Scientific Method, 2016

[CrusaderFrank]

1. State your hypothesis
2. Show us the rigorous testing it survived refuting it
3. Insult me for calling you out on your bullshit
4. Run away

You don't have it right. General Relativity was called a theory before rigorous testing. String Theory in quantum mechanics has been called a theory from day one, although there is no rigorous testing. This link shows one conceptual idea of theory in the sciences.

There are two kinds of proof in scientific theories.
The first is mathematical or logical proof. Mathematical proof about the consistency of the theory, essentially that all the pieces play together well. ​

Climate science is not a rigorous theory, but is a composite of physical pieces that all play together well. Climate science shows how back-radiation can keep the earth from loosing heat. It shows how the surface can radiate 400 W/m2 while absorbing only 160 W/m2 from the sun. It shows how CO2 can increase that heat retention, etc. There is no other meaningful theory that covers that.

The "alternate theories" proposed by skeptics, such as the adiabatic ideal gas law, or the rejection of two way radiant energy flow are outright wrong, and are all full of holes.

So, wait a second Sparky. Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that an atmosphere of 100% N2 would not retain ANY Heat? Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that 400PPM and a gnat's fart worth of methane is sufficient to cause the differential between what the Earth receives and what it radiates back?

You should have been Madoff's accountant, he'd still be in the Fund Management business

 

[Wuwei]

So, wait a second Sparky. Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that an atmosphere of 100% would not retain ANY Heat? Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that 400PPM and a gnat's fart worth of methane is sufficient to cause the differential between what the Earth receives and what it radiates back?

I didn't invent that hypothesis. It was discovered decades ago.

 

[jc456]

So, wait a second Sparky. Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that an atmosphere of 100% would not retain ANY Heat? Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that 400PPM and a gnat's fart worth of methane is sufficient to cause the differential between what the Earth receives and what it radiates back?

I didn't invent that hypothesis. It was discovered decades ago.

and to date, never validated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, wait a second Sparky. Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that an atmosphere of 100% would not retain ANY Heat? Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that 400PPM and a gnat's fart worth of methane is sufficient to cause the differential between what the Earth receives and what it radiates back?

I didn't invent that hypothesis. It was discovered decades ago.

Can you put this "Hypothesis" into words please

 

[Wuwei]

Can you put this "Hypothesis" into words please

I already did and you quoted it, so you must have seen it already.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is a scientific theory supported by the research - by the science - conducting in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies by thousands of degreed, professional scientists. What have you got that says otherwise? A blog? Your opinion?

AGW is hypothesis not supported by the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the anthropogenic component...and isn't it odd that for all those "pal reviewed" papers, there still remains no observed, measured quantified evidence in support of that A?...says a great deal about the state of climate pseudoscience.

 

[SSDD]

1. State your hypothesis
2. Show us the rigorous testing it survived refuting it
3. Insult me for calling you out on your bullshit
4. Run away

You don't have it right. General Relativity was called a theory before rigorous testing. String Theory in quantum mechanics has been called a theory from day one, although there is no rigorous testing. This link shows one conceptual idea of theory in the sciences.

There are two kinds of proof in scientific theories.
The first is mathematical or logical proof. Mathematical proof about the consistency of the theory, essentially that all the pieces play together well. ​

Climate science is not a rigorous theory, but is a composite of physical pieces that all play together well. Climate science shows how back-radiation can keep the earth from loosing heat. It shows how the surface can radiate 400 W/m2 while absorbing only 160 W/m2 from the sun. It shows how CO2 can increase that heat retention, etc. There is no other meaningful theory that covers that.

The "alternate theories" proposed by skeptics, such as the adiabatic ideal gas law, or the rejection of two way radiant energy flow are outright wrong, and are all full of holes.

The atmosphere, and climate are quite physical...and very observable...why do you suppose that there is no observed, measured, quantified physical evidence supporting the A in AGW....and the fact that string theory was called theory with no actual testing at all goes a long way in describing the state of post modern science.

 

[SSDD]

There is no theory stating that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming??

I agree. A deliberately false "theory" is not a "theory," it is FRAUD...

That would be the Greenhouse Effect, not a theory but a well identified process in atmospheric physics.

