Apply the Null Hypothesis to Man-made Global Warming!

Written by John O'Sullivan on December 18, 2017. Posted in Current News

Experts at the heart of US government climate research have asked that their science be excused from the rigorous testing against the null hypothesis. We look at what the null hypothesis means and why government climate research, by abandoning the test of the null hypothesis, in turn, abandons science.

Government climate ‘experts’ claim that modern global temperatures have risen at an alarming and unprecedented rate due to human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. They argue that humans inherently have the power to control the climate and thereby avert a “runaway greenhouse effect.”  What is proposed is massive reductions in levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities.

Opposing such extreme and unsubstantiated activism are climate realists (skeptics). The skeptics aim to keep the debate within a scientific frame and invoke the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis features prominently in the scientific method and is well defined by the writings of Karl Popper. For those who adhere to the methodology of Popper it may reasonably be stated that Popper may have expressed the null hypothesis on human-caused climate change as follows:

“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.”

This is just one test of the validity of man-made global warming. Of course, there are other ways to frame the null hypothesis. Though this often boils down to reeling off a list of established empirical facts that indicate an absence of compelling evidence to show that our climate is changing ‘dangerously’ or that humans have any measurable impact.

Such a list may include, but is not limited to the following:

• Paleoclimatic records indicate modern temperatures and rates of climatic variation are well within natural variability;
• Other than opinions held by biased government researchers, no empirical data shows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters climate – only the reverse is shown to occur – climate changes alter CO2 levels – hundreds of years later (a cause cannot follow an effect);
• Empirical evidence shows aquatic or marine concentrations of dissolved CO2 and dissolved O2 are inversely related to temperature. As the oceans warmed CO2 was released (again, a cause cannot follow an effect);
• Well-understood applied science and engineering proves CO2 is an ideal coolant gas. There is no empirical data to prove CO2 traps heat or delays cooling;
• CO2 has practical function in greenhouses to aid photosynthesis as plant food at optimum levels for growth far higher than current atmospheric concentrations, thus more is better;
• The greenhouse gas theory, the basis of climate science alarmism, is based on guesswork and disproven assumptions about the properties of CO2.

Any and all of the above may reasonably be added to a null hypothesis test of man-made global warming. The greatest exponents of the scientific method are those climate realists working in applied science and engineering. Success in those careers requiring systematic testing and evaluation of hypothesis according to the scientific method.

Experts from the ‘hard’ sciences know all too well that the scientific method must be universal to all branches of science, even climate, if they want to be considered science per se.  This is one reason why Astrology and palm reading isn’t seen as science. The Scientific Method, deals with matters of fact and relies on rules such as the laws of chemistry, physics, statistics and logic. In that regard, government climate research has become non-Popperian.

Applied scientists and engineers are pragmatists who live in the real world where immediate measurable life and death outcomes can be ascertained from sloppy work. But in government climate ‘science’ sloppy work is not easily detected because climate change addresses only long term (30 years or more) projections of possible outcomes.

To test any hypothesis for weakness – to attempt to falsify-  is best done using empirical evidence (real world measurements of physical phenomena).  To validate the original hypothesis (“humans are dangerously warming the climate”) science seeks examination of alleged impacts/changes claimed today, which are measurable with those in the past. Often this means working with lots of numbers; measurements of changes in actual physical properties and conditions.

Proponents who believe humans are causing a measurable impact on climate also believe in the so-called greenhouse gas theory which they claim, explains our climate system. Thus, for validation of their theory and claimed impacts, they need to show data, measurements and how it all fits together: that higher levels of atmospheric carbon directly cause higher global temperatures. If evidence shows temperature changes do not follow CO2 changes, then that outcome proves the null hypothesis ( “null” = no change).

