I think once it goes into the cool phase, it stays there, because of what Greenland’s increasing melt rate is doing to the North Atlantic.
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
The answer would obviously be D).
Now replace that drug with ’emissions’ and an equal or greater entanglement ensues. More……yuck.
And we’ve not yet delved in to the punishment/reimbursement side.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
My answer would be (a) because they are the ones putting it in the public environment. Same with emissions. Tragedy of the commons.
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by opluso
The AMO obviously flipped because of the Dutch court’s Urgenda ruling…
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
The treatment plant is ‘putting it in the environment’? Not the manufacturer? Not the consumer?
Boy, do we disagree here. The treatment plant’s job is to remove all that which folks put in to the system? Hmmm. So if I have this here container of say radioactive waste and dump it in the water it’s the treatment plants fault for not removing it? Interesting.
But either way, the attorney’s will cast the broadest net and most assuredly will involve D (all of the above).
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by matthewrmarler
Jim D: <i> See my reply to MM.</i>
You evaded my question: Whom did you refer to as "Steyn's supporters"; and based on whatever any of them have said did you attribute what you said about them? The <i>amicus curiae </i> briefs filed by some of Steyn's supporters (ACLU, Washington Post) are very clear that this is a freedom of speech pair of cases. It isn't about "science", but about Steyn's use of the phrase "fraudulent hockeystick" with respect to one particular fraudulent hockeystick, in a social milieu in which dozens of scientists had already criticized the fraudulence of that selfsame hockeystick.
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by ulriclyons
“The Atlantic overturning circulation is declining and the AMO is moving to a negative phase.”
That is fully contradictory, the RAPID data clearly shows low AMOC events occurring during negative NAO episodes, and the negative NAO episodes are directly associated with the warming pulses to the AMO.
I had solar based forecasts for more positive NAO conditions for 2013-2014 several years back, which is why the AMO had seen a slight cooling recently.
We know that the AMO was warm during the last solar minimum in the late 1800’s, and extremes of low Arctic sea ice extent were recorded 1816-1818 during the Dalton Minimum.
Which is what we will see again through the next ten years, with a large increase in solar caused deep negative NAO episodes. I can readily produce solar based forecasts at weekly scales through the whole period for when the main negative NAO hits will occur.
The AMO has an envelope of around 69yrs, it will cool from the mid 2030’s, and reach its next coldest point in the mid 2040’s, as that is when solar wind conditions will be much stronger again as in the mid 1970’s.
The AMO tends to move in phase with solar cycles in its cold mode, and out of phase with solar cycles in its warm mode. The brief cooling of the AMO around this sunspot maximum follows that pattern.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Predictions for when it will go ‘cool’ and how long it will stay there? If Greenland’s increasing melt rate is changing circulations (presuming this is what you’re considering) wouldn’t one expect the feedbacks associated with the ‘cool’ phase to then modify? Climate seems to seek equilibrium’s and not extremes within it’s cycles.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
No scientist has used the word “fraudulent” because they know that within the academic community it is a serious accusation. Steyn as a theater critic and commentator may get away with it as a frivolous remark, and that is what they are going for. A lot of people within the skeptosphere think the HS is being judged scientifically, but it is not. It’s just words and Steyn’s usage.
↧
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by Jim D
A meltwater pulse can last for centuries and get a lot colder in the North Atlantic and downstream with a rapid sea-level rise accompanying it. It is just a different mode, not even an AMO phase after a while. This is the gist of Hansen’s recent paper.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
You would sue the coal miners for soot pollution then, or uranium miners for radioactive problems at reactors? Where does the blame stop?
↧
Comment on Managing uncertainty in predictions of climate change and impacts by Joel Williams
So ‘Mars is “a fixer-upper of a planet,”‘. “All it takes is the Mars equivalent of global warming or, if you’re in a hurry, nuclear bombs.” Just a few H-bombs applied its poles to get it started warming up and hospitable for humans. How’s this for an extreme comparison of global-warming to something?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/09/10/elon-musk-mars-nuke-bombs/71990446/
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by timg56
Sure it is.
