“At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan”
Let me try to better understand your line of thought behind these questions that you present before us. Are you suggesting that not all hypotheses that have been presented are considered when climate scientists look into the current global warming trends that are being observed? Or, are you merely saying that climate models do not fully take into account all of the variables within our climate when climate scientists run their climate models?
Should it be that you question the climate models’ runs then I am on your side, as are the climate scientists that run these models. This is why climate scientist will review the results that the models produce. These climate scientists will then assign their degree of confidence in the product of the model run. This is usually expressed in terms of percentages. For example, a 50% degree of confidence in a model run product would indicate that the climate scientist think that the model run product has an equal chance of being incorrect as it does in being correct through observations. Let us now say that the climate scientist give a <10% degree of confidence in the model run product. This strongly indicates that the climate scientist put very little trust that this will be observed. Rarely, if ever, will their degree of confidence be 0% simply because of the rule of uncertainty that always exists in anything in the study of science. Likewise, the climate scientist may have a degree of confidence in the model run that is expressed as >90%. This would state that the climate scientist have a high degree of confidence that the model run product will very likely be observed. I have never seen a 100% degree of confidence in a model run because of, again, the rule of uncertainty that will always exist. – While I may not have answered the questions to your liking, have I answered the questions within the framework that you were looking for?
Added*******
I hope that you do bring up a new question concerning the models. I believe that it could prove to be a fascinating and informative topic. I may do it myself, if you later decide not to do so.
As for the auxiliary hypothesis discussion then I must say that you think that there must be something else going on that the AGWT cannot explain. Do you overlook the natural variations within the climate that does not require the introduction of a hypothesis to help explain any anomalies? Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? The AGWT is a theory and not a hypothesis.
What is the basis for your reference to a "goalpost"? Is the goalpost suppose to be a statement along the lines that in the year 2050 we will see 2.17 degree Celsius of warming since the 1880 baseline? That is not a goal and seeing how much CO2 it takes to warm our climate to that level is also not a goal. If everything else were to remain equal, then one might be able to say that we will see, with some degree of certainty, CO2 reach 430 ppm and the global climate will have warmed by 2 degrees Celsius. Well, all things will not remain equal. There are simply too many variables that cannot be fully accounted for. Just with man's contributions alone, a worldwide and sustained economic collapse would greatly reduce the amount of CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere. Even if there was a high degree of confidence that the world would enter into a devastating economic downturn it would be difficult to know exactly when it would start, how deep it would be and how enduring it will be. We cannot even factually say how much of the rain forests or which rain forests will be destroyed in the years 2020 to 2030. I suggest that you not look for absolutes concerning climate change on how bad and how soon will it be.
Ottawa Mike - "I continually ask myself, what exactly would it take to falsify the 3C climate sensitivity hypothesis? For a field of science with so much uncertainty, it's just really odd that one hypothesis without real concrete support has managed to remain unchanged since 1979. Either it's just that strong or we don't really know what we're doing. Or something in between."
Again, you need to learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The AGWT is a theory. The AGWT will remain the dominant theory until another theory can better explain the observations.
Very interesting and good examples. I would say it seems to qualify as a second hand myth.
I am reading "Lone Survivors" by Chris Stringer. In the book, he provides an update on the science of Paleoanthropology. I was reading last night where an extensive study was done on the Piltdown Mann's inner skull which described the apelike folds and patterns of the brain (the brain leaves a trace on the skull). Anyway it is was kind of humorous because it was obviously a human brain but these scientists were so sure it was an apeman, they described it as one. Although I have heard alarmists giving credit to the scientists for uncovering the hoax, in fact, they were fooled for many decades and its reality and the consequences of its form was indeed the consensus of the day. They seem pretty foolish in hindsight.
I agree with Harry's sentiment but I don't think gravity plays much of a role in squeezing CO2 from the ground except in the sense that primordial methane (abiotic) may be deep within (within a few hundred kilometers) beneath the surface and as it migrates upwards it would tend to oxidize into CO2. This may have added to the atmospheric CO2 over time while the ocean absorbed it and continuously precipitated it as carbonates in various ways. It is only a theory and not widely accepted.
The AGW hypothesis certainly has all the characteristics of a 'second hand myth'. It also bears all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience, for many of the same reasons. Contrary to another post here, it does not legitimately rise to the level of a theory; it lacks the necessary confirmation against real-world data.