In’ Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW?’  (October 3, 2015) Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball argues that NASA’s former head climate researcher has already unwittingly proved the null hypothesis for us. Hansen committed himself to his own version of the AGW null hypothesis, which is therefore testable with an outcome we can verify. As Ball explains:

“He [Hansen] is telling political leaders and media what will happen if humans stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Salvation! Temperatures will stop increasing. Ironically, this is equivalent to running the model as if CO2 was not causing warming. In doing so, it effectively presents the null hypothesis to the AGW hypothesis. It shows what would happen if CO2 was not the cause of warming. It approximates reality.”

Hansen limited his research and climate models to human causes of climate change. He produced two projections that argued CO2 would continue to increase. In doing so, he predetermined the outcome.

Hansen confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. That ‘no CO2 impact’ scenario is precisely what recent temperatures show. As Dr Ball explains:

“It [Hansen’s graph – see below] produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years [the lowest plotted line]. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. Thanks, Jim, enjoy your retirement.”

Of course, the actual outcome is not what Hansen had hoped would occur, because it proved “null” change (no impact) and kills his alarmist claim of CO2 being our climate’s control knob. One German government climatologist, of over 40 years, admits the whole enterprise isn’t science but “a marketing organization.”

With such good evidence for a null hypothesis for CO2-driven climate change, another American government climate researcher, Kevin Trenberth, argues it is time to switch the burden of proof; from professional climate alarmists (government-funded) to skeptics (self-funding, independents). Dr Trenberth says:

 “the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is now so clear that the burden of proof should lie with research which seeks to disprove the human role.”

But Trenberth’s “clear evidence” is merely the opinions of fellow well-funded government researchers. As Popper teaches us, relying on opinion isn’t science, it is politics. And as many skeptics have said in reply, if alarmists are “winning the argument” (i.e. the data supports your premise) there is no need to try to redefine the “null hypothesis” in your favor.

So, for non-scientists let us look a little closer at why the Null Hypothesis is so important here. It may also be defined as:

“A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis”

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/null_hypothesis.asp#ixzz1cjwawxKK

So what are the two variables at issue here?  Rising or falling levels of global temperature is one, and CO2 emissions is the other. The Null Hypothesis, by definition, claims NO CONNECTION between those two variables.

But what does the best long-term evidence show? Check out below a well-known graph that shows how CO2 levels and temperatures do not correlate over the last 600 millions years:

Global Temperatures since 1900, are said to have risen by less than one degree Celsius (with a margin of error of about half a degree). This is shown below in the UN’s official ‘hockey stick’ graph, covering 1,000 years till present era:

Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have arguably risen by about a third in that period. Even if you wanted to believe this trivial correlation is proof of causation, it still is very far short of proving any dangerous or unprecedented climate impact from human emissions.

Paleoclimate evidence proves the above variation is certainly well within natural variation, on a geological timescale.

Moreover, government computer models did not predict this outcome. For example, look back at the highly celebrated computer simulated Milleniums TAR and SRES forecasts of 2000. These were verified by 40 government-funded institutes. At that time, they indicated the supposed underlying power of CO2, their projections showed heating of the globe exponentially (feedback of newly generated CO2 increasing the forcing). But there has been no “runaway” feedback from the elevated levels of CO2, only stagnated temperature rises.

In effect, despite 30 years and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the issue, proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise have failed to prove that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 equate to higher global temperatures.

Therefore: 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.

No wonder the alarmists want to switch the burden of proof to skeptics!

Persisting with their alarmist claims show government ‘experts’ are analogous to a drug manufacturer who argues a new treatment they possess is simply too important to delay use and they have consensus opinion on their side. So, the patient must take the new drug unless, or until skeptics prove the drug doesn’t work.

Also, alarmists often try to challenge skeptics to specifically define a null hypothesis. But in science it is not necessary to assign the falsification criteria. You need only show that something is NOT possible, NOT offer the alternative explanation.

