Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad with a hypothesis lacking falsification tests
Posted by pwl on April 16, 2010
In response to the article and comments “NCAR’s missing heat – they could not find it any-where“.
I thought the heat is just starting with the various investigations underway? Monckton is just warming up his instruments to apply the heat.
“Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science.”
It’s not heat, it’s “believed heat”. It’s “conjectured heat”. It’s predicted “heat” based upon, ahem, models meaning it’s “soothsaid heat”. “Illusionary” indeed.
How about getting BETTER TOOLS for better observations before spouting off about your pet hypothesis? Oh right, GREEN grant $$$MONEY$$$.
It’s fine to have a hypothesis, but please indicate that that is what it is. It’s like the NOAA et. al. temperature anomaly graphs that use fabricated data via interpolation without labeling indicating that the visualization is based upon invented, fabricated data via statistical interpolation.
Where in the world is Joules and where did he hide the heat? Joules who? How do you hide heat? It want to radiate in all directions by default. Water or air or ice or magma or rock would need to move it.
“I’m going to guess that the heat jumped into the mantle, and that’s why Iceland popped.”
Yup must be that a cold zone (oceans) can contribute HEAT to a hotter zone (mantle with hot magma)! That’s some physics I’d like to see!
“Heat transfer is the transition of thermal energy from a hotter mass to a cooler mass. When an object is at a different temperature than its surroundings or another object, transfer of thermal energy, also known as heat flow, or heat exchange, occurs in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium; this means that they are at the same temperature. Heat transfer always occurs from a higher-temperature object to a cooler-temperature one as described by the second law of thermodynamics or the Clausius statement. Where there is a temperature difference between objects in proximity, heat transfer between them can never be stopped; it can only be slowed.”
THE THREE METHODS OF HEAT TRANSFER in RAP
Is Kevin Trenberth suggesting a NEW way of heat transfer? Via entangled quantum physics teleporting the heat across ocean layers maybe? Or maybe it’s sneaky heat?
““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth to Mann, ClimateGate email :
Can’t account for it according to what exactly? Why does Kevin Trenberth think there is travesty in the lack of heat? Nature isn’t here to confirm our theories, she could care less about us. It is obvious from his comment that he’s trying to find the missing heat otherwise his hypothesis crumbles to the ground in pieces. I wonder how long it will be before some of these guys give up on their hypothesis? When will they realize that their hypothesis has been falsified by Nature? What will it take for them to say the hypothesis is falsified and needs to be toss aside?
Kevin Trenberth, what specifically is your hypothesis? In full detail please.
Do the alleged climate scientists even have a notion that their hypothesis is supposed to have a test for falsification? What is their Null Hypothesis?
I’ve directly asked the following (plus a number of other) questions point blank to at least one climate scientist who works that the National Center for Atmospheric Research and haven’t received an answer yet. They don’t seem to want to answer these sorts of basic questions fundamental to the scientific method. I’m still waiting for an answer to be fair.
(1) What is AGW?
(2) How can the alleged AGW hypothesis be falsified?
(3) What is the Null Hypothesis that you work with?
DirkH thanks for the violent fems video. One of my favorite 100 songs that was missing, now I feel the heat of it again!!!
Heat that haunts with taunts by Trenberth et. al..
Cudos to Craig Moore for Liquid Heet! It goes where you need it!
Joule thieves is by far the best explanation. “Kevin may just be posturing. Now he goes and gets a 13 million dollar grant and looks for the joule thief.” One can buy a lot of jewels with the funds from the search for the missing joules! Nice. How do I get into that racket? Oh wait, I can’t take the heat that might come back to haunt me from the travesty of sticking to a hypothesis regardless of the counter evidence. That’s why hypotheses are supposed to have tests that falsify them, so one doesn’t get struck blind by a pet hypothesis that cripples one’s mental capacity for critical reasoning!
“Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.” Does this apply to those, such as Kevin Trenberth, who stick to their hypothesis through thick and thin? Is the real travesty that their alleged AGW hypothesis has no falsification tests, thus they are like flies to a light? It’s the light, it’s the heat, move towards it, fast before it’s lost again! ZAP! ZAP! Nature zaps all hypotheses that are false, dead, dead, dead!
The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat – March 19, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
“Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says [the missing heat is] probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.”
Isn’t that what Lindzen and Choi have shown and quantify in their paper, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data”?
Does this mean that Trenberth is agreeing with Lindzen?
“If you draw a boundary between the outer atmosphere and space and treat the planet (with atmosphere) as a closed system, at equilibrium the amount of energy released through the boundary must be equal to the amount of energy passing into the boundary from the sun. As a baseline, everyone assumes that the amount of energy passing into the system from the sun remains constant. If the temperature of the system inside the boundary is to increase, it is absolutely necessary that the total energy passing through the boundary must go down, at least temporarily, permanently trapping the energy in the system and raising the system temperature. Dr. Lindzen’s paper shows that once a temperature increase occurs — regardless of the reason — the system responds by moving out of equilibrium and releasing more energy into space than is provided by the sun. Thus, the temperate falls from the new (perturbed) temperature to a level between the initial equilibrium and the post-perturbation temperatures, until the equilibrium is reestablished.
Any model that results in a system temperature above the initial perturbation (above roughly 1C for doubling of CO2) MUST, mathematically, do so by reducing net radiation released into space below the equilibrium point so that the additional energy can accumulate and the temperature can rise. Only by reducing net energy released into space can the system heat itself. All other forms of heating must, by definition, simply move energy within the closed system resulting in redistribution of energy but no net heating. The author of the note above notes “Models that assumed otherwise [from increased radiation resulting from increased temperature] would have near infinite temperatures.” Dr. Lindzen addresses this explicitly in his paper. “Indeed, Figure 3c suggests that models should have a range of sensitivities extending from about 1.5C to infinite sensitivity (rather than 5C as commonly asserted), given the presence of spurious positive feedback. However, response time increases with increasing sensitivity [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998], and models were probably not run sufficiently long to realize their full sensitivity.” – Jim, http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/lindzen-choi.html.
For your further enjoyment, where the joules went and how:
Kevin Trenberth et. al., NATURE, as in The Objective Reality of Nature and not the magazine, is always the final judge of a hypothesis, not your peers! Stop paying attention to your peers and start paying attention to Nature! Thanks.