Ex Post Facto reasoning

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 19. 2013

The only way to test a theory is to make predictions. It is not science to make a prediction (eg "There will be no more snow" or "Arctic ice will disappear") and then to pull an excuse out of your behind when the prediction turns out to be wrong.

You cannot say "We're still right, even if our predictions were wrong because we failed to consider so-and-so."

The example: Climate Astrology: Global Warming Means More Blizzards.

The warmist claims attempt to set themselves up to be unfalsifiable. Snow or no snow, floods or drought, all explainable on an ex post facto basis. That's the problem.

As for a little warming, that would be just fine and preferable to the next ice age.

Posted by The Barrister in Fallacies and Logic at 13:58 | Comments (29) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I saw that AP article today.

Keep in mind, this is specifically what they're claiming "A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year."

Then I read this a little later on the nsidc site (which is still posted)

"December of 2012 saw Northern Hemisphere snow cover at a record high extent, while January 2013 is the sixth-highest snow cover extent on record since 1967."

And before the "funded by oil companies" chants start:

NSIDC's research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies, through competitive grants and contracts.

See Programs and Projects and Research for a list of major sponsored grants and contracts.

NSIDC is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The University and CIRES provide a collaborative environment and support for our research.

#1 DrTorch on 2013-02-19 14:08 (Reply)

my problem with globalr warmerin (c)(tm)(r)(pat.pend.) is that its impossible to falsify, as in, what conditions will disprove the theory? I understand that the science, such as it is, is still in its infancy (e.g., the Coming Ice Age scare from the '70s) and may have merit when the physics are better understood, and that's why we need to wait until the business science matures before making the huge capital extortion investments called for.

basically, what we have now is an political agenda for climate [insert current name] that assumes causation for every correlation and data mines evidence, much as astrologers postdict events.

#2 wirraway on 2013-02-19 14:19 (Reply)

wirraway: my problem with globalr warmerin (c)(tm)(r)(pat.pend.) is that its impossible to falsify, as in, what conditions will disprove the theory?

If the mean surface temperature hadn't increased over the twentieth century, that would discount the claim of global warming. If the stratosphere hadn't cooled over the last several decades, that would undermine the claim of greenhouse warming. If atmospheric CO2 were not increasing, then anthropogenic climate change would be unsupported.

This is a common problem in so-called cultural skepticism; the confusion between falsifiable and false.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 09:23 (Reply)

global warming is not at issue. man-made global warming is what this is all about.

your proposed examples falsifiability are entirely arbitrary, post hoc reasoning. why not the 19th century? why not since the end of the last real ice age? why not since the beginning of the Pleistocene? my stove was hotter an hour ago than it is now. sea levels were 200 feet higher during the Cretaceous. the interior of Pangea during the Permian experienced extremes of heat and cold, the Carboniferous was a hothouse. factor out fluctuations in solar output and naturally occurring changes in atmospheric gasses from biological sources. factor them in (when we know exactly how they work). why did the medieval climate optimum begin and why did it end?

protip: none of the above was caused or aggravated by Bush or american industry or my annual pig roast on the fourth of july.

you have a political agenda that's riding on climate change and its incomplete, politically driven science. that's why you're going to be blocked at every turn, no matter what al-Bore and the Dear Leader demand.

#2.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-20 11:45 (Reply)

wirraway: global warming is not at issue. man-made global warming is what this is all about.

Theories of anthropogenic climate change entail 1) increased greenhouse gases; 2) increased surface warming; 3) stratospheric cooling.

wirraway: your proposed examples falsifiability are entirely arbitrary, post hoc reasoning.

Arrhenius published his findings on greenhouse warming and amplification in 1896.

wirraway: why not the 19th century? why not since the end of the last real ice age? why not since the beginning of the Pleistocene?

Why not what?

wirraway: sea levels were 200 feet higher during the Cretaceous. the interior of Pangea during the Permian experienced extremes of heat and cold, the Carboniferous was a hothouse. factor out fluctuations in solar output and naturally occurring changes in atmospheric gasses from biological sources. factor them in (when we know exactly how they work). why did the medieval climate optimum begin and why did it end?

The climate is a complex dynamical system. There are many factors that determine the climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, movements of the continents, content of the atmosphere, even impacts by comets.

wirraway: that's why you're going to be blocked at every turn, no matter what al-Bore and the Dear Leader demand.

Unlikely. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is substantial and growing, as nearly every scientific academy agrees. The problem isn't going away until it is addressed.

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 12:30 (Reply)

QUOTE:

wirraway: why not the 19th century? why not since the end of the last real ice age? why not since the beginning of the Pleistocene?

