The "Single-Study Syndrome" refers to people choosing an outlier conclusion based on a new methodology that claims everyone else is just wrong. The reason that Lewis' paper was published because it new methodology yields a plausible conclusion that adds to climate research. Single-Study Syndrome is people then confusing plausible with absolute and choosing to believe that the one study proves every else to be wrong. It is incumbent upon the new writer to show that everyone else is wrong, but people with a bias want to just grab the conclusion and ignore all previous work.
Balmeseda et al are able to reconcile previous sensitivity studies with recent rate of atmospheric warming by showing the oceans are warming more. This show that there is no conflict. This fits with all other research and shows how sensitivity calculations that do not consider the ocean will yield wrong results. (This is a no-brainer to me. We know that atmospheric warming slows during La Nina when icy cold water is churned to the surface. If the cold ocean surface is cooling the atmosphere we know the heat is going into the ocean. Yes, the research should support this, but it would be highly surprising if it were not true. I cannot otherwise imagine how ocean currents can correlate with troposphere temperatures.)
Of course it can. As long as it follows correct procedures. By this I mean with physical conditions and physics. It must also follow measurements and be able to be redone in the same manner or additional manners and come to the same conclusions.
And the additional details of your second link state specifically that the measurements are concerning the deep ocean. If you do not have the majority of studies stating that the warming was not in the deep ocean, with measurements, then you argument is false and another attempt at deception. Perhaps you can link to this majority of scientists who have found that the heat is not in the deep ocean. Especially when there is this data to contend with.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CON...
I remember long ago there was a "study" that marijuana caused brain damage. To bad it was done by the corrupt government to promote their agenda on the war on drugs.
TO THIS DAY no one can prove marijuana can cause brain damage.
Researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco found that a marijuana compound known as cannabidiol can stop metastasis in many types of aggressive cancers
Just an example.
Once again, you are trying to claim that two different things are the same thing. At the hypothesis level, if you can demonstrate that every previous study has violated a critical assumption, overlooked or misidentified a key variable, or consistently made a methodological error, then yes you can.
However, a single empirical study cannot overturn a scientific theory that is based on thousands of replicated and validated empirical studies involving dozens of independent variables because – just as the theory was built on multiple independent lines of evidence – it can only be deconstructed by unraveling each of those multiple lines of evidence. In any case, in order to attack AGW this way, you’re going to need 20-30 more years of data – and I doubt that you want to wait that long.
The only way to overturn AGW theory on a time scale you might find acceptable is to produce a new scientific theory that provides a superior explanation of the empirical data. For example, the common Denier talking point that our temperature observations are the product of some “cycle” might work – if there was a shred of evidence that such a cycle exists. Unfortunately (for Deniers), the scientific method does not recognize imaginary, magical, or supernatural forces, or the delusional thoughts of uneducated knuckleheads as legitimate explanations of the physical universe.
=====
Sage –
>> No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
Obviously, Einstein thought so. <<
Well, we do not exactly know that since there is no original source for that quote. He certainly never wrote it, and there is no first-hand record of anyone who claims to have heard him say it.
And, even if he or anyone said it – there is still the issue of your scientific illiteracy and inability to understand its meaning.
I find Trenberth to little more than a hack desperately looking for excuses but that is just my opinion. Of course a single study can overturn previous work if the previous work was wrong.
In the geology, plate tectonics overturned the previous theories in short order but it wasn't a single study. Darwin certainly overturned the "science" of his day by revealing the mechanism of evolution.
The discovery of **** floresienses revealed that the out of Africa theory wasn't as air tight as they thought. Before that, the out of Europe wasn't so tight when Piltdown man was revealed as a hoax. Neanderthals weren't in our ancestry until DNA proved they were.
A single theory can be dis-proven by a single miscalculation from the theorist.
Yes , But what do they mean by deep Oceans in some places it is 7 miles or
more deep and no sunlight and cold .
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
Obviously, Einstein thought so.
In true life that is so. All the computerized climate models have showed us the CO2 theory. But the Earth and Mother Nature has proven them wrong. But only an intelligent person would see that. Idiots will just blame ENSO.
Yes skeptical has just been infected with 'foot in mouth' disease.
GARY F: Just look it up. I copied and pasted that right of one of the 'famous quote' sites. There are plenty that will back them up.
Why is all you lame greenies always try to downgrade or dismiss intelligent peoples quotes? Is your argument so lame that your knowledge can't stand the truth?
Weren't you the one who said that Goebbels didn't say, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”?
Ha! Ha! Your position has just proven to be right down there with Dork! He can't stand the truth so bad that he has to disqualify true scientists from answering his questions.
Then we have PRICO breaking in with his ill informed nonsense. If it weren't so insane, it would be humorous. He assumes that just because I know what Goebbels said that I kiss up to Nazism and salute to Hitler. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have too many relatives that were put to death by his regime. Of Course you being the lover of death like you are, it does make sense that you would take such an opinion.
Ha! Ha! Just look at Prico kissing up to someone, Prof Richard Parncutt, who outright states that he is for killing a certain group of people because of their beliefs. Yet all the while twisting the words of others who do not believe such.
Prico by doing this has exposed himself as a fraudulent person, lacking of intellect and integrity (which is the trademark of all greenies) and a person of consistent irrational behavior.
Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
This man is embraced by the likes of Prico.
Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist": "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."
This person is embraced by the likes of Prico.
Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Mortality control is just what Prico and his likes are slobbering all over for.
Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat'l Park Services: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as **** Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Furthermore the reason I know what Goebbels said is because I employ the philosophy of George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Yes, unless of course you are dealing with a religion. In the case of religion you have to rely on faith and that requires a level of conviction that defies logic. When a warmon has to make a leap of faith they simply restate they're conviction.
Based on hundreds of your past "questions," one might think so. Except that recycled anti-science garbage from Wattsup is still recycled garbage, whether in the form of a "question" or not.
One would think not and you don't have to go any further than skepticalscience.com to read a very detailed reason why not:
"It's most important not to fall into the trap of thinking that any single study will overturn a vast body of scientific evidence..." http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-single-study-syndrome-nic-lewis-edition.html
Now let's just leave the fact that the study in the above article is about a lower climate sensitivity and that there actually have been plenty in that category lately so the the "single study syndrome" is a little far fetched to begin with.
Instead, let's look at another recent article from skepticalscience.com where they report that a single study from Kevin Trenberth has effectively skewered all previous work on lower climate sensitivity as follows:
"Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans." http://skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
Am I reading that correctly? Did skepticalscience.com just fall into its own trap?
(gcnp58: #justaskin)
