OT: I know how to solve global warming

[Renegade 13]

I guess what I consider to be logical and obvious isn't so obvious and logical to others. I've stated my opinions, and the facts they are based upon, for long enough. I've written enough in the past 30 posts or so that explains my opinions and why I believe the global warming hypothesis to be deeply flawed and overstated. Essentially, I see no further constructive purpose in continuing this debate. I guarantee that, unless you provide me with evidence based on much more solid scientific grounds, you won't convince me that the global warming hypothesis is anything other than an idea that a rather large number of people have jumped on. After all, jumping on the bandwagon is easy.

I'll rejoin the conversation if anything new comes up; for the last page of posts, it has all just been reiteration and the same old arguements. Please do note however that my withdrawl from the arguement is not a concession to your points of view; it is merely that I'm tired of repeating myself and getting nowhere.

[AMF]

Renegade,

I know that this all this philosophy of science stuff sounds fatuous, or silly, or pointless. When I was first exposed to it all, it took me many hours over many months to really get my head around it. It is, certainly, counter-intuitive, and I had lots of trouble with it.

But, trust me, this is how scientific progress works - research programs 'compete' in the manner described above. Old theories cannot be disproven without a newer and better theory to take their place. The entire history of the scientific progress of the human race is essentially based on this.

People who are much smarter than I (and probably most people here) have spent decades discussing the issue of "how do we know progress when we see it?" Everything I've sid above, in my own poorly worded way, comes straight out of the mouths of people like David Hume, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and so forth.

I sympathize greatly with your frustration. (I don't mean for that to sound arrogant - it probably does - sorry). I spent many hours in classes arguing the exact same thing as you have been to my professors. Eventually, I came to understand what they were saying, and why they were right. I can only say that it was extremely enlightening for me, and quite formative.

With that in mind, I can only urge you to not give up on this line of reasoning - I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or stupid (although, again, I recognize that my manner of speech does sometimes come across like that - again, very sorry for that) - I am just trying to impart that same enlightenment that I felt when I really, finally, after years, understood what scientific progress and the growth of human knowledge was all about.

Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume (see especially the problem of induction)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper (see especially section on philosophy of science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos (see especially section on research programs)

For a counter-vailing view of all this, Thomas Kuhn is interesting (although largely debunked and I don't think anyone puts much stock in him anymore - I could be wrong on that). The Wiki article on him is sparse, but it has good links elsewhere I suspect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

And let me say "thanks" for allowing me to debate this topic, especially given that I often come across like an arrogant SOB with a bad attidude.

Philosophy of science is a subject I find fascinating and close to my heart, and getting practice in discussing it with critics it is invaluable.

Thanks,

AMF

[Will]

I think part of the confusion is a misunderstanding of terms. In formal logic, there are statements and there are theorems. A statement can be proven false by a single counter-example (which in turn usually means a flaw in logical reasoning to arrive at that statement, or false premises). A theorem is a collection of statements, which counter-examples do not disprove; a counter-example to a theorem merely shows that the theorem is incomplete. It is much more difficult to disprove a theorem, because you need to prove false ALL the statements in the theorem, not just a few. I didn't do much to help in the confusion since I took your example of the algebra equation (normally a statement) and pretended it was part of a model or theorem, when I said it is still right for y=1.

I really would like to understand your reasoning, but from everything you've said, I can only conclude that you haven't had much experience in the hard sciences. It is fine to question theorems to gain a better understanding of them, but to just reject them out of hand you really do need to present an alternative. Otherwise, you are just an admitted novice that is rejecting the claims of experts in a field just because you don't like some of the evidence. That isn't science, that is dogma. Even the articles you linked do very little to the theory as a whole; the author of the Technology Review article claims to still think that human action has caused a rise in global average temperature. The Marshall paper basically says that the 90's was the warmest decade in the approx. 140 year direct temperature record, and held the position that indirect temperature estimates for before 1860 are incomplete in that it only takes into account local temperature (meaning, they want a more widespread and comprehensive study, eliminating as many assumptions as possible from the data analysis). Both basically say we need more information to refine our understanding of human impact, but neither one comes anywhere close to denying human impact. For both, the prevailing theory of global warming still holds.

Anyway, this isn't really a bandwagon issue. Most climatologists say that there is global warming because the data fits, and all competing theories (sunspot cycles, 20th century as end of the ice age, etc.) don't fit the data as well. The best fit model wins, and it has survived quite a bit of scrutiny in the 80s and 90s. After all that scrutiny, it is only natural that the experts would come to accept it as the best current theory.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Ah, but what if you have a theorum that fits some of the facts, but whose use proves futile in solving the problem? Supposing that no-one has a theorum that fits the facts better, and supposing that no-one knows why it doesn't work, does not that disprove the theorum anyway?

[Gozra]

Just a quick note the climate data shows that the rise in CO2 was evident AFTER the rise in temprature. Which is consistant with the arctic tundra and bogs heating up and releasing the gases that have been locked in since they were frozen. Yes Humans have had a small impact on global warming but are far from being the cause. What we are really good at is trashing our environment and we should be concentrating on keeping a clean planet. BTW CO2 causes plants to increase output of food and oxygen.

[Hunpecked]

From alarikf:

"Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:"

I read the Popper references, and I think I see the source of our confusion. From the Wiki article:

"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."

In other words, a theory can be falsified (i.e. shown to be incorrect or at least incomplete) by a single "anomalous" observation, even in the absence of a competing theory. This is essentially what Renegade and I have been arguing.