Why not what?

wirraway: sea levels were 200 feet higher during the Cretaceous. the interior of Pangea during the Permian experienced extremes of heat and cold, the Carboniferous was a hothouse. factor out fluctuations in solar output and naturally occurring changes in atmospheric gasses from biological sources. factor them in (when we know exactly how they work). why did the medieval climate optimum begin and why did it end?

The climate is a complex dynamical system. There are many factors that determine the climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, movements of the continents, content of the atmosphere, even impacts by comets.

picking an arbitrary point other than sometime in the last hundred or so years collapses your claims because you can't explain how man-made global warming caused the medieval climate optimum or the little ice age, much less the western interior seaway of 65 million years ago.

in the last 10K years since the end of the ice age (not the one in the 1970s you predicted), the southwest deserts have seen a lake-marsh-playa cycle repeat dozens of times, not one of which was caused by man.

fortunately, we didn't act on the Coming Ice Age crisis of the 1970s (or invest heavily in N-rays, or adopt the more extreme views of eugenics). nor will anything much come of this current scare, except al-Gore will gulfstream around more preaching carbon credits.

your reliance on axiomatic assertions by profit motivated scientists and agenda driven politicians compounds the worst of several errors in reasoning.

#2.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-20 13:38 (Reply)

wirraway: picking an arbitrary point other than sometime in the last hundred or so years collapses your claims because you can't explain how man-made global warming caused the medieval climate optimum or the little ice age, much less the western interior seaway of 65 million years ago.

There are many factors that affect climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, movements of the continents, content of the atmosphere, even impacts by comets. Thought we said that.

wirraway: fortunately, we didn't act on the Coming Ice Age crisis of the 1970s

There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling. There were countervailing influences, aerosols cooling the planet, greenhouse gases warming it. It quickly became clear that greenhouse gases would overwhelm the signal from aerosols over the long term. In any case, many countries did address the problem of aerosols by passing laws to limit pollution.

wirraway: your reliance on axiomatic assertions

Not axiomatic, but empirical. Not sure why you are confused on this as we keep pointing to observational evidence.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 13:51 (Reply)

I'm not sure why you concede a multitude of natural factors cause climate change, where all of the changes noted are significantly and in many instances magnitudes greater than seen in the last century, yet still insist axiomatically that recent changes are due to man made causes that can be sifted out of natural cycles and causes.

evidence for natural climate change is overwhelming and cannot be denied.

you tell me that there's an ice age on the way, and now, 40 years later, I'm still waiting and its replaced by a heat age. the evidence wasn't good then, and now its dispositive. that sounds like backtracking, cherry picking facts and ad hoc reasoning, because whatever today causes ice also causes fire.

all this is aggravated because you won't can't explain why the dry lake bed ten miles from here was a lake 3,000 years ago and a dry lake bed 2,000 years before that and I'm supposed to tear out my hair over incremental weather changes that might be attributable to an algal bloom in the great lakes.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-20 14:22 (Reply)

wirraway: I'm not sure why you concede a multitude of natural factors cause climate change, where all of the changes noted are significantly and in many instances magnitudes greater than seen in the last century, yet still insist axiomatically that recent changes are due to man made causes that can be sifted out of natural cycles and causes.

Axiomatic? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. We point to evidence, in particular, evidence of the increasing greenhouse effect.

wirraway: evidence for natural climate change is overwhelming and cannot be denied.

Of course not. Climate scientists have accumulated strong evidence of historical climate change. Those crazy climate scientists, always discovering things.

wirraway: you tell me that there's an ice age on the way, and now, 40 years later

We did? In any case, we already responded to that point in our last comment.

Zachriel: There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling. There were countervailing influences, aerosols cooling the planet, greenhouse gases warming it. It quickly became clear that greenhouse gases would overwhelm the signal from aerosols over the long term. In any case, many countries did address the problem of aerosols by passing laws to limit pollution.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 14:35 (Reply)

"we" -- is this the imperial we? the editorial we? or the Axiomatic we. axiomatic in my business means claims asserted as conclusions. stems from a misleading way of arguing, where argument is intentionally made to substitute for defects in evidence.

you people cherry pick evidence and throw your own claims (Coming Ice Age) under the bus when they fail.

you can't sort out any natural causes from alleged man made global warming. you've evaded every example I've given by hand waving dismissals that fool no one.

this is why your agenda will die on the internet and the only one who will profit will be al-Bore and the carbon credits brokers.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-20 15:42 (Reply)

wirraway: axiomatic in my business means claims asserted as conclusions

Yes, that's right. You had said our claims were axiomatic, then ignored the evidence we provided.

wirraway: this is why your agenda will die on the internet

Odd then that so many national academies of science consider climate change a significant issue.

