Global warming: the theory of everything
George Monbiot explains how it is that the unusually cold winters in Europe lately are actually consistent with, and probably caused by, global warming. Warm, cold, wet, dry, it’s all fodder for the global warming mill.
As John at Powerline has noted, a scientific theory is judged by, among other things, its predictive power, and in this sense global warming is both fabulous and terrible. A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing. It can neither be proven nor refuted. It is, as many have long said, more in line with a faith than a science.
But global warming is one thing. Whether it’s happening or not tells us nothing about the far more important question of whether whatever global warming that is occuring is anthropogenic, or human-caused. The science that purports to prove that is even iffier, but the faith is strong.
[NOTE: When it came time to choose a category for this post, I didn’t know whether to select “science” or “religion.” So I split the difference and chose both.]
I did see a report on TV last night about the glaciers melting in the German Alps. But the 24/7 reporting is all about closed airports, ovefilled and late trains, and stranded passengers. Road salt is running out in some places, even though the main supplier has been working overtime and reports 2010 as its best year. I am personally tired of shovelling snow, and I haven’t seen any reports of AGW protesters organizing groups to help the elderly and handicapped clean their sidewalks. I guess that’s not as glamorous as flying to Cancun for a UN meeting.
I don’t buy into the global warming faith on account of the poor science behind it…which raises the question whether I should be giving my deeply held religious beliefs a little more scientific scrutiny?
It almost seems as though believers (of w/e belief system) do not rely on science except so far as it reinforces their beliefs. Whereas when it comes time to evaluate other belief systems, we seem to revert to a more scientific approach: prove to me that your belief system is the ‘right’ one/better than my current one/etc.
“Global warming” is the climastrologists’ answer to L. Ron Hubbard, who reportedly founded “Scientology” to win a bet that he could invent a religion that others would follow, no matter how stupid and/or ridiculous the precepts of the religion.
Needless to say, if the story is true, L. Ron won his bet.
My exasperation at the AGW faithful knows no bounds, particularly for scientists who should know better. Skepticism is the stock in trade of a scientist, yet seems more honored in the breach than the observance. This lack of healthy skepticism is particularly evident in some fields, climastrology being one, and molecular biology another.
(NB in this connection last week’s post re arsenic-based bacteria, which (despite its extreme improbability) an experienced molecular biologist took at face value, but which is now coming under increasing fire for being bogus, which it obviously was, and is.)
As for social (“so-called”) sciences, forget it. They merely provide a scientific veneer to opinions, and
an intellectual sword and buckler for defending them. (“It’s science!”)
The soi-disant elites seem particularly gullible to being stampeded by nonsense, partly because they’ve already invested so much time and effort in running with the herd.
What happened to all those violent, coastal hurricanes we were promised after Katrina?
Actually the AGW’s crowd “prediction” of more and stronger storms, including cold and snow is subject to more criticism than the fatal one neo just delivered.
Basically, their prediction volates the 2nd Law:
If the globe warms, (and the Arctic ice melts as Monbiot is so frightened of), then the temperature differential between various parts, especially the poles and the tropics will decrease. Storms are ultimately heat engines that must function by transferring energy between a hot source and a cool reservoir. If the temps are all about the same, that won’t happen, i.e. less storms and of milder quality.
I wonder why Monbiot is not reporting on the greater than one standard deviation of ice GROWTH in the Antarctic this year… oh yeah… doesn’t fit with his “theory”.
Over on Althouse: “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it’s might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science. ”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/12/that-snow-outside-is-what-global.html
Physicsguy, good point. I hadn’t thought of that.
Barry just needs to bailout the 2nd Law. After making the oceans recede, that should be child’s play.
Re AGW, I’m still waiting for falsifiable prediction #1.
I love the absolute conviction of AGW proponents that the models are even remotely correct. Let’s see, enormous systems of coupled differential equations concerning poorly understood and largely unquantified phenomena, with the potential of lots of undiscovered effects, and spanning fields ranging from astronomy to atmospheric and geophysics through chemistry to biology. Sure. It’d be literally easier to predict coin flips.
Recently came across the most recent iteration of what was originally Global Warming then Climate Change — Climate Instability (seems like what Monbiot is selling in his columns.
Before the scam actually peters out I’m expecting Climate Flux, Climate Unreliability, and Climate Gone Wild.
