Discussion > Hypothesis testing in climatology
EM - How much had you had to drink when you wrote that? It's a fact that ethanol does not show one at one's best.
Martin A
Nial
If you jumped out of an aeroplane the first 30 seconds is marvellous( which is why so many people become sport parachutists).
You then have to pull the ripcord to avoid splattering yourself on the runway.
As a civilisation we jumped out of the aeroplane when we started the Industrial Revolution. For two centuries the ride has been exhilarating. Now the ground is approaching and it is time to slow down.
Entropic man
Martin A may be right. I've read a little on the subject. I dont think I have Aspergers but if I went to a psychiatrist he might recognise high functioning autism; I.e I'm a nerd! :-)
Let me know when I go off track again and I'll apologise, as I do now.
Shall we stop being rude to each other and go back to arguing about the science?
Entropic man
Odd analogy. Very odd analogy. Don’t know about the ground approaching; most of us seem to be seeing an empty horizon, beckoning us to explore yet further. Quite why you think that this is as far as we can go, I have no idea. Perhaps you will join the nineteenth century boss of the patent office, who resigned as he considered that there could be nothing more to patent as there was nothing more to invent. Fortunately, there were, and are, many who have far broader minds than that.
Radical Rodent
Nial
The parachute analogy makes one good point. When you pull the ripcord the ground is a long way away. It is a problem for the future. A fool might say that he'll pull the cord when the ground is close, but by then it is too late to stop.
Apply this to our current system. The changes so far are small and tolerable, but the lag in the climate system means that the larger problems in the future are being triggered by what we are doing now. By the time they become obvious it will be too late to fix them, the damage having already been done.
For 200 years we have been running a fossil fuel based industrial revolution. We have been using up hydrocarbons, laid down over millions of years, in a few human lifetimes. The easily found deposits are mostly used and we are finding it harder to reach what is left.
The resulting rate of change in CO2 content are usually only seen during glacial/ interglacial transitions and the current levels have not been seen since the last hothouse earth period ended in the Pliocene. Temperature trends are also moving us off into territory not explored since the Pliocene.
What surprises me is that you think this is normal and Business as Usual can continue indefinitely. As a long time science reader, I see an escape route into space but those in power do not seen inclined to put in the investment. An astronautical version of the Mayflower also looks unlikely. That leaves us like the man starving at the bottom of a hole because he burned the ladder for firewood.
Entropic man
EM that is cult religion not science.
Driven your car today have you, central heating on, reading by light, posting on the internet.
Well if the future is so bad then go find a cave and live a subsistence life.
Breath of Fresh Air
Breath of Freah Air
It will last my time. Like any decadent wealthy man in a dying culture I plan to enjoy it while it lasts.
You should watch "Masque of the Red Death", Quite a good allegory of our current situation.
Entropic man
So, Entropic Mann, Business as Usual for you, too.
Hmmmm....
Have you ever heard the expression: "Hypocrisy writ large"?
Radical Rodent
Hypocricy indeed. :-)
I expect civilisation to collapse in due course, but the massed ranks of ostriches such as yourself make it impossible for me to do much to prevent it.
Since becoming an anchorite would have no effect I may as well have fun "while Rome burns".
Entropic man
Ostrich: a large, flightless bird whose height and keen eyesight enables them to see threats from a significant distance, making them useful in herds of various, and varying, species of herbivores, whose turn of speed enables them to escape should predators get too close, and whose powerful legs and large claws enable them to fight off those they do not escape.
You, presumably, are intimating that they stick their heads in the sand at the sign of threat – which, as any fule kno, is wrong. So… what else are you wrong about?
Radical Rodent
EM, have you seen current oil prices?
jolly farmer
So EM is your typical Green meanie, happy to enjoy all the fruits of the system he hates but not prepared to do anything but carp on from the sidelines.
Quite prepared to condemn millions in the 3rd world to die premature deaths due to restricting access to cheap energy and instead forcing high cost renewable energy.