"Climate change is real... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities"
— National Academies of Science of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, U.K., U.S.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 15:55 (Reply)

We disagree. We hold that our evidence is massively uncontrovertable, as evidenced by Our use of the Axiomatic We, which cannot be denied by your people and is worth valuable Experience and Force Points on internet fora.

We cannot be stopped, or even slowed down. We will warm your planet until summer, then We will cool it down. We will make global heating cause massive glaciers to flow and global coolin' to make sunny afternoons. We also control the horizontal and vertical.

We are also better looking.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-20 17:18 (Reply)

wirraway: We are also better looking.

We won't argue the point.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 18:16 (Reply)

Other than the suspension of disbelief, the main tool to support the warmists THEORIES, are computer models. They should be very easy to verify. We know the climate metrics from, say, 75 years ago. We can probably even estimate how much of Killer Carbon Dioxide has been 'spewed' into the atmosphere over the years. Plug those into the computer models and see how accurate they are at 'predicting' the current weather. If they can't do that, they are worthless.

#3 mudbug on 2013-02-19 14:23 (Reply)

The problem is that there are enough adjustable parameters in the models that they can be made to fit past data, but they fail at prediction. In other words, they overfit and have little predictive value.

#3.1 chuck on 2013-02-19 17:46 (Reply)

From Richard Feynman's analysis of the Challenger disaster:

"When using a mathematical model careful attention must be given to uncertainties in the model. . . . There was no way, without full understanding, that one could have confidence that conditions the next time might not produce [o-ring] erosion three times more severe than the time before. Nevertheless, officials fooled themselves into thinking they had such understanding and confidence, in spite of the peculiar variations from case to case. A mathematical model was made to calculate erosion. This was a model based not on physical understanding but on empirical curve fitting."

Emphasis added. That's the problem. Retrofitting to match a curve may give you some ideas about where to look for a causative mechanism going forward. But it can't confirm the theory you come up with for causation, unless you can run the model, make predictions, and confirm the predictions from observations -- without retro-curve-fitting again when the observations disappoint you. If you have to curve-fit, you have to start over: predict and await confirmation.

Global warming depends almost entirely on assumptions about climate sensitivity, usually in the form of assumptions about positive feedback mechanisms to amplify the historically low impact of CO2. But so far in history, temperature trends haven't reflected the higher amplification. The argument always is that they're just about to. The curve is discontinuous, and the inflection point is right now. (At least, since the original "hockey stick" discontinuity was embarrassed out of existence.) You'll see all kinds of hooey about why the inflection point is right now and why we're just about to see a discontinuity. It all lacks any basis in observations. It's naked prediction without a track record.

#4 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-02-19 15:06 (Reply)

Texan99: Global warming depends almost entirely on assumptions about climate sensitivity, usually in the form of assumptions about positive feedback mechanisms to amplify the historically low impact of CO2.

As pointed out before, climatologists don't merely make "assumptions about climate sensitivity", but determine climate sensitivity not only from first principles, but also from a variety of empirical studies, such as ice age data, volcanic forcing events, and energy budget measurements.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 09:37 (Reply)

Scientists don't determine future sensitivity levels from observational data, obviously; the only determine past sensitivity levels that way. For predictions of the future, they cobble together a model from a handful of untested theoretical principles and a lot of curve-fitting of past observations. The problem is, only way the alarmist models work is if future sensitivity is unlike past sensitivity. There's no observational data yet to support that alteration in sensitivity starting with the present moment. If you rely instead of the past experience of sensitivity, you get trivial warming.

#4.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-02-21 00:04 (Reply)

Texan99: Scientists don't determine future sensitivity levels from observational data, obviously; the only determine past sensitivity levels that way.

Astronomers don't determine future positions of planets from observational data, obviously, they only determine past positions of planets that way.

Texan99: The problem is, only way the alarmist models work is if future sensitivity is unlike past sensitivity.

Quite the contrary. Past sensitivity shows the relationship between the mechanisms that make up the climate system. That various measures of how the climate system reacts to perturbation, including calculations from first principles, volcanic forcing events, ice age data, and energy budget measurements show similar ranges, provides confidence that climate sensitivity is within those ranges.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-21 05:57 (Reply)

"Astronomers don't determine future positions of planets from observational data, obviously, they only determine past positions of planets that way." That's right. The observations determine the past; a predictive theory or model predicts the future positions. Then you wait, take some more observations, and see if the planets moved the way you expected. If not, you go back to the drawing board. If an astronomer claims that his new, untested theory of where Jupiter will be next must be correct because he relied on observations of Jupiter last year, he encounters skepticism and ridicule until his model accumulates a successful track record of prediction.