The British Secretery of Transport and the Foreign Secretary recently commented on the country’s lack of preparations for the weather conditions creating chaos in Europe:
“Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said he had asked the government’s chief scientific adviser to assess whether the country was experiencing a “step change” in weather patterns due to climate change and whether it needed to spend more money on winter preparations.” (Reuters)
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said: ‘We haven’t been equipped over the last few decades in this country to cope with every aspect of severe prolonged cold weather. We may have to look again at that if these things are to recur frequently.’
(Daily Mail)
It appears that climate change, also known as global warming, can create a “step change” which results in “severe prolonged cold weather”.
I’ve just ordered a copy of Hitchens’ “Why Orwell Matters”. It might explain how warming can create freezing.
If global warming was irrefutable and man made then why ‘hide the decline’ and delete tree ring data that contradicted the alarmist narrative? Just saying…
Nowadays we get bombarded with weather reports 24/7 and everybody thinks “average” and “normal” are supposed to mean the same thing. Well they don’t and never have. And if global warming is a religion, it is certainly one fueled by ignorance about nature in general.
From Claes Johnson in Sweden:
“We see two streams meeting at the same point causing ignition: climate alarmism and mathematical simulation technology. Why does the combination explode? Because climate simulation is mathematics. Because mathematics can be powerful. Because 2 + 2 = 4 can be devastating. World media are awakening, stay tuned…”
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/12/kth-gate-climate-mathematics-stopped.html
Claes Johnson is a leading mathematical Swedish professor; his employer is the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
New terminology: “Human caused thermal disasters.” It’s a slogan that the department of Homeland Security can dig.
The anecdotal evidence of warming since the 1880s – glaciers retreating in most parts of the world – is correct. However, the glaciers retreating in Greenland are just now uncovering the remains of a Norse colony that thrived there during the Medieval Warm Period. The Earth has warmed up like this before and it had nothing to do with human activity.
Even if ther Warmists were correct, we would be much better served to adapt to the change, rather than beggar the human race in a futile attempt to mitigate the change. See what Bjorn Lomborg has to say, He’s a believer in warming, but not in mitigation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
It’s now clear that the whole idea was a mechanism for central control of the economies of the world. Marxist revolution without the bloodshed.
physicsguy,
good point..
[I am rotten at stating this stuff]
if atmosphere stored heat as infrared light not as conformation changes below the emission point (with a huge buffer due to pressure), then those wonderful infrared heat scopes that see so clearly would not see clearly.
the atmospheres trading of photons would make a huge noise that would not make clear images possible. the absorption and emission of photons emitted by the subject would scatter more and make haze around the person as light was stored and emitted.
The Sahara desert is one of the hottest regions of the world, with a mean temperature over 30 °C (86 °F). Variations may also be huge, from over 50 °C (120 °F) during the day during the summer, to temperatures below 0 at night in summer .
without constant heating the temperature plummets, the air is not holding much heat given planet size…
and how can you have infra red observatories on land if the atmosphere was storing emmissive light?
physics.uwyo.edu/~chip/wiro/wiro.html
why doesn’t an infrared haze develop on their images? or have to filter it out like background noise with the Cosmic background and radio astronomers?
“A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.”
Actually, the situation is worse than that because these are not things that were predicted. Monbiot is simply rationalizing an explanation for them after the fact. Now that the UK is suddenly cold and snowy, he realizes that, of course, global warming explains them, even though it didn’t predict them before they arrived. A theory that “predicts” only in hindsight is a logical fallacy.
The concept of a “therapist” making of fun of actual scientists is just adorable.
TBogg,
When what the “scientists” have said and done is laughable, making fun of them is mandatory. Therapist or not.
I’m not a scientist myself, but I’m pretty sure making up and hiding inconvenient data to prove one’s hypothesis is not the mark of an “actual scientist.”
The concept of a “therapist” making of fun of actual scientists is just adorable.
I’m an actual scientist, and I’m expressing my contempt for pseudo-scientists.
Happy now?
“My exasperation at the AGW faithful knows no bounds, particularly for scientists who should know better”
Most of those “scientists” (many of those in on the hoax calling themselves that aren’t scientists at all, think Al Gore) are in it for the money and only the money.
Most of the rest are in it for the power.
“What happened to all those violent, coastal hurricanes we were promised after Katrina?”
