Proving a negative
Damn tricky this global warming.
The US is currently experiencing one of the worst periods of cold weather for some time, with temperatures down to -40s, and of course it was only a matter of time before somebody linked it to ‘global warming.’
As we all know, AGW is the unfalsifiable hypothesis to end all unfalsifiable hypotheses. Nothing can disprove it, and any weather phenomenon you care to mention can be regarded as ‘not inconsistent with global warming’.
Bertrand Russell’s teapot, allegedly orbiting in an elliptical orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars isn’t much different – impossible to disprove, and almost as ludicrous as the ‘global warming causes everything’ refrain.
In the words of Karl Popper, what is unfalsifiable is unscientific, and therefore pseudo-science, climate astrology, reading the tea-leaves.
That doesn’t stop Time magazine, however, which reports:
But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it.
…
What does that have to do with climate change? Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic thanks to climate change, which leaves behind dark open ocean water, which absorbs more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice. That in turn is helping to cause the Arctic to warm faster than the rest of the planet, almost twice the global average. The jet stream—the belt of fast-flowing, westerly winds that essentially serves as the boundary between cold northern air and warmer southern air—is driven by temperature difference between the northerly latitudes and the tropical ones. Some scientists theorize that as that temperature difference narrows, it may weaken the jet stream, which in turns makes it more likely that cold Arctic air will escape the polar vortex and flow southward. Right now, an unusually large kink in the jet stream has that Arctic air flowing much further south than it usually would.
Just as a cold spell does not disprove climate change, a hot spell does not prove it. Any number of arguments can be advanced to link a particular weather event to global warming, just as the same number of different arguments could be applied to link such an event to something else, like the Green Climate Monster, who I personally blame for all occurrences of extreme weather:
Blamed for more extreme weather
Australian Climate Madness 
I have a 1 inch pecker… damn that global warming
The thing is that they are not preaching to the unbelievers as they know that they have to put up scientific proof to convince them, something that they do not have, what they are doing is preaching to the converted as these true believers need a bit of re-enforcement from time to time, only the kool-aid drinkers still unquestionably believe and they don’t want time to pass where there is not a new story that predicts our dire end as this keep them all out there waving the flag, anyone who believed that fable that the heat was being hidden in the deep ocean is an idiot, how much is that lie being told today, not much, so what they do is tell newer and bolder lies that make the old lies fade from our minds, when you add up all of that BS then what you get is proof that they don’t have anything left other than to throw more BS at the fan and see how well it gets thrown around and how much people get scared, no one with any honour would have made that video where Santa cancelled Christmas due to global warming, what did that prove other than they are liars who are trying to frighten children.
I notice that the level of proof seems to be slowly decreasing.
Originally everything was proof of AGW.
Then they softened a bit and said that everything was ‘consistent with the predictions of AGW’ (while not mentioning that these same phenomena were also consistent with loads of other contradictory theories as wel as the Null hypothesis.
This week for the first time I noticed the new one – ‘not inconsistent with the theory’. That really is the last stop before even they have to admit that the theory is sunk.
Please note that the events in antarctica, with the ship being trapped in ice, are not inconsistent with the theory that smoking strychnine laced crack cocaine through a burning car tyre is the first step to a healthier you.
I still want one of these CAGW clods to tell how the hell the sun tjat does not raise at this time of year, And I now this reflect off all the flippen ice up here?
Actually, although you say: “AGW is the unfalsifiable hypothesis to end all unfalsifiable hypotheses..” In fact it has been falsified. Googling ‘AGW – a falsified hypothesis’ gives many results including
Professor Bob Carter:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/agw-falsified-hypothesis.html
Professor Murry Salby:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/282-science-and-technology/59930533
Strange how people will flock together and enjoy 51 degrees Celsius at the beach in Brazil.
Put them in deep-freeze USA and the government issues warnings to stay inside to prevent frost-bite.
Tell me again why we’re spending billions to stop the enjoyment?
Exactly! Cold is far more dangerous than warm when you talk about the future of humans>
Don’t you just love the hard dedicated science in play here – No cucumber is left unturned to seek real evidence: “it may well be that global warming could be…”
They really do stretch the science here…!
Good post” An occasion of cold weather proves warmer climate? 🙂
Prof. Carl Wunsch once mailed The Economist, who claimed AGW changes the Gulf Stream, that it’s just a crazy idea: http://www.economist.com/node/7963571 This phenomenon is also natural.
—
A constant in AGW science is that every phenomenon explains AGW? A frozen AGW ship in Antarctica, a cold winter in US, and so on. Popper is relevant here, science adjusting data to fit theory (heat hidden in the deep oceans, Argo buoy adjustment, GISS, and more…).
The same Time magazine that 40 years ago was blaming the polar vortex for an oncoming ice-age:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/
Bummer I was hoping to be able to use my oven as a fridge and do away with one appliance in the kitchen.
The CAGW hypothesis predicts two things.
First that the world will get warmer. Thus the mean and median temperatures will rise globally.
Second is that the weather systems will become more chaotic and extreme. That means that plotting daily max ans min temperatures for any month in any place will mean more readings at either end of the scale, and less in the middle. The distribution of temperatures will spread.
What separates CAGW from natural weather cycles (whether over decades or centuries) is the combination of these two elements. So the distribution of daily temperatures over time will see BOTH a shift upwards and an increase in the spread. CAGW can accommodate new cold temperature records. But this is only in parallel much more high temperature records. Further, the high temperature records should be advancing quicker that than the mean temperature rise. Similarly CAGW can accommodate periods of very extreme cold in winter, but only in parallel with far more extreme and prolonged summer heatwaves, and milder average winter temperatures as well.
In the last 5-10 years in the non-tropical Northern Hemisphere it seems that the extreme temperatures has mostly been of the colder variety. This has reversed the trend of the last 20-30 years. It is an impression, but is testable against the raw temperature data.
manicbeancounter. If you’re right there should be data showing more severe storms in our warmer world (about +0,4 C globally since the 1970s). I find these examples:
I’ve seen record low figures (don’t find them via google, but Watts has diagrams linked directly from institutes), so what’s your explanation/excuse for mismatch between your prediction and data?
The world’s top expert on storms and hurricanes, Chris Landsea, oppose your view, says a warmer world most likely will result in less strong storms and hurricanes:
You’re no scientist, but speak as you were. Your statements, what we “will see”, are part of a belief system, useful for activists who claim we need politics of redistribution etc, probably for them important political goals (but there’s no conspiracy).
2014 hasn’t started out to well for climate change activists with record low temperatures in the USA and an Antarctic expedition on climate change stuck in ice.
Watch here how the warmanista’s respond. 😉