’ is irrelevant. Why? Because the AGW hypothesis rests on the notion of ‘back-radiation’. That means that the proportions of ‘greenhouse gases’ at any time of day whatsoever will immediately result in a measurable difference.
Both 1 and 2 provide a basis for testing the AGW hypothesis.
We can proceed to multi-decadal analysis if these two elements survive falsifiability tests. If they don’t, the rest is a waste of time and resources.
Spangled, my impression is that big Al has done nothing since his infamous movie but fly around the world giving expensive speeches and making a truckload of money on the carbon gravy train.
But as you are possibly aware, our all-wise educational boffins have seen fit to include “an inconvenient truth” into the new national curriculum. It is expected to be used by science, english, sose and even history teachers in the new overarching theme of “sustainability”.
Even luke wishes gore would quietly find his way into an old folks home and yet he is being revived in an attempt to further propagandize our already over burdened students.
Those of you who know how the school system works, particularly primary schools, will understand that this will lead to serious indoctrination of malleable minds by well-meaning teachers who see no reason not to accept the dominant paradigm.
I plan on initiating T&D sessions at my school on critical literacy WRT gore’s film but I fear my little effort will be whistling in the wind.
Of course Arrhenius’s theory existed; it has been modified, refined is a better description; the IPCC has been fiddling with the climate response to increased CO2 since it was set up; on the one hand the ‘official’ resonse has been declining since Arrhenius as shown by Monckton at page 5:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdf
On the other hand many official papers analysing [sic] the climate resonse to increased CO2 predict either runaway or the Venus syndrone [ie Hansen] or extreme temperature responses; for example;
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552
This sort of exaggeration is confounded by the actual divergence of temperature trend from even the declining ‘official’ and much more sedate predictions:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
So, I would say that Arrhenius’s initial theory has been subject to a bifurcation which approaches schizophrenia, between the ‘responsible’, nominally measured description of the response to CO2 increase and the equally official hysteria and hyperbole of the runaway catastrophists who are the public arm of AGW.
Derek,
All power to your elbow mate…dont give up.
OT I know, but tell me why has the Education System suddenly become re- fascinated with Gore’s completely fraudulent and hysterical AIT.
I assume they will also follow the lead required by the UK courts and require that the teachers point out the myriad of errors in AIT and inject some balance into it.
But then nothing really surprsies me anymore when Julia Duck Butt, the ex Lawyer… Left wing Union Official… and Education activist becomes the PM.
There is one consolation it wont be too long before she usurps Rudd’s mantle as Australias worst ever PM.
G’day Malcolm, the education system is regularly assaulted with truly cringeworthy material from green groups that will come out to your school and run seminars, do promotions etc., and we’ve even had some serious pamphletting from the national science academy written by Karolly et al on the “truth and myths of climate change”. Most of the “stuff” is about as valid as using Dorothy the dinosaur to teach evolution/paleontology but it’s aimed at primary school teachers who frankly don’t know squat about science.
I’ve been pulling a “Connolly” and quietly disposing of most of the propaganda as it tends to end up in my pigeon hole but every now and then some still gets through. I’m now going to have to take a more proactive stance and it may well be a bit like how it is for science teachers in religious schools trying to teach evolution.
Any links to recent websites that I might not have seen on the issue would be much appreciated.
Derek and Malcolm,
We all know immediately how much cred the AGW movement really has when it won’t stand on its own. That is the way all the failed movements started.
“This has to be approached as a children’s crusade”:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4210203/Google–Avatar-chiefs-talk-tech–climate-change
Derek, good luck with your “gatekeeping”, hope you get lots of support.
Derek; may I suggest these anti-gore resources:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/34260/John_Stossel_Rips_Apart_Global_Warming/
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ceivideo/videos/82/
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html
“From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans”
gavin,
I wonder how they measured that? I thought that the only reliable system of doing that was ARGO and I think you’ll find that since 2003 it’s shown a slight cooling.
Also, you may be interested to note that the temp anomaly for the last 30 years is next to ZERO:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/29/spencer-bottom-falling-out-of-global-ocean-surface-temperatures/
The SST is even lower, as per Spencer’s link above:
“The following image shows data updated through yesterday (October 27). Needless to say, there is no end in sight to the cooling.
(Click on image for the full-size version).
Since these SST measurements are mostly unaffected by cloud cover like the traditional infrared measurements are, I consider this to be the most accurate high-time resolution SST record available…albeit only since mid-2002, when the Aqua satellite was launched.”
Poor Jen – the inmates are off on another Al Gore rant.
That better than the Village Idiot being off on one of his.
Thanks Cohenite, I’ll watch them as soon as my internet speed comes back up in a couple of days.
Derek,
Are you also being charged for 8000 kbps and receiving 25? With “technicians” telling you that they are “escalating” your situation to solve the problem?
We have a local exchange that services the district [about 3000 homes] most of which would have computers and I understand the total speed available at that exchange is 14,000 kbps [about 5kbps each]. For some reason I can go for long periods with good speed, then for periods with poor speed.
