3 ms·

Let's reverse the question: how to falsify any of the climatology's big claims?

by dozzie 10y ago

Xylakant 10y ago
For example by providing a theory that better explains all phenomena that haven been observed so far. Because there are observable phenomena: The statistical increase in temperatures, the rise of the sea level, the rise in extreme weather events. And so far, the models line up fairly well. Sometimes scientist find flaws and refine models, but nobody has yet found a fundamental flaw or provided a better explanation.
- dozzie 10y ago
  > For example by providing a theory that better explains all phenomena that haven been observed so far. This is not how falsification works. If you provide another hypothesis, even if it was better tailored to your measured data, you now have two of them that work. The former one didn't magically stop working. Which one is valid? (Hint: may be the former, if you account for variables you didn't think about previously, or may be neither of them). And most hypotheses are formed as a cause-effect explainations. How to verify that in a correlation of two phenomena one of them is the reason for the other? Climatology has only offered speculation till this day. > Sometimes scientist find flaws and refine models, but nobody has yet found a fundamental flaw or provided a better explanation. Well, nothing to brag about in this case. Those climatologists claim that atmospheric CO2 concentration is major (or even main) cause for greenhouse effect, yet CO2 has twenty times smaller(!) heat capacity compared to atmospheric water at current concentrations.
omginternets 10y ago
Such as what? Let's get into specifics.
- dozzie 10y ago
  Such as carbon dioxyde being main or even major source of greenhouse effect. How one would attempt to falsify this claim?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    You would showing that CO2 fluctuations are very poorly correlated with rising global temperatures. That would falsify the claim. I think your understanding of falsification is confused.
    - dozzie 10y ago
      It would be hard to show that for a claim that was created to explain precisely the correlation between these two variables. What you ask is to show that data collected in the first place was invalid (that wouldn't be surprising, given the wildly wide range of measurement methods and conditions used to collect the data). Also, it doesn't account for the opposite causation: when rising CO2 level is the effect of rising temperature. Still, you didn't show that the hypothesis that CO2 level causes global warming has a way to falsify.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        It's official: your notion of falsifiability is confused. This has nothing to do with data validity; the data can be both valid and sufficient to falsify a claim. Invalid data do not falsify claims, because they are invalid. Further, you're arguing that correlation doesn't imply causation. This is true, but again has nothing to do with falsifiability. However, the absence of a correlation is sufficient to falsify the claim that global warming is caused by CO2. I truly mean no disrespect, but you're betraying dire ignorance.
        dozzie 10y ago
        Oh boy. It was you who said that showing the variables are not correlated would be sufficient to falsify the claim. The variables (according to currently held data) are correlated, because that was what inspired the claim in the first place. So your point seems to be "just show me an impossible thing and this would prove the claim invalid". > Further, you're arguing that correlation doesn't imply causation. This is true, but again has nothing to do with falsifiability. No, I didn't argue that (I don't need to). I just said (suggested could be more appropriate word) that showing the opposite cause-effect relation would be enough to show the claim invalid. OK, excessive thing, because you had an implication there in your comment, but given your stance about showing no correlation in data that already had the correlation, my guess is it was a coincidence. > However, the absence of a correlation is sufficient to falsify the claim that global warming is caused by CO2. Would be. The correlation of currently collected data is there, it just may be a coincidence (http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations), or an indicator of the opposite causation, or indicator that there is a common cause to both observations.

Let's reverse the question: how to falsify any of the climatology's big claims?

by dozzie 10y ago

Let's reverse the question: how to falsify any of the climatology's big claims?

For example by providing a theory that better explains all phenomena that haven been observed so far. Because there are observable phenomena: The statistical increase in temperatures, the rise of the sea level, the rise in extreme weather events. And so far, the models line up fairly well. Sometimes scientist find flaws and refine models, but nobody has yet found a fundamental flaw or provided a better explanation.

dozzie 10y ago
> For example by providing a theory that better explains all phenomena that haven been observed so far. This is not how falsification works. If you provide another hypothesis, even if it was better tailored to your measured data, you now have two of them that work. The former one didn't magically stop working. Which one is valid? (Hint: may be the former, if you account for variables you didn't think about previously, or may be neither of them). And most hypotheses are formed as a cause-effect explainations. How to verify that in a correlation of two phenomena one of them is the reason for the other? Climatology has only offered speculation till this day. > Sometimes scientist find flaws and refine models, but nobody has yet found a fundamental flaw or provided a better explanation. Well, nothing to brag about in this case. Those climatologists claim that atmospheric CO2 concentration is major (or even main) cause for greenhouse effect, yet CO2 has twenty times smaller(!) heat capacity compared to atmospheric water at current concentrations.

omginternets 10y ago

Such as what? Let's get into specifics.

dozzie 10y ago
Such as carbon dioxyde being main or even major source of greenhouse effect. How one would attempt to falsify this claim?
- omginternets 10y ago
  You would showing that CO2 fluctuations are very poorly correlated with rising global temperatures. That would falsify the claim. I think your understanding of falsification is confused.
  - dozzie 10y ago
    It would be hard to show that for a claim that was created to explain precisely the correlation between these two variables. What you ask is to show that data collected in the first place was invalid (that wouldn't be surprising, given the wildly wide range of measurement methods and conditions used to collect the data). Also, it doesn't account for the opposite causation: when rising CO2 level is the effect of rising temperature. Still, you didn't show that the hypothesis that CO2 level causes global warming has a way to falsify.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      It's official: your notion of falsifiability is confused. This has nothing to do with data validity; the data can be both valid and sufficient to falsify a claim. Invalid data do not falsify claims, because they are invalid. Further, you're arguing that correlation doesn't imply causation. This is true, but again has nothing to do with falsifiability. However, the absence of a correlation is sufficient to falsify the claim that global warming is caused by CO2. I truly mean no disrespect, but you're betraying dire ignorance.
      - dozzie 10y ago
        Oh boy. It was you who said that showing the variables are not correlated would be sufficient to falsify the claim. The variables (according to currently held data) are correlated, because that was what inspired the claim in the first place. So your point seems to be "just show me an impossible thing and this would prove the claim invalid". > Further, you're arguing that correlation doesn't imply causation. This is true, but again has nothing to do with falsifiability. No, I didn't argue that (I don't need to). I just said (suggested could be more appropriate word) that showing the opposite cause-effect relation would be enough to show the claim invalid. OK, excessive thing, because you had an implication there in your comment, but given your stance about showing no correlation in data that already had the correlation, my guess is it was a coincidence. > However, the absence of a correlation is sufficient to falsify the claim that global warming is caused by CO2. Would be. The correlation of currently collected data is there, it just may be a coincidence (http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations), or an indicator of the opposite causation, or indicator that there is a common cause to both observations.