God are you stupid.

Sorry skid mark, but the greenhouse effect has never been either measured or quantified...and is meaningless without its built in fudge factor.

 

[SSDD]

1. State your hypothesis
2. Show us the rigorous testing it survived refuting it
3. Insult me for calling you out on your bullshit
4. Run away

You don't have it right. General Relativity was called a theory before rigorous testing. String Theory in quantum mechanics has been called a theory from day one, although there is no rigorous testing. This link shows one conceptual idea of theory in the sciences.

There are two kinds of proof in scientific theories.
The first is mathematical or logical proof. Mathematical proof about the consistency of the theory, essentially that all the pieces play together well. ​

Climate science is not a rigorous theory, but is a composite of physical pieces that all play together well. Climate science shows how back-radiation can keep the earth from loosing heat. It shows how the surface can radiate 400 W/m2 while absorbing only 160 W/m2 from the sun. It shows how CO2 can increase that heat retention, etc. There is no other meaningful theory that covers that.

The "alternate theories" proposed by skeptics, such as the adiabatic ideal gas law, or the rejection of two way radiant energy flow are outright wrong, and are all full of holes.

So, wait a second Sparky. Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that an atmosphere of 100% N2 would not retain ANY Heat? Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that 400PPM and a gnat's fart worth of methane is sufficient to cause the differential between what the Earth receives and what it radiates back?

You should have been Madoff's accountant, he'd still be in the Fund Management business

An atmosphere of 100% N2 would be warmer than our present temperature because the atmosphere would have no means of radiatively cooling itself...convection and conduction would be doing all the work...

 

[SSDD]

So, wait a second Sparky. Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that an atmosphere of 100% would not retain ANY Heat? Does your "Hypothesis" suppose that 400PPM and a gnat's fart worth of methane is sufficient to cause the differential between what the Earth receives and what it radiates back?

I didn't invent that hypothesis. It was discovered decades ago.

And Professor Woods promptly showed that it was flawed...and it remained in the dustbin of failed hypothesis till leftists drug it out and dusted it off to put it to political use via pseudoscience.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

AGW is a scientific theory supported by the research - by the science - conducting in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies by thousands of degreed, professional scientists. What have you got that says otherwise? A blog? Your opinion?

How about this-

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...e-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

Or this-

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][unreliable source?][21]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technologyand member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[43][44][45]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[46][47]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[48][49]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[50]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[51][52][53][54]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[55]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[56][57]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[58][59]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[60][61]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[62][63]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[64][65]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[66]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[67]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[68][69]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[70][71][72]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[73][74][75]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[76][77]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[78][79]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[80][81]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[82][83]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[84][85]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[86][87]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[88][89]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[90][91]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[92][93]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[94][95]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[96][97]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[98][99]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[100][101]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[102][103]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[104][105]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[106][107][108]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[109][110]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[111][112]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[113][114][115][116]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[117][118]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[119][120]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[121][122]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[123][124]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[125][126]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[127][128]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[129][130]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[131][132]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[133][134]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[135][136][137]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[138][139]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[140][141]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[142][143]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[144][145]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[146][147]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[148][149][150]
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [151][152]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[153][154]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[155][156]

Deceased scientists
This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

• August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[157]
• Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[158]
• Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[159][160]
• William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[161][162]
• Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[163][164][165]
• Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[166]
• Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[158][167]

See also

• Environmental skepticism
• Global warming controversy
  • Climate change denial
  • Global warming conspiracy theory
  • Hockey stick controversy
• List of authors from the IPCC AR4 WGI report
• List of climate scientists
• Merchants of Doubt
• Oregon Petition

 

[Wuwei]

And Professor Woods promptly showed that it was flawed...and it remained in the dustbin of failed hypothesis till leftists drug it out and dusted it off to put it to political use via pseudoscience.

I have not read about Professor Woods. How did he show that it was flawed?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you put this "Hypothesis" into words please

I already did and you quoted it, so you must have seen it already.

So you can show us experiments controlling for changes in CO2 between 280 and 400PPM?

 

[LaDexter]

"So you can show us experiments controlling for changes in CO2 between 280 and 400PPM?"

Indeed, we can, from the actual highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere as CO2 rose...