Spangled, I’m on a wireless plan with telstra ’cause they are the only ones who do wireless in my area for Macs. We just changed up to a 12 gig plan that slows down when we reach the limit. Unfortunately we share this plan with our 3 kids and facebook is download hungry.
Derek,
I have about 700 metres of tree-hung copper through thick forrest and it cops a hiding in storms. Unless I am prepared to wait forever without phone or internet for Telstra to do something [they have no one with a long ladder working for them anymore], I repair the line myself and pay them for the pleasure.
This is on top of a dodgy exchange.
The energy company run the same 700 metres with 11,000 v power lines on big poles to my tranny, maintain it perfectly and charge me less money. Figure it out?
I should go to wireless like you but I want to keep a landline phone.
Re Arrhenius, I discussed him briefly in my Quadrant article on the Garnaut review in January lasy (available with footnotes at my website). I also have some more on him in my present paper, notably his analysis of the role of atmospheric water vapour “[H2O]” vis a vis [CO2]; in effect my paper vindicates his calculation that [H2O] is at least as important upfront as [CO2], see his Table 3 where they have a nearly identical effect on reducing the transparency of a given Atmosphere to Heat from the earth at 15 oC. This contrasts with the IPCC claims that [H2O] is merely a positive feedack, ex post [CO2] rather than ex ante along with [CO2].
Tim,
So assuming Arrhenius was as excessive in his estimate of the second 50% as he was for the first [450%], the doubling should be around a 1 deg c increase?
Not really too serious.
But if you accept that of the 0.73 c increase, probably half is due to land use change and natural variation etc then a doubling of CO2 is probably more like an increase of 0.5 c.
Any stranded backflippers getting interested in our broadband rollout ? Note how trusty Telstra is right sizing staff in anticipation. Btw it’s been a while since we (kids) did that distance test with a pair of jam tins on the fence line.
“Climate change ‘unquestionably’ linked to humans” – 29th Oct 2010
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1397312/Climate-change-'unquestionably'-linked-to-humans
Seems it’s doing the rounds, msm and everywhere!
http://cowracommunitynews.com/viewnews.php?newsid=5878&id=137
“Any stranded backflippers getting interested in our broadband rollout ?”
gavin,
With all the pork going from the city to the bush, you’re the one who should worry.
“Climate change ‘unquestionably’ linked to humans” ???
“But Mr Allegre says the document is a compromise and “I have not evolved, I still say the same thing, that the exact role of carbon dioxide in the environment has not been shown”.”
Don’t think it’s saying that at all.
We used to use the top wire of the fence for a phone line but in the wet it wasn’t so good.
Then we used insulators on that top wire and it improved but when the horse rubbed his rear on it in the middle of a conversation and the joints moved that wasn’t so good either so we cut some clothes props and raised it up a bit higher. We were 50 miles from the exchange so it was a lot of clothes props.
Spangled, we’ve got land line as well for the phone but had to go wireless to get any decent speeds for the net. If you’re running a PC and not a Mac, you may be able to get good cheap wireless with someone other than Telstra.
The only comments worthy of keeping on here are those which point out the sea surface temperatures are falling rapidly, over 0.3 degrees C since March/April of this year.
Derek,
I suspect that Telstra Next G is the best in the bush, though that was not always my experience with the old Telstra CDMA.
I have been told that good mobile phone wireless reception from a provider doesn’t necessarily transfer to good mobile wireless broadband reception from that same provider at a given address.
Have you or anyone had experience with this?
Spangles, I’ve had no problems with broadband reception with very good speeds before I reach my limit. Some friends of mine in the upper south east(think Keith)use other providers for their PC’s and have no complaints.
Harry, as the sort of exchange that you are frustrated with usually only occurs well into a thread, I’ll beg your indulgence. On the matter of SST’s, as this only measures the top 10 microns or top 1 mm depending on method, what do you consider are the implications of the observed rapid fall?
Spangles: you are as always spot on!
My paper goes on to show multivariate regression analysis reveals that [H2O] despite having about the same effect as [CO2] on transparency actually explains temperatures by far more than [CO2]. The latter is the same everywhere, the former varies everywhere and thereby explains temperature far better. Try Melbourne v Darwin, same [CO2], different [H2O] > different Temperatures (after controlling for solar surface radiation, obviously less in Melbourne that at Darwin). Obviously you are not a climate scientist, as they deny all this commonsense.
Tim
A much-needed change in the paradigm:
We could solve much of the wrongness problem, Ioannidis says, if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/2/
Hi Jenifer,
I buy your argument on this subject but would like to let you know that a credible theory of climate change has been developed which recognizes a new relationship between the earth and the sun, it accounts for ice ages, it proposes a new method of managing climate change which is based on empirical observation. It solves all puzzles to do with climate change. Read the full details on http://www.epitomeillustrations.com. If you subject it to the same tests and find a question that is left unanswered or an issue that is inconsistent with reality, then raise it and I will address it to your satisfaction.
Cheers