Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 18th, 2018, 08:44 AM   #1511
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,648

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25152
Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition

so CO2 isn't driving ocean temps and we've had a warmer period 12,000 years ago -- a lot earlier than any asserted industrial influence would have been possible.
I wish i could read the full article.
fascinating is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 18th, 2018, 10:45 AM   #1512
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
Falsification Principle. The Falsification Principle was proposed by scientific philosopher Karl Popper. It proposes that for something to be scientific it must be be able to be proven false. If things are falsifiable (able to possibly be proven false) then they can be used in scientific studies and inquiry.

When your model is proven wrong, your conclusions are wrong (since that's what created the model.
We need to clarify a bit to include events that could be "deemed falsifiable" given various instrumentation platforms. This matters if we are dealing with paradigms that have a combination of falsifiable and "currently due to instrumentation" non-falsifiable events. K. Popper talks about this in conjunction with hypothetico-deductive systems or advancing precision in physical theories.

Also, the "falsifiable model" has to include "repeatable" events by unconnected groups or organizations. IOW, the falsifiability component has to be specifically identified, stable and articulated well enough for multiple performances of independent testing and analysis.

The "something" is usually related to the predictability of a specific event.

IMPORTANT: Further, the level or quality of the predictability (RE: falsifiable event) is a measure of the impact of the scientific theory. IOW, we have an event that is falsifiable and the event is significant enough to distinguish between other modes of evidence (instrumentation) and other possible explanations.

IOW, the less there is "at risk" predictability in a theory, then the more that theory begins to take on the characteristics of a pseudo-science.

For example:

The predictability* of temperature change, per the IPCC in regard to climate change is now at or barely above instrumental trending (RE: historical temp data) due to CONVENTIONAL TWISTING of the data (Conventional Twisting, RE: K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations) ADDITIONALLY: There is a lack of distinction between natural events and expectations from multiple confirmations of inter-glacial warming (RE: ice cores, sea sediment) and AGW.

*The quality of predictability is related to the level of risk in the prediction itself. The lower the level of risk (of falsifiability) the less the "science" involved is REAL. FYI: The concept of conventionalist twisting is also known as conventionalist stratagem.

Instrumental trending:

To wit: observation to theory influence (RE: as opposed to theory to observation accuracy) IOW: How much is the theory of climate change influenced by current data trends? How did the 5th IPCC report influence the science when the unexpected pause in temperature expectations were identified? Are the scientists chasing the data at this point? If so, what does that say about the operational validity of the theory?

K. Popper:
The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity.
Cepheus is offline  
Old January 18th, 2018, 11:58 AM   #1513
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
When your model is proven wrong, your conclusions are wrong (since that's what created the model.
K. Popper is looking for what he calls a genuine test of the theory*. He calls it a "serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory."

His (K. Popper) very next section is how scientists, via "ad hoc auxiliary assumptions" begin to "re-interpret" the theory to save it or to escape "refutation" when the theory predictions have failed.

Once this process starts, the proponents of the theory can "rescue" the theory but "only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status." This is the "conventionalist twisting" that I mentioned in my previous post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*K. Popper, C & R, p. 48.

Last edited by Cepheus; January 18th, 2018 at 12:16 PM.
Cepheus is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2018, 08:00 AM   #1514

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" ? Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English ? by Pierre L. Gosselin
Quote:
Predictions Of Snowless Winters Go Down In Flames As No. Hemisphere Gets Buried Under Ice
By P Gosselin on 23. January 2018
We all remember how some scientists (David Viner and Mojib Latif, for example) boldly announced some 18 years ago that snow and ice at latitudes 40 – 55N would become rare.
Click the image to open in full size.

and of course the climate alarmists' then assert that COOLING is the result of "Warming" or at least, "human caused climate change". no. if your prediction is wrong, your model is wrong. If your model is wrong, the theory or the data (or both) that it uses are wrong. You cannot assert that if it rains, it's us and if it doesn't rain, then assert -- well that's us too.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2018, 08:07 AM   #1515

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,922
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
Falsification Principle. The Falsification Principle was proposed by scientific philosopher Karl Popper. It proposes that for something to be scientific it must be be able to be proven false. If things are falsifiable (able to possibly be proven false) then they can be used in scientific studies and inquiry.
....
Karl Popper is nice, as all philosophy is nice.

My problem is that:

1. Climate did change, and it's changing.
2. Human activity has a significant impact.

Philosophic principles can demonstrate a lot of things, but there's no need of them in that.