They didn’t happen because Global Warming means less hurricanes (it also causes more hurricanes, and doesn’t affect the number at all, depending on the current situation) 🙂
“If global warming was irrefutable and man made then why ‘hide the decline’ and delete tree ring data that contradicted the alarmist narrative?”
Oh, but you have to present data in such a way that the uneducated masses will properly understand the severity of the situation, without being distracted by little things like a 150 year cold snap or any other data that doesn’t point out what you’re trying to tell them…
They wouldn’t understand the need to be properly cowed and alarmed.
“And if global warming is a religion, it is certainly one fueled by ignorance about nature in general”
It’s one fueled by a need by leftwing controlfreaks to take control of every aspect of peoples’ lives, and a wish among them to destroy their own societies (and in the extreme mankind).
You see, these people hate themselves with a vengeance, and they blame mankind for that, so mankind has to suffer.
I wrote about this nearly seven years ago:
Do you see what’s going on here? Folks in politically / socially / culturally significant areas – like NYC and DC – have been experiencing very cold, wet winter weather – so they are inclined to (rightly) laugh out loud at the whole idea that human activity is causing the Earth to heat up and parboil us and/or all our descendants.
So, what do The Folks Who Want To Run Our Lives have to do? Why, they have to come up with some way to get around peoples’ common sense. And how do they try to do that? Why, they feed the “right” data into the “right” software and – voila! even cold weather proves “global warming”!
Neato, keeno, no?
http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_01/ind_003020.html
The late Stephen Schneider, one of the public faces of AGW hysteria, had said that, when choosing between accuracy and language that got people motivated, he opted for the latter.
He was also pushing global cooling 30-40 years ago.
There is no such thing as the popular understanding of a scientist. Max Plank, Albert Einstein . . . and all of us resist pure empiricism and live by what we want to be true. I list the above two because both were founders of quantum physics and refused to believe in it. Who knows but maybe someday they will be proved right?
And as if a “scientist” in his field is anything but in other fields!
Most “scientists” today, who merely engage in those fields we call science (which hardly excludes anything), are no more objective than the clerics of yesteryear.
artfldgr quotes, “The Sahara desert is one of the hottest regions of the world, with a mean temperature over 30 °C (86 °F). Variations may also be huge, from over 50 °C (120 °F) during the day during the summer, to temperatures below 0 at night in summer.”
Exactly! It is water vapor in the form of clouds that holds heat in the atmosphere. Jolly good thing too. Otherwise we would all experience the wide daily temperature swings that are typical of the desert areas.
The AGW proponents claim that the minor reflectance of CO2 is somehow enhanced by “forcings.” When pinned down they admit the biggest “forcing” is water vapor. Just so. In fact the water vapor dwarfs the CO2 effect and is so variable they cannot model it. But they don’t like to admit that because it ruins their central theme that humans are the culprits in all this.
1. As John at Powerline has noted, a scientific theory is judged by, among other things, its predictive power, and in this sense global warming is both fabulous and terrible. A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing. It can neither be proven nor refuted…
Actually, Neo, Hinderaker does not include the phrase I bolded in your paragraph.
I salute the precision and insight of your post. Maybe you give Hinderaker too much credit.
2. A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing. It can neither be proven nor refuted…
Preach it! The warmists, and the skeptics for that matter, should constantly be asked what outcomes would make them reconsider. (I would have to be impressed if some warmist had predicted, ten years ago, that we’d have these cold spells before the warming took hold in earnest.)
3. I know just enough about the philosophy & methodology of science to be wary of sweeping statements. My impression is that most climatology cannot be tested via controlled, reproducible experiments.
4. Although I’m unconvinced of the need for alarm, IMHO the possibility of AGW should not be dismissed out of hand. Also IMHO, if 2050s technology can’t rectify that kind of biospheric glitch, humanity doesn’t deserve the title of homo sapiens. (My caveat about reproducibility notwithstanding.)
5. Btw, for reasons that are not directly connected to climate, next year’s hurricane season is forecast to be an exceptionally active one.
When Gore bought that 9 mil beach villa, he showed that even HE doesn’t believe in global warming!
> George Monbiot explains how it is that the unusually cold winters in Europe lately…
Europe? Winters?
IT’S F****** SNOWING IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA!!!
That’s like it snowing in Florida in Mid-June!!
Yes, there are other factors that do come into play, but still…
***SNOW***
in Summer
‘Nuff said.