 

[Crick]

"So you can show us experiments controlling for changes in CO2 between 280 and 400PPM?"

Who are you quoting here?

Indeed, we can, from the actual highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere as CO2 rose...

Then let's see it.

 

[SSDD]

And Professor Woods promptly showed that it was flawed...and it remained in the dustbin of failed hypothesis till leftists drug it out and dusted it off to put it to political use via pseudoscience.

I have not read about Professor Woods. How did he show that it was flawed?

No doubt...not surprising at all. I wouldn't expect the sources you rely on for information to mention Professor Woods and his experiment that disproved the greenhouse hypothesis any more than I would have expected them to inform you that it has been proven experimentally that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...

What I would expect is for you to disregard the experiments showing the temperature gradient in favor of arguing about his conclusions regarding what the experiments proved...ie a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"So you can show us experiments controlling for changes in CO2 between 280 and 400PPM?"

Who are you quoting here?

Indeed, we can, from the actual highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere as CO2 rose...

Then let's see it.

You're quoting me, you intellectual black hole

 

[Wuwei]

And Professor Woods promptly showed that it was flawed...and it remained in the dustbin of failed hypothesis till leftists drug it out and dusted it off to put it to political use via pseudoscience.

I have not read about Professor Woods. How did he show that it was flawed?

No doubt...not surprising at all. I wouldn't expect the sources you rely on for information to mention Professor Woods and his experiment that disproved the greenhouse hypothesis any more than I would have expected them to inform you that it has been proven experimentally that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...

What I would expect is for you to disregard the experiments showing the temperature gradient in favor of arguing about his conclusions regarding what the experiments proved...ie a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air.

You didn't answer my question. Show me the link where Professor Woods showed back radiation was flawed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And Professor Woods promptly showed that it was flawed...and it remained in the dustbin of failed hypothesis till leftists drug it out and dusted it off to put it to political use via pseudoscience.

I have not read about Professor Woods. How did he show that it was flawed?

Hope this helps

"Thereafter, in 2011, Professor Nasif Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico performed his own very accurate repeat experiment using four small greenhouses under strict peer-reviewed control.*** Nahle came to the conclusion that Wood’s experiment was totally correct. Nahle’s findings were that in the three small greenhouses having covers of different materials (glass and plastic polymers) and upon one hour of solar exposure, the temperature differences were scarcely in the range of 1° to 1.5° C (as in the Wood’s experiment a century before). Nahle saw that the other “holed” greenhouse – more exposed to cooling convection and environment temperature – showed a lower temperature. This was compelling proof that a greenhouse is heated merely by the blocking of air convection with the outside environment and not by any specious mechanism(s) such as “backradiation” or the “trapping” of longwave outgoing infra-red radiations."

THE FAMOUS WOOD’S EXPERIMENT FULLY EXPLAINED - Principia Scientific International

 

[LaDexter]

For the 500th time here, the tippy toppiests had a big problem in 2005, highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere. Faced with clear proof their CO2 hypothesis was 100% pure bullshit, the tippys did what they do - they took RAW DATA showing NO WARMING and FUDGED it (this time with two uncorrelated "corrections") into a "peer reviewed climate study" that claimed "warming" when the RAW DATA SHOWED NO WARMING...

Hiding the Hiatus: Global Warming on Pause

"Since the late 1970s, however, we have had access to reliable lower troposphere temperature records for 99 percent of the globe, obtained from highly accurate microwave sounding instruments aboard a series of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather satellites. There are two main datasets that record, post, and analyze these global temperature measurements: the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Both of these datasets, comprising the most reliable global temperature data available, show no detectable global warming over the past 19 years. The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months, from October 1996 to June 2015."


Then these "not about truth" tippys FUDGED the data, claiming "orbit wobble" meant the satellite data had to be FUDGED from showing NO WARMING to ... viola ... "warming," and the balloons, well, their thermometers were just wrong (as are every other thermometer showing NO WARMING on Earth), and hence given a one time FUDGE factor, making their "correction"s uncorrelated....

And then, tomorrow, I will state the highly correlated satellite and balloon data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere, and be asked for yet another "link" for the 501st time....