From the Stanford reference:

"If the conclusion is shown to be false, then this is taken as a signal that the theory cannot be completely correct (logically the theory is falsified), and the scientist begins his quest for a better theory. He does not, however, abandon the present theory until such time as he has a better one to substitute for it."

This is apparently what alarikf (and Will?) has been arguing, i.e. we seem to be arguing related but different topics.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the "don't abandon until you have an alternative" argument. Presumably if the falsified theory is still useful within its newly demonstrated limits, then we can continue using it for limited applications. If, however, the theory is all wrong or the consequences of misapplication are sufficiently horrific, then perhaps we should abandon the theory entirely and forego its supposed benefits until a better theory is formulated and tested.

Of course, since AGW is a hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW.

[Will]

Hunpecked said:
Of course, since AGW is a hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW.

Ahhh, cross posting... bleh.

Anyway, there are multiple concepts flying around here, but AGW is a hypothesis, yes, and one that has not been falsified yet (and it will be a hard one to falsify; in logic notation it is ∃x(AGW) and to falsify it, you must show that ∀x(~AGW), where x is some set of conditions, ∃ is the "there exists symbol, ∀ is the "for all" symbol, ~ is the not operator, and AGW is, of course, our hypothesis). The theory or model that we have been talking about is our understanding of how various factors influence temperature throughout the world, including the affects of solar output, surface and atmospheric albedo, greenhouse effects, ocean and atmospheric currents, geothermals, and countless other factors and their interactions. THIS is the theory that must be replaced by a better one, and the AGW hypothesis is an element of this theory. Current opinion says there is not an alternative theory that leaves out the AGW hypothesis that explains the data as well as the current theory with the AGW hypothesis.

--edit: logical symbols fixed? maybe? nope... in your minds, please replace ∀ with an upside-down capital A, and ∃ with a backwards capital E...

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover exactly what this dangerous chemical is.

Might it be...just maybe...the dreaded *gulp*...water?

[AMF]

HP and R13,

Honestly: let's just not discuss anomalies in AGW at all. I have never said that AGW is perfect, no one ever has. You keep talking about anomalies in the research program, and then claiming that invalidates the theory. That is entirely NOT the point, and two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Once more:

If you only point out that data is imprecise, or that there are holes in a hypothesis, then you are showing nothing except that anomalies exist. You have to come up with an alternative that better explains the phenomenon in question if you want to question a theory. Otherwise, you're just showing your ignorance of how science works.

I've tried to illustrate this in the above posts with analogies to Copernicus-Newton-Einstein, but you both keep coming back to talking about anomalies in AGW, as if their existence alone threw AGW into question.

I'm not making my point well, so I'll use Will's words: "you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."

EVERY THEORY IN THE UNIVERSE has anomalies. The presence of anomalies alone is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is how well a different theory accounts for those anomalies. And if a new theory can account for those anomalies, and can explain everything the old theory did and more, then it "wins" and the old theory is tossed out.

Again, two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Re: "Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here!"

No, what you are doing is the same thing that those untrained in philosophy of science have always done: throwing out an entire research program based on one question about the data (not even really an anomaly) without suggesting an alternative. It's bad science. End of story.

It's the kid-dad analogy:

Kid: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Because of X.
Kid: No it's not!
Dad: ok, then what causes it to be blue?
Kid: I don't know, but it isn't X!
Dad: Well, we'll have to continue to say it's caused by X until you come up with something better.

That...is science.

QED.

AMF.

PS: As for my 'sickened' statement, what I said, in full, was: "Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe."

I don't see how that is ambiguous - to wit, I get disgusted with people when they make important decisions based on what appears to be their ideologies, or dogma, or self-interest, rather than an understanding of the facts and, more importantly, scientific methods. Full stop. No interpretation of "what I really meant" is needed, or desired.

[AMF]

I should probably have specifically responded to this as well.

Re:

Hunpecked said:
Presumably if the falsified theory is still useful within its newly demonstrated limits, then we can continue using it for limited applications.

This is certainly true, and is what I have in part been saying all along.

If, however, the theory is all wrong or the consequences of misapplication are sufficiently horrific, then perhaps we should abandon the theory entirely and forego its supposed benefits until a better theory is formulated and tested.

If such a theory existed, then to derive a replacement research program is a trivial matter. But, really, until you have an alternative, you have to go with what you have in place at the moment, because to do otherwise is non-rational because it would have no logic inherent in it. It would be, for example, totally ad hoc, self-contradictory, incoherent, etc…it would essentially be like saying “well, every possible thought we have given on this matter is so terrible that we have no possible explanations for it, and we can’t think of anything better” – even the most bizarre phenomena that mankind has ever experienced don’t fit that. At the very least, the explanation for something like that would be “The Gods make the sky blue because they like the color blue.” This at least is a theory, albeit a very silly one that would, thereby, be relatively easy to supplant with a better one.

Of course, since AGW is a hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW.

This is why I use the phrase ‘research program’ not theory or hypothesis (when I remember to…). We do risk getting into obtuse terminology here, but a research program is a theory or succession of theories that is, at least in principle, empirically testable. These theories share “a hard core, a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, and a heuristic, i.e., problem solving machinery. Thus, in the Newtonian programme, the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation are the hard core. Anomalies in the motion of planets are dealt with by considering factors that may affect the apparent motion, e.g., refraction of light or the existence of a hitherto unknown planet. The problem solving machinery is the vast body of classical mathematical physics.”

In AGW, the hard core would be the belief that human activity contributes to global warming. I’d have to give some thought to what the negative and positive heuristics would be...but it’s a long weekend coming up, so don’t hold your breath…



AMF