I rather expect lynnvinc to ignore everything that might contradict her position on AGW but I did not expect it from you as well. You have seen the citation (made several times) where one of the heavyweight AGW scientists unequivocally stated that a 20 year hiatus in warming would demonstrate a “fundamental” error in the models. You cannot minimize that statement with extraneous comparisons to modeling the throw of a die.
The significance of the hiatus as expressed by the scientist you quote is not universally accepted by AGW scientists. And even that scientists view does not wholey contradict the theory.
My comments about dice were much more narrow than you imagine. I was addressing a particular faulty argument against global warming, rather than supporting global warming theory generally. That argument was that if we cannot trust the models to predict 20 years into the future, we certainly cannot trust them to predict 100 years into the future, as if longer time span predictions are inherently more difficult that ones over a shorter time span.
So what would it take to falsify the theory of AGW? What is the ideal average temperature for the earth and why?
After hansen’s miserable failure, by providing three scenarios that could be readily compared, they no longer provide alternative scenarios. Now they just claim the hiatus is within the error range.
The falsification of a theory whose observations always present with some random factors added in is done in probability. That is, the more incongruous data that is observed, the more likely it is that the theory is false. If you must have a specific threshold, I would guess the theory would be falsified when it is becomes more likely to be false than to be true. Whether or not an 18 year hiatus in satellite temperature readings reaches that threshold is the real question, isn’t it?
What leads you to believe I ought to have an answer to that particular question?
It would seem before we start spending trillions of dollars and saddling people with massive regulations we should agree on whether the theory is correct or not and what it would take to prove it was not . It would also seem that we should have some kind of benchmark as to what the temperature should be after we get done burdening people with massive regulations and taxes.
Shouldn’t the theory include projections for both high CO2 and low CO2 scenarios, like Hansen did in 1988?
Back in 2009 NOAA addressed the problem that global warming had stopped for 10 years, saying at the time that a period of 15 years without warming was needed to “create a discrepancy”. Von Storch has given it another five years, but the point remains: global warming is not behaving as the models predict, no one has a convincing explanation for why warming has stopped, and very soon the (honest) scientists will have to admit to a “fundamental” lack of understanding of the climate processes.*The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. *(NOAA, Annual State of the Climate Report, 2009)
The theory doesn’t need to be shown to be wrong in all its particulars, only that it is not right in its catastrophic forecasts.
Apparently it is to some.
That may be part of what the Pope called for, and about that there is no controversy. None. Is it really necessary to point out that the entire debate is about his position on the theory of AGW, and about what he is calling us to do in response to that theory? Can you actually believe that everyone who disputes AGW does so because he is irresponsible and doesn’t care? Make whatever argument you can in support of AGW, but at least try to understand that most people who oppose it do so because they believe it is …wrong. It is no more accurate to suggest that the people who oppose it don’t care about the environment than it is to suggest that the people who support it do so because they want to increase government control of…pretty much everything.
AGW, real or not, is but a symptom of our attitude toward nature. That is the the Pope’s main concern in Laudato Si. He calls for changes in lifestyle as a matter of respect for God’s creation. Air and water pollution are just as much a concern as AGW requiring changes affecting the economy. But the economy seems to be the more important concern to those criticizing the Pope and promoting a cavalier attitude toward natural resources that is ultimately irresponsible.
AGW is not an article of faith, and dissent is allowed. Since there is a question about the attribution of effects in the climate system, including AGW, then it is fair game for criticism, you know, to establish if it is real or not. I wouldn’t complain too much though, the encyclical is getting much more attention than it would have had AGW not been added.
There is absolutely no dispute that as Catholics we have a moral responsibility to care for the environment . That does not translate into an infallible declaration theat Catholics required to believe in AGW or that Catholic are required to support the crippling tax and regulation schemes proposed by those who promote AGW
So not accepting AGW even if it is a false theory is still a symptom of us not caring for the environment??? I am not aware of anybody who promotes a cavalier attitude towards natural resources and when one blithely dismisses the concern about the effects on the economy of the drastic measures proposed by those who promote AGW one has to wonder why they have such a cavalier attitude towards the plight of the poor.
With all due respect, it would be nice if other Catholics would talk about something other than AGW. The theory is debatable. But how about some talk on deforestation, poaching, illegal animal trade, over fishing and seafood fraud, or just our general wastefulness with food and other resources? The lack of any real talk on those issues disturbs me. And when people say how important those things are, and then immediately move back to AGW, it gives me the idea that people judged Laudato Si before it was released. There other issues to be discussed, but no one seems to want to talk about them.
Those other issues could actually be solved in our lifetime, if we put our mind and hearts into the effort. Focusing on the boogieman of AGW is sort of a deflection that ends up blaming capitalism as killing the world.