You are beneath contempt.
Breath of Fresh Air
A version of an End Times believer, a secular neo-Malthusian millenerian catastrophist variant . A slightly hypocritical one at that, planning to enjoy the fruits of his civilization while denying other climbers theirs.
I just looked up the list of End Times cults, it is quite long.
Secondly, the discussion has to go somewhere eventually. Why doesn't it? Because there is no set of agreed terms or meanings.
For EM, apparently, the 'null hypothesis' is that climate doesn't change:
The null hypothesis is that climate is constant, which most of usus (except the deniers) [sic] would agree has been falsified
Who told him this? How did he arrive at this conclusion? How did he come to think this to be universally accepted null in climate attribution? No one knows.
As with the black swan example above, this makes clear EM confuses statements about observations and hypotheses.
The anthropogenic attribution hypothesis is: 'the variability observed in the climate system in the recent past is due to man'. A correct null formulation would be: 'the variability observed in the climate system in the recent past is no more than what naturally occurs'.
The null centres on the locus of causality, not on the observations themselves. Not in EM's world though.
shub
Shub
Hypothesis design is an art. Ideally they should be clearly written in a form which faclitates falaification Yours is rather vague..
Actually your hypothesis has already been falsified. The observed natural variations are too small to explain the observed temperature change.
Entropic man
Entropic Mann: so what about the many other times when similar or larger changes occurred, before humans could be blamed for them? What is so different about the present change that is so different from what has happened so many times in the past?
Sorry. Shub’s hypothesis still stands; you will have to give rather more evidence of falsification other than “because it is!”
Radical Rodent
Not falling for it, EM. I am not the one who's required to formulate hypotheses, it is you. Catastrophists hesitate to frame hypotheses because it is the absence of clear falsifiable statements and supporting evidence that sustains their position. It is not an art, it is a matter of sorting out questions and thinking clearly, a high school student should do. The climate system shows variability at various timescales matching the rate and magnitude of the current period.
shub
they should be clearly written in a form which faclitates falaification Yours is rather vague..
Actually your hypothesis has already been falsified.
EM that is known as having your cake and eating it too. Make up your mind which it is.
Presumably it has been falsified by the same people using the same methods that failed to predict the halt (and who are still struggling to explain it).
Come off it - admit that they (and you) don't have a clue.
Martin A
Martin A: the real irony is that, while you and I will quite happily admit that we haven’t a clue, Entropic Mann and his ilk cannot do that, as to do that would be to admit weakness.
Radical Rodent
Radical Rodent
I'd like to be included in the haven't a clue and know it group.
SandyS
You’re welcome, SandyS. I suspect that it really is quite a large group; you might get lost in the crowd.
Radical Rodent
RR - some have their doubts but don't admit it in public. Phil Jones, for example, always had his doubts - see his CG emails.
But for the committed True Believers, it's the certainty of religious belief that excludes the possibility of doubt.
Martin A
To list a few things that typifies the truly English (irrespective of skin colour) above all others: the inability to be insulted; the innate assurance that we are superior to all others, and have no need to emphasise that; the comfort of not having a clue about something, and not being in the least bit embarrassed. Bizarrely, this trait can (and has been) transmitted to other nationalities, with no loss of national identity, yet remains uniquely English (the Welsh, Sottish and Irish are exempt because of the first point; referring to them as English is insult enough) – this is why I will often refer to Canadians, Australians and Kiwis as in the more extreme English counties.
Radical Rodent
RR - what is your last comment in response to?
Martin A
Martin A: you’ve got me, there. It seemed a good idea after a half-bottle of red; time and a few coffees have clouded an earlier clarity. Odd, that. Perhaps it was the concept of not having a clue and not being ashamed of it, something the British in general have never really worried about (until recently).
Radical Rodent
Just an empty-headed wind-up artist. Observe how the next comment contains no responses to specific questions. I have never encountered anyone, let alone anyone in science uttering such tripe as: