Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richard C. Courtney's comment
#1
From HERE

Quote: richardscourtney
May 10, 2015 at 11:17 am

KickassBlogger

It is not surprising that you have had such blunt rejections when you assert such erroneous information.

I write to introduce you to the scientific method so you can start to determine things for yourself instead of feeding on what you have been fed by those giving you the ‘mushroom treatment’ at school.

The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

In the case of global climate in the Holocene, no recent climate behaviours are observed to be unprecedented so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI): cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-...L-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d...ne2011.pdf

Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

Richard
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Richard Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 168 04-13-2017, 07:50 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S, Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,154 08-12-2015, 07:04 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 3 3,155 07-26-2015, 11:09 AM
Last Post: Richard111
  Richard S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,855 05-04-2013, 07:48 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard C Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 3,118 04-17-2013, 07:20 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,716 12-15-2012, 11:16 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 3,147 12-08-2012, 01:54 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richards S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 4,210 11-24-2012, 09:38 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 6 7,731 10-18-2012, 06:23 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard 111's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,387 09-12-2012, 05:24 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)