Just like the EU regulation governing/taxing airline emissions on flights to the EU.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by matthewrmarler
Brandon S: <i>I haven’t discussed Jim D’s claims, so I’m not entirely certain why you’re asking me this question, but I’d be willing to answer anyway. </i>
My involvement began when I read this by Jim D: <i> Somehow Steyn’s supporters have it in their heads that this is about science rather than Steyn’s credibility on it, </i>
My response was this: <i> By “Steyn’s supporters”, are you referring to the authors of the <i>amicus curiae </i> briefs that were filed in Steyn v Mann? They are the most prominent of Steyn’s supporters. If you mean someone else, could you provide an exact quote?</i>
I think that you and I could probably have a colloquy with hundreds of exchanges without establishing anything that Jim D wrote. He made it up. Steyn's supporters, at least those who have written anything, understand that the two lawsuits are about libel and freedom of the press.
"Disgrace to the profession" attempts to establish that Steyn carried out neither "actual malice" nor "reckless disregard for truth." If you can show that his book does illustrate either or both of those, I am sure that you can write an <i>amicus curiae</i> brief of your own. Your claim that a quoted person has the wrong associations or is too old probably won't establish either of those (but I could be wrong.) You jumped in with a claim that a quote was inaccurate, but without providing the exact quote. If the exact quotes show that Steyn's use of "fraudulent hockeystick" with respect to MBH98 was actual malice or reckless disregard for truth, I am sure that your document would have impact. No one has yet filed an amicus brief on Mann's side in Steyn v Mann. On my reading of some of "Disgrace to the profession", I don't think you can show that. But as I wrote, I have been wrong before.
Jim D was wrong. Steyn's supporters understand that these are libel/freedom of press suits.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
@SoF: By Scientific method It is here meant Popper´s empirical method.
1. Popper is a philosopher. Why would anyone expect philosophers to be better than scientists at teaching politicians and judges how to do science? Yet this seems to be what you’re advocating.
2. Philosophers have been dictating “the scientific method” to scientists (and politicians and judges?) since the 17th century. Has Popper’s mid-20th-century innovation made any measurable difference to the impact of philosophy on real science?
The invention by Karl Popper is that an idea can be falsified, it can be proven wrong. Hence it must be falsifiable, it must be testable. If not, it is not a scientific idea.
How could anyone prove Popper’s idea wrong? Unless they could it is not falsifiable and therefore scientists should not accept it as a scientific idea.
It’s not a scientific idea, it’s a philosophical idea, and moreover just one of several philosophical theories about how scientists do, or should, operate. Philosophers who aren’t scientists have even less of a claim to insight into the scientific mind than do scientists.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. – Albert Einstein
The best drug for a treatment is chosen by experimentation. How does Einstein’s advice help the medical profession choose between two drugs? This question is equally relevant to climate science where there are competing hypotheses of what’s causing changes to global surface temperature and ocean pH. How does Einstein’s advice help climate science choose between two hypotheses? Einstein’s advice may be useful for understanding the hydrogen atom, but it’s useless in medicine and climate science, which are charged with the unenviable task of accounting for vastly more complex systems.
Karl Popper solved the problem of induction. His method does not rely on induction. His method rely on deduction and observation.
I’ve heard this distinction explained in terms of the difference between the inference rules of Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. Since these rules are interderivable in standard logic I don’t see what difference Popper’s change of viewpoint makes to the logic that ordinary scientists rely on. Some philosophers are logicians, but not Popper.
Necessary consequences of the idea are predicted. If the prediction fails, the idea is wrong. (To be more precise, If repeated experiments demonstrate that the predictions differs from the observations by more than the stated uncertainty limits. The idea is wrong.)
Your parenthetical caveat opens a huge can of worms not accounted for either by Einstein’s “one experiment can prove me wrong” or by the naive distinction between induction and deduction. This is because as soon as you let “uncertainty limits” enter you also allow the possibility of theories that compete on the basis of certainty in each of the many dimensions in the sorts of complex systems medicine and climate science are obliged to deal with.