Well, not for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
... It's up to those asserting human activity is driving the climate to prove the claim and provide a means to verify or "falsify" that. ... .
I furnished You some proofs. You furnished proofs

Last edited by deaf tuner; January 23rd, 2018 at 08:10 AM.
deaf tuner is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2018, 08:16 AM   #1516

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

3 New (2018) Papers Link Modern Warming And Past Cooling Periods To High, Low Solar Activity 3 New (2018) Papers Link Modern Warming And Past Cooling Periods To High, Low Solar Activity
Click the image to open in full size.

http://static-m.meteo.cat/wordpressw...et-al-2018.pdf
Quote:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) is known as one of the coldest stages of the Holocene. Most records from the Northern Hemisphere show evidence of significantly colder conditions during the LIA, which in some cases had substantial socio-economic consequences. In this study we investigated the magnitude and timing of climate variability during the LIA in the mountains of the Iberian Peninsula, based on a wide range of natural records (including from glacial, periglacial, and lacustrine/peatland areas; fluvial/alluvial deposits; speleothems; and tree rings), historical documents, and early instrument data. The onset of the LIA commenced in approximately CE 1300, and cold conditions with alternating moisture regimes persisted until approximately CE 1850; the environmental responses ranged from rapid (e.g. tree rings) to delayed (e.g. glaciers). The colder climate of the LIA was accompanied by severe droughts, floods, and cold/heat waves that showed significant spatio-temporal variation across the Iberian mountains. Several phases within the LIA have been detected, including (a) 1300–1480: increasing cooling with moderate climate oscillations; (b) 1480–1570: relatively warmer conditions; (c)
1570–1620: gradual cooling; (d) 1620–1715: coldest climate period of the LIA, particularly during the Maunder Minimum, with temperatures approximately 2 C below those at present; (e) 1715–1760: warmer temperatures and a low frequency of extreme events; (f) 1760–1800: climate deterioration and more climate extremes (i.e. cold and heat waves, floods and droughts); (g) 1800–1850: highly variable climate conditions alternating with stability (1800–1815), extreme events (1815–1835), and a slight trend of warming associated with intense hydrometeorological events (1835–1850); (h) since 1850: a gradual staggered increase in temperature of approximately 1 C. Post-LIA warming has led to substantial changes in geo-ecological dynamics, mainly through shrinking of the spatial domain affected by cold climate processes.
Four warm periods (1626–1637, 1800–1809, 1845–1859, and 1986–2012) coincided with periods of increased solar activity.

The gradual increase in temperature during the second half of the 19th century resulted in significant glacier retreat, with rates of receding [in the second half of the 19th century] similar to those recorded during the last decades of the 20th century and in the early 21st century (Chueca et al., 2008). … The colder climate of the LIA was accompanied by severe droughts, floods, and cold/heat waves that showed significant spatio-temporal variation across the Iberian mountains.

The 20th century did not show unprecedented warmth over the last 800 years.

https://www.clim-past.net/14/57/2018/cp-14-57-2018.pdf Autumn–winter minimum temperature changes in the southern Sikhote-Alin mountain range of northeastern Asia since 1529 AD Abstract.
Quote:
The aim of our research was to reconstruct climatic parameters (for the first time for the Sikhote-Alin mountain range) and to compare them with global climate
fluctuations. As a result, we have found that one of the most important limiting factors for the study area is the minimum temperatures of the previous autumn– winter season (August–December), and this finding perfectly conforms to that in other territories. We reconstructed the previous August–December minimum temperature for 485 years, from 1529 to 2014. We found 12 cold periods (1535–1540, 1550–1555, 1643–1649, 1659–1667, 1675–1689, 1722–1735, 1791–1803, 1807–1818, 1822– 1827, 1836–1852, 1868–1887, 1911–1925) and seven warm periods (1560–1585, 1600–1610, 1614–1618, 1738–1743, 1756–1759, 1776–1781, 1944–2014). These periods correlate well with reconstructed data for the Northern Hemisphere and the neighboring territories of China and Japan. Our reconstruction has 3-, 9-, 20-, and 200-year periods,
which may be in line with high-frequency fluctuations in El Nio–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the short-term solar cycle, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) fluctuations, and the 200-year solar activity cycle, respectively.
We suppose that the temperature of the North Pacific, expressed by the PDO may make a major contribution to regional climate variations. We also assume that the regional climatic response to solar activity becomes apparent in the temperature changes in the northern part of Pacific Ocean and corresponds to cold periods during the solar minimum. These comparisons show that our climatic reconstruction based on tree ring chronology for this area may potentially provide a proxy record for long-term, large-scale past temperature patterns for northeastern Asia. The reconstruction reflects the global traits and local variations in the climatic processes of the southern territory of the Russian Far East for more than the past 450 years.]
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.02434.pdf Space climate and space weather over the past 400 years: 2.
Proxy indicators of geomagnetic storm and substorm
occurrence
Mike Lockwood 1,*, Mathew J. Owens 1
, Luke A. Barnard 1
,Chris J. Scott 1
, Clare E. Watt 1
,
and Sarah Bentley 1
1 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, RG6 6BB, UK
*Corresponding author: m.lockwood@reading.ac.uk
Quote:

Using the reconstruction of power input to the magnetosphere presented in Paper 1 (Lockwood et al., 2017a), we reconstruct annual means of the geomagnetic Ap and AE indices over the past 400 years to within a 1-sigma error of 20%. In addition,
we study the behaviour of the lognormal distribution of daily and hourly values about these annual means and show that we can also reconstruct the fraction of geomagnetically-active (storm-like) days and (substorm-like) hours in each year to
accuracies of 50-60%. The results are the first physics-based quantification of the space weather conditions in both the Dalton and Maunder minima. Looking to the future, the weakening of Earth’s magnetic moment means that the terrestrial disturbance levels during a future repeats of the solar Dalton and Maunder minima will be weaker and we here quantify this effect for the first time.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2018, 08:22 AM   #1517

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
Karl Popper is nice, as all philosophy is nice.

My problem is that:

1. Climate did change, and it's changing.
2. Human activity has a significant impact.

Philosophic principles can demonstrate a lot of things, but there's no need of them in that.

Well, not for me.


I furnished You some proofs. You furnished proofs
you keep saying that. You haven't proven or provided evidence for what you say. Of course the climate has changed and is changing. NO ONE has said that the climate is static. The question is HOW much is it changing, and why. You keep saying human activity is "significant', but you haven't provided any proof. The models proposed by climate alarmists based on the presumption of human activity being a driver have, as I've repeatedly provided here with numerous posts, been found to be inaccurate and thus falsified.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2018, 09:46 AM   #1518

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,922
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
you keep saying that. You haven't proven or provided evidence for what you say. ...
. You keep saying human activity is "significant', but you haven't provided any proof. ....
1. The history of Climate Change

(and as a "piquante" detail, some of the info comes from a climatoskeptic site )

2. The history of Climate Change

And in those two posts, nor You, nor I were talking about "models", but about actual data.
deaf tuner is offline  
Old January 25th, 2018, 01:14 PM   #1519

Hanslune's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Oregon
Posts: 1,495

Just to add an interesting note:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-beat-science/
Hanslune is offline  
Old January 26th, 2018, 09:50 AM   #1520

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,532

faking data and reports: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...aa/#more-31926
Quote:
There is not the slightest doubt that the US winter of 2013/14 was exceptionally cold by any standards, as the BBC reported at the time:

However, when we look at NOAA’s official temperature record for New York State in January, 2014 only ranks as 30th coldest since 1895, with a mean temperature of 16.9F.
Click the image to open in full size.

Quote:
Since 1889, monthly state climatological reports have been archived, originally by the Dept of Agriculture, and now by NOAA.

I have decided to compare Jan 2014 data, with the same month in 1943. According to NOAA, the latter was not dissimilar, with a mean of 18.7F, and a rank of 28th, for Division 10. In other words it was 0.9F warmer than 2014.

Below is the report for January 1943. I have given all of the PDF links, but the State reports can also all be accessed
Quote:
Some old stations have dropped out over the years, and new ones taken on. But when we check the 2014 report we find that seven stations are still going. Below is the comparison between 1943 and 2014:




Mean Temperature F


1943 2014 Diff
Auburn 22.2 18.5 -3.7
Avon 21.7 19.3 -2.4
Dansville 24.1 19.8 -4.3
Geneva 22.3 18.1 -4.2
Hemlock 21.0 19.0 -2.0
Ithaca 20.6 17.7 -2.9
Syracuse AP 19.2 19.9 0.7
Average 21.6 18.9 -2.7
Average excl
Syracuse AP 22.0 18.7 -3.3
NOAA 18.7 17.8 -0.9

On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.

Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.
it's easy to assert climate is warmer if you get to change the data points involved.
Lowell2 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
change, climate, denial, extinction, koch brothers



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before Climate Change was around... Congo Natural Environment 57 September 26th, 2014 11:27 PM
mpact of climate change on politics Port Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 22nd, 2014 03:25 PM
Climate Change (% influenced by Man) Congo Natural Environment 713 June 21st, 2013 04:09 PM
climate change c.500 BC ? Widdekind Ancient History 34 March 31st, 2012 03:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.