Some of the ways the warmists make it clear that this is not legitimate science:
ad hominem attacks on skeptics (denier, funded by the oil industry, 'faux news, etc)
petito principii arguments: (it's been proven, there is no doubt, there is no debate, etc)
shifting the burden of proof: (prove that its not true!)
agruments from ignorance (what else could it be? nothing else explains the warming)
arguments from authority (the scientists/IPCC/academies/etc say...)
appeals to consequences/fear (millions will die!)
appeals to pity (those poor people in Bangladesh/Maldives/Tuvalu/etc)
poisoning the well (only peer-reviewed research is valid!)
appeals to social proof (97% of scientists agree/mainstream consensus/etc)
post hoc, propter hoc (the warming came after the CO2, so it must be caused by the CO2)
false cause fallacy/anecdotal evidence (Superstorm Sandy was caused by global warming)
ignorance of refutation (multiple lines of evidence are not behaving as predicted by the theory: ocean heat, surface temperature, sea level not accelerating, antarctic sea ice is growing, the asian glaciers are not disappearing, the hotspot over the tropics is not there, etc.)
Then, there is the use of the word 'incontrovertible'. Nothing scientific is incontrovertible. If it cannot be invalidated, it is not science (Popper); such things are dogma (religion).
To paraphrase Richard Feynman, 'If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong. Period.'
Feyerabend had some "interesting" views. For example, he believed scientists dismissal of astrology and nativist magic such as rain dances as racist. For example, most scientists dismiss astrology not out of racist motivations, but that there is no know mechanism by which the gravitational pull of planets could in any way shape patterns of behavior. It's a kT effect mainly, where the energy available in the interaction is completely swamped out by thermal noise. Feyerabend doesn't appear to have enough physical insight to understand that, which makes me think he's kind of an idiot, or maybe a right-brain guy who's been told for too long he's really smart and stopped self-evaluating his own ideas to see if they make sense. Given that, I'm not sure I trust his definition of what is and is not a myth. But if he's telling you what you want to hear, hey, go with it. Certainly the science is going to bum you out, so you might as well listen to wing-nut philosophers who appear to be a few fries short of a happy meal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyera...
co2 MIGHT be released from ground by earth warming. changes in gravitational pull MIGHT "warp" planet enough to squeeze co2 out of ground. precession of equinoxes rotates tilt of earths axis more toward or less toward the sun. it is a natural cycle built into the design of th earth. driving my car did NOT cause the glaciers to retreat from the Great Lakes!
After posting an interesting question yesterday, I see you're back to your usual garbage insulting science and scientists. Your "examples" show more about your own lack of knowledge of the science than anything to do with the real science.
The "consensus" was never about science, it was always about public policy. Why can't deniers understand that, is it because you don't want to?
It is ridiculous that they continuously have to come up with theories about why predictions based on AGW theory aren't occurring.
It's a near myth. It got married and now it's a mythyss.
You can argue about it all you want, & I can see you believe in what you're saying, but the earth seems to be warming & the seas rising while you talk.....
No - and it's not close.
pegminer is right - this question is "out there."
A philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend, proposed what he has termed a "second hand myth". Here are some characteristics:
"Empirical evidence may be created by a procedure which quotes as its justification the very same evidence it has produced. At this point, an ‘empirical theory’ of the kind described ... becomes almost indistinguishable from a second-rate myth."
"This myth is a complex explanatory system that contains numerous auxiliary hypotheses designed to cover special cases, as it easily achieves a high degree of confirmation on the basis of observation."
"Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is compatible with a humanitarian outlook."
In those three quotes above, it appears that the first about empirical evidence being created and used as justification could apply to climate models. The second sure sounds like climate explanations for deviations from model temperature projections (Chinese aerosols, the PDO, etc.) or things like snowstorms or Antarctic sea ice increases. The third sure looks like it relates to the "consensus" and its use as a persuasive argument.
What are your own examples for or against claiming (some of) climate science is a second hand myth?
(Note: This does not apply to the entire body of climate science. There is agreement on many things like CO2 causes warming, the Earth has warmed for the past 150 years, man has added CO2 to the atmosphere, etc. This applies to the extent of man's contribution vs. natural, future predictions and explanations for deviations from expected results.)