As Phrased by Popper: “it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should ever be conclusively falsified. … Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible
Translation: Popper would like scientists to consider shifting to his recommended procedure. Interestingly he doesn’t even say that his procedure is necessary but merely that it’s possible. All this without his ever having subjected his procedure to any form of testing, rigorous or otherwise.
(sf) To attempt an answer your questions:
(me) 1. Has the scientific method ever been applied to itself to answer the question of whether it is effective in any way?
(sf) I think so – I have never heard that Popper´s empirical method has been falsified.
Answered above. (It’s never been falsified because it’s not falsifiable.)
(me) 2. Out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, how come only science needs a single fixed method?
(sf) The method is in use both science, technology and engineering. (I can´t immediately tell if it is used in mathematics.)
Personally I don’t believe Popper’s method is even used in science, but let’s accept your claim that it’s used in S, T, and E. You said it needs to be taught to politicians and judges. On what ground do you claim that that technologists and engineers use Popper’s method to any greater extent than do judges? (While politics is above my pay grade I would not contest any claim to the effect that Tea Party politicians are less likely to be using it than other politicians.)
(sf) If a bridge falls down, the design or the construction has been falsified. And it cannot immediately be pinpointed why it fell down – but something was wrong.
Good point. The design of NYC’s Twin Towers was badly flawed according to the engineers who analyzed their collapse after 9/11.
But where does Popper come into this? Why wouldn’t the scientific methods of the 19th century have been adequate to draw this conclusion? Popper’s whole concept of “falsifiability” is based on the assumption that Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are not interderivable logical laws, which simply isn’t true.
(me) 4. In the entire history of mankind, what great scientific discovery has ever been made that depended on applying the scientific method?
(sf) If I add 4.187 kJ to 1 kg of water the temperature will increase by 1 K. Not 0.9 K or 1.1 K but 1.0 K. Any other temperature increase than 1.0 K is prohibited by the theory. The predictive capabilities are exceptional. Within certain conditions it has not been falsified. That is great to know isn´t it?
It is indeed great to know. But I thought it was known even before Popper was born (1902). What clarity did Popper bring to that relationship between heat and temperature that was not already perfectly clear to 19th century thermodynamicists?
And when Archimedes ran down the street naked yelling “Eureka” several centuries before Jesus was born, what clarity did the 17th century experts on what they claimed to be the “scientific method” bring to his insight into the relationship between weight defect and displaced volume of water?
In summary my claims would be as follows.
(i) That which 17th century philosophers called the scientific method is more useful in turning non-scientists into scientists than in producing award-winning scientists. It’s at best a pedagogical tool.
(ii) Popper’s variant of the scientific method depends on the premise that Modus Tollens is somehow more effective in scientific reasoning than Modus Ponens. Unless that premise is true in any effective sense, Popper’s variant cannot improve the pedagogical role of the scientific method. And since that’s been its only role for centuries it cannot impact professional science either.
And in conclusion a parable:
Judge (trained in the new-fangled scientific method): Archimedes, please explain to the court how you applied the scientific method to conclude that this gold crown has, as you allege, been debased with silver.
Archimedes: Please, your honour, what is this “scientific method”?
Judge: Case dismissed.
One branch of philosophy is logic, a subject that makes mathematics difficult. The remaining branches make common sense difficult.
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by gymnosperm
“As long as a loop produces a negative “feedback”, there will be a tendency to vary in a cyclical manner.”
As long as there is a DELAYED negative feedback.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Peter Davies
A great sub-thread with kudos to ScienceorFiction and VP for their thought provoking responses. IMO a classic dialogue with any hint whatever of ad hominem in their argument. I’m still thinking that VP has the more difficult argument to make but thanks for the infotainment. +100
↧
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by omanuel
New evidence of the Sun’s influence: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2015/09/aa26652-15/aa26652-15.html
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
@PS: this blog is not representative of the scientific communities views
With what definition of “representative”?
This blog makes arguments both for and against whatever it is that you consider the views of the “scientific community”, however you’re defining that.
Are you claiming there is a single monolithic worldwide scientific community, or what?
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
<i>all quotes need to be considered in totality if available, but can still be used partially without them ever being a misquote.</i>
License to quote out of context. Gotta love this redefinition of honesty.
↧