Global freakin’ warming my posterior…
> 5. Btw, for reasons that are not directly connected to climate, next year’s hurricane season is forecast to be an exceptionally active one.
As was this year’s. And last year’s. And the year before that. And the year before that…
The world is filled with Texas Sharpshooters when it comes to AGW.
One day, a prediction will come right, and you’ll never hear the end of the crowing. It’ll be a chicken sitting atop an ostrich egg.
“”My impression is that most climatology cannot be tested via controlled, reproducible experiments.””
gs
I can’t disagree. But don’t we at some point stop calling something science when we conclude it is unnapproachable by the scientific method?
Michael Crichton gave a great speech about this that is on video called “complexity theory”. It should be required viewing in every high school in America.
In fairness, observational sciences generally have a fundamental theoretical problem vis a vis scientific method because of the difficulty/impossibility of conducting control experiments. For example, astronomy too has this problem; all we can do is watch, and the nearest thing to a controlled experiment is to look for fortuitous circumstances that approximate to a control. This problem doesn’t vitiate the science, but it does make its results a bit iffy. That’s OK, as long as we bear that in mind.
Having said that, it is still possible to make predictions and then see if they’re borne out in practice. (Hence the activity among astronomers during eclipses, for example.) That’s the rub with climastrology; I’ve yet to see its practitioners make a successful prediction that is falsifiable on a human timescale. (For a while they tried their hand at predicting hurricane frequency and severity, but after a few contretemps have quietly abandoned the effort.) If we accept at face value predictions of what will happen after we’re all long gone we provide an open bar for charlatans — who are clearly out in battalion strength.
It’ll be a chicken sitting atop an ostrich egg.
That’s a keeper!
Actually, IGB, it’s snowing in eastern and southern Australia, both of which are more temperate than the tropical north. I lived in Canberra (southeastern Australia) for several years, and it did snow there occasionally. But not in December. Christmas 2005 was over 40 Celsius (104 F) with 8% humidity. Hold a match up, and it would practically ignite itself. This was on the warm side but not abnormally so.
If it starts snowing up in the “Top End” (northern Queensland or the Northern Territories), then be on the lookout for 4 guys riding horses.
What I’d like all the AGW proponents to explain to me, which they haven’t done adequately so far, is why is this period of supposed climate change is different than all the rest. In the entire geologic history of the earth, climate change has been a constant. Sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler, earth’s climate has never remained static. And as our resident scientists here have pointed out, the global climate is impossible to accurately model at our levels of technology due to the enormous number of variables, many of which are poorly understood. Why are the AGW backers so sure that this time is different, and that it’s our fault? Evidence, not faith, is what I want, and what I haven’t gotten so far. Maybe because I’m asking too much?
Climatology in its present form is hardly a science. Most of climatologists are just meteorologists using statistics and numerical simulation for time series analysis. More fundamental issues of planetary physics are rarely, if ever, are considered in such simulations. It is still unknown if scientific method in its present form is applicable to behavior of complex systems, and if it is, what are requirements for its successful applications. And physics of heat transfer in real atmosphere with convection, evaporation, condensation and radiation is so complicated that it is mathematically intractable. Instead, very simplistic approximations are used, and it is completely unknown to what extent the solutions to these approximate models are sensitive to differencies between model assumptions and real world physics.
“”It is still unknown if scientific method in its present form is applicable to behavior of complex systems””
Sergey
Crichton gives the great comparison of climate and asking a teenager to take out the trash. There is no scientific method available to make sound judgements about such a complex system with endless variables.
But liberal progessives seem obssessed with insisting on the application of linear logic to all systems. As though they can’t help themselves from pretending the universe and everything in it is already perfectly understood by man.
SteveH: Not only liberal democrats believe in the myth of omnipotence of science, this is a very common fallacy today. But conservatives in general are more sceptical and have more trust in common sense. Alas, common sense not always works, too. Another anti-dot to scientific arrogance is knowledge of advance mathematics, but rather few people posess it.
Excellent comments, Sergey, and ones to which I heartily subscribe.
Certitude regarding scientific results generally varies inversely with scientific expertise/ experience.
Actual scientists are aware of the assumptions and approximations invariably inherent in experimental work, and realize that the failure of any such assumption or approximation can easily vitiate the conclusion. They therefore consider all results as tentative until replicated multiple times, ideally by different workers in different places.