Thursday
Dec262013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill No challenge
Dec 26, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics Even in the season of goodwill to all men, the mispresentation of the climate debate continues apace. This morning we had Professor Steve Jones interviewed yet again on the subject of BBC coverage of science, with the great man once again given the opportunity to portray the climate debate as being between "science" and "deniers".
Once again I wonder whether the BBC has ever interviewed a denier, in the sense of someone who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Once again I wonder why the BBC feels that we need to have this false representation of the debate put forward. And once again I wonder at the failure of the BBC's interviewers to challenge it.
The audio is below.
Reader Comments (310)
Michaelhart.
Curious you should say that. The rate of ocean heat uptake accelerated around 1970; so did the rate of sea level rise.
Mike Jackson
1) High CO2 has been linked with high temperatures. Reaseach the Pliocene.
2) The modellers include a number of other effects. Svensmark's hypothesis might be a candidate once CERN confirm or falsify the effect. Until then, there's not enough information to write the algorithm.
3) An interesting question. I trust the scientists to describe the problem and must, perforce, trust the politicians to decide policy. You seem to trust neither. Who WOULD you trust?
Falsification. Provide a better alternative and you'll start a new paradigm. Until then, most scientists in the field seem happy with the current one.
Since you regard all the science as suspect I am not sure if there is any level of scientific evidence which would convince you.
If you can describe clearly what convincing evidence would look like, I'll try to find some.
EM,
I'm pretty sure you don't want to go down the increased rate of sea level rise buddy...unless you are so short of straws that you will cling to anything regardless of how obviously ridiculous it is :)
Mailman
Mailman
Breath of fresh air is looking for alternatives to CO2. I'm suggesting ways he might approach the problem. What are you doing?
Jan 2, 2014 at 5:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
EM, do not put words in my mouth that have never left, I have made it quite clear in previous posts that I do not need another theory to be proposed in order for a previous theory to be disproved. For AGW to be disproved only a prediction of the theory needs to fail, the models already do and the next Met Office attempt eg 5 years in 10 above 1998 is heading that way too.
That is my last word, discussion over.
EM
As I said before, ad nauseam, and as you seem to be agreeing with (!), it is the proposer of the new paradigm that needs to come up with the evidence.
The fact (disputed) that the majority of scientists appear to be happy with the new paradigm (that this time it has to be CO2 because we can't get our models to work without it) is irrelevant. You can't just say "we've got this new hypothesis and we've built models to agree with us so now you have to prove we're wrong".
I have propounded the hypothesis that CO2 has a warming effect up to 350ppm and thereafter has a cooling effect and I have observational evidence from the last 12 years to support me. So now it's up to you to prove me wrong? I don't think so.
Though if it turns out I'm right I'll happily take the Nobel, thank you.
Mike Jackson.
Please read Karl Popper on falsifiability.
And then it decelerated again around 1980. It does this regularly, Entropic Man. There is not much new under the sun.
I have read Popper on falsifiability, also on falsificationism.
The quote is from wikipedia — not one of my favourite sources but it will do in this case.You are turning Popper on his head.
The base hypothesis is that climate varies naturally.
The weight of the ad hoc hypotheses that go to make up the AGW hypothesis has in no way reached a point where it is unreasonable to support the base theory any longer.
I return to my example. My contention that CO2 has a cooling effect at concentrations above ~350ppm is supported by observations. This has not yet been falsified.
The AGW hypothesis, assuming we accept it as a valid hypothesis, maintains via models that increased CO2 will inevitably lead to increased temperatures. For the last 10 years this is not the case. Reliance on models which have a limited capacity to reproduce reality (indeed some climate scientists admit that they do not replicate reality at all!) instead of relying on observations has led climate researchers up a dead end. Their core hypothesis that CO2>increased temperature has been falsified though I still contend that it was up to them to falsify the natural variation hypothesis rather than to assert it to be false and then require us to falsify that assertion.
Because it was only ever an assertion; it has been based solely on unreliable proxies and computer models.
Oh, and a political (small 'p') agenda!
The basic problem with your hypothesis is that the total energy content of the climate system continues to increase in step with increasing CO2.
If your hypothesis was correct, warming would have plateaued after CO2 passed 350ppm in 1987. Your only alternative would be to demonstrate that another warming forcing had taken over, which has not happened.
I think that falsifies it.
EM
How does that tie in with the latest
excusetheory that there is a time lag before CO2 takes effect?I agree that that is very new, in fact I only read it for the first time today and I would now need to go hunting because I didn't pay it much attention.
Or I could be wrong about the 350. What was the level in 1999 when the pause started?
How do you measure the "total energy content" of the climate system? Why is this important, given that it's the effect of CO2 on temperature that the warmists are always rabbiting on about; it's the catastrophic temperature increase that they tell us is important and it's the temperature that has stopped going up.
If the "missing heat" has gone and "hidden" in the deep ocean where (oh, so conveniently) we can't measure it, is this not good news because it is a sign that the earth is self-correcting and with luck that same heat may be there to help stave off the worst effects of the next cool period? Is anyone researching that aspect of the climate? If not, why not?