"Past sensitivity shows the relationship between the mechanisms that make up the climate system." No, past sensitivity suggests some possible underlying mechanisms for further research. The next step is to plug those mechanisms into a theoretical model, predict the future, and wait to see if your predictions are right. This is the step that hasn't happened yet, as evidenced by the fact that the predicted inflection point in the discontinuous curve is always right now.

#4.1.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-02-21 13:02 (Reply)

Texan99: If an astronomer claims that his new, untested theory of where Jupiter will be next must be correct because he relied on observations of Jupiter last year, he encounters skepticism and ridicule until his model accumulates a successful track record of prediction.

Halley's calculation of the return of the comet was off, so Newton's theory should be tossed and Halley should be ridiculed.

Texan99: No, past sensitivity suggests some possible underlying mechanisms for further research.

Paleoclimatic and volcanic studies are independent of mechanism, and show how the system has repeatedly reacted to perturbation. These studies are consistent with energy budget measurements, and calculations based on first principles.

Texan99: The next step is to plug those mechanisms into a theoretical model, predict the future, and wait to see if your predictions are right.

We already had a direct natural experiment with the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Climate sensitivity is highly unlikely to be much below 2°C per doubling of CO2, and probably somewhat more.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-21 14:01 (Reply)

And now we've reached the squid ink portion of the program.

#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-02-21 15:50 (Reply)

It's the Fake But Accurate trope again. Remember, they are right until you prove them wrong. /sigh

#5 Agent Cooper on 2013-02-19 16:00 (Reply)

Trending or Ranging, that is the question.

The single biggest challenge in stock trading is to determine if the data is describing a trend or a range. You cannot know until after the trend changes. This structural difficulty with data analysis seems to elude the global warming crowd. They are declaring a trend when the truth is that we simply don't know. We are probably just in a longer term range.

And Science, as I learned it, doesn't require consensus. Science doesn't care how many Scientists think one thing or another. They ALL can be wrong. One data point that is not predicted by the theoretical matrix can disprove the entire theory.

And CO2 is what plants like. If there is more CO2 there will be more plants. It is not a pollutant. It is part of the balancing mechanism that has kept our atmosphere relatively stable for millions of years.

/rant off.

#6 ScottJ on 2013-02-19 17:18 (Reply)

ScottJ: This structural difficulty with data analysis seems to elude the global warming crowd. They are declaring a trend when the truth is that we simply don't know. We are probably just in a longer term range.

Climate science is based on a mechanistic theory, not merely a correlation. The basics of greenhouse warming and amplification were worked out over a century ago, long before anyone thought humans might be able to change the climate.

Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896 {Carbonic acid means CO2 in the historical context}.

ScottJ: It is part of the balancing mechanism that has kept our atmosphere relatively stable for millions of years.

The Earth's climate doesn't seem stable historically, but teeters from cold to hot in irregular intervals.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 09:33 (Reply)

.

Look at the global warming trend [the flat trend line]:

http://tiny.cc/ww5rsw

The sawtooth is carbon dioxide [CO2; "carbon"]. Any fool can see that CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming.

The whole "carbon" scam is a grant-fed racket. More than $100 BILLION in federal grants to 'study climate change' since 2000. Enough! Too much!! $100 billion buys a lot of climate alarmist scare stories.

.

#7 Dr. Everett V. Scott (Link) on 2013-02-19 20:24 (Reply)

Dr. Everett V. Scott: The sawtooth is carbon dioxide [CO2; "carbon"]. Any fool can see that CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming.

Not a very effective argument, to claim that virtually everyone in the scientific community are fools. That should cause one pause to consider why scientists look at your graph and do not reach your seemingly obvious conclusion.

http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/1-Global-pg-17.jpg

#7.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 09:27 (Reply)

The Barrister: You cannot say "We're still right, even if our predictions were wrong because we failed to consider so-and-so."

That is exactly wrong. If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is either modified or discarded.

The Barrister: The example: Climate Astrology: Global Warming Means More Blizzards.

That article is just an extended hand wave. For instance, hot weather can cause water to freeze, such as in the updrafts of thunderstorms. And an increase in the average global temperatures can cause increases in precipitation, even if that means more snow in some areas.

The Barrister: The warmist claims attempt to set themselves up to be unfalsifiable.

Regional effects of climate change are still not well understood. However, the evidence that the mean global temperature is increasing is fairly decisive.

The Barrister: As for a little warming, that would be just fine and preferable to the next ice age.

Perhaps, but the expectation is for a lot of rapid warming, along with climate disruption.

#8 Zachriel on 2013-02-20 09:12 (Reply)

Whenever I hear "crisis", I hear somebody wanting money and power.

We've had too many crying wolf over the years. I doesn't work anymore.

Whatever the weather is, it's fine with me.

#8.1 BD on 2013-02-20 10:29 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 19. 2013

Ex Post Facto reasoning