Re: [mythsoc] Re: The Eowyn Challenge
- On Apr 10, 2008, at 2:32 AM, David Bratman wrote:
> "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:Of course! Global warming is an absolutely unfalsifiable theory. (And
> >--- In email@example.com, WendellWag@... wrote:
> >> I lived in Gloucestershire for three years. Snow in early April
> is rare.
> >> Six inches of snow is downright bizarre.
> >Sounds like Al Gore was in town, giving a talk on global warming....
> And he would point out that freak cold spells are one of the effects
> we can expect from what is known, for convenience, as "global
"climate change"... oo, that just gives me tingles!)
> I would not, even as a joke, imply that global warming means all theOK, difference between us noted.
> temperatures are just going to go up uniformly,
This was meant as nothing more than a joke, playing off the well-known
fact that Gore has more than once managed to pick the most
unseasonably colds days to deliver major speeches about global
warming. So laugh or not (as you chose), and let's move along.
- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
>Of course! Global warming is an absolutely unfalsifiable theory.No it isn't, and you know better than that. Global warming expects increasing unpredictability, increasing variability, and increasing violence of weather, within a general trend of warming which also passes beyond previous variability. If everything settled down and we got the same weather we always had, with fewer freak events, that would certainly falsify it.
Global warming, though, is a pattern, rather than single events. One big strange snowstorm in England in April is by itself neither evidence for, nor evidence against, global warming.
The climate system is subtle enough that some effects aren't predictable. For instance, one thing that's expected to be possible is that increased melting of the Arctic ice could cause enough cold water to drift south to disrupt the Gulf Stream. That could plunge Europe into Canadian levels of coldness, or even an ice age, at the same time that the globe is warming. We don't know if that would happen, but it might.
But it's a mistake to deny that the pattern of increased warming and variability is very clear.
- Sigh. OK. Please let the record show that I tried.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
> If everything settled down and we got the same weather we always had, with fewer freak
> events, that would certainly falsify it.
> But it's a mistake to deny that the pattern of increased warming and variability is very
Your confidence in knowing what constitutes "settled down" and "the same weather we
always had" and "freak events" is pretty remarkable, given how recent our ability to detect,
measure, and track these things globally is a _very_ recent phenomenon. Prior to the past
few decades, our data for such things is almost purely inferential and anecdotal, and
_highly_ sensitive to the assumptions that go into characterizing, weighting, and assessing
it. So too are the models that predict future climate, which have historically thus far failed
miserably. For example, they did not predict the leveling off and slight cooling we've had
in the past decade; for another example, they have failed miserably to predict the
temperature trends in the tropical atmosphere. And yet none of this counts as _any_
reason to think that the climate models, or the theory of global warming that is based on
them, might be wrong; indeed, if you think they might be, why, you're just a flat-earther
(says Al Gore).
> Global warming, though, is a pattern, rather than single events. One big strange
> snowstorm in England in April is by itself neither evidence for, nor evidence against,
> global warming.
Well, DUH! Who said that it did? AGAIN, this was what we call a "joke". Look it up.
But thanks for the lecture. I mean, it's not like I have science degree and work at NASA.
Oh wait, I DO!