A summary of yet more key points skeptics cite in evidence to prove a “null” impact by humans may be listed as follows:

• The missing ‘Hidden’ heat, which alarmists say is possibly in the oceans;
• Michael Mann’s discredited hockey stick graph – based on one tree ring;
• Observed temperatures less than IPCC projections even for zero greenhouse gas emission;
• ‘Climategate’ proving conspiracy to keep skeptical papers from being published;
• No change in global mean temperature pattern (0.06 deg C per decade warming and oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years) since record begun 160 years ago;
• No evidence of the characteristic greenhouse warming finger print in the mid troposphere ;
• CERN cloud chamber experiment – Svensmark’s theory now has laboratory evidence proving correlation of global mean temperature with cosmic rays;
• Evidence of oscillation of global mean temperature due to ocean cycles;
• Antarctic not warming overall and ice increasing;.
• Sea level rise slowing;
• Hurricane energy not rising and showing no correlation with CO2;
• Historical evidence for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) – as warm/warmer than now;

From such facts can anyone reasonably assert we face a climate catastrophe caused by CO2 from human industrial enterprise?

Answer: NO.

The current climate theories have done a very poor job of explaining why temperatures have leveled off while CO2 levels have shot up. CO2 cannot play the “dominant” role in climate change, otherwise it would have been physically impossible for temperatures to level off while CO2 was increasing.

Scientists agree that over the last 300,000 years there appears a relationship between temperature and CO2 levels, as shown from the ice core records. But that relationship is one where CO2 levels often rise around 800 years AFTER temperatures have risen, not the other way around (see graph below). Indeed, in a compelling video presentation, one of America’s top physicist, Professor Will Happer, agrees that CO2 levels RESPOND to temperatures, not the reverse.

But the whole issue is clouded further because government climate researchers are unable to account numerically for the large natural fluctuations that obviously dominated climate change prior to modern times. As such, we cannot say what proportion of modern climate change is of human origin. Claiming that natural fluctuations ceased in the modern era and all climate change in the modern era MUST be of human origin is an unscientific, faith-based position. To us climate realists, it is more likely the recent documented changes in the sun are a major cause.

Time to Reject the Greenhouse Gas Theory

What is surprising to those of us at Principia Scientific International (PSI) is that so many people tamely accept earth has a “greenhouse” effect caused by “greenhouse gases.” Many PSI members are trained in the ‘hard’ sciences. They are able to see that, unlike the greenhouse gas theory of climate ‘science,’ real greenhouses are NOT warmed due to the blocking of outgoing infrared radiation (IR) by the glass. Instead, we observe that the greenhouse effect in glass greenhouses is a result of reduced convection: the glass barrier prevents cooling from outside air movement. We explained this is great scientific detail in our book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ (2010).

Test it for your self. See what happens when you open a window on the top of a greenhouse to allow convection. It cools. Thus proving infrared ‘back radiation’ has nothing to do with it.

Thus, with such a fatally flawed nomenclature no wonder widespread misunderstanding and confusion reigns supreme. No wonder the term “greenhouse gas theory” doesn’t appear ANYWHERE in one of the most famous and extensive climate reports, ‘Charney (1979)‘ It is fair supposition that if went back to the original greenhouse gas theory and the role of CO2, we would see how badly wrong was the original explanation of how greenhouses work. We would see that government climate ‘experts’ got the greenhouse explanation wrong for the atmosphere as well.

And then the alarmists (and lukewarmers) will cry out:

“But it is a fact CO2 absorbs parts of the outgoing infrared radiation (IR), as proven by Tyndall many years ago!”

But at PSI we reply by saying that of course CO2 absorbs low-energy/frequency ~15 micron IR. You alarmists/lukewarmers miss off the other half: CO2 EMITs within a tiny fraction of a second that exact same low-E/frequency 15 micron IR. This is because CO2 is a perfect EMITTER.

Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) provides a peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’ that uses known and well-established values from the results of experiments performed previously by H. C. Hottel, B. Leckner, M. Lapp, C. B. Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim, et al,showing that the combined effect of overlapping absorption bands of water vapor with CO2 causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of the mixture of those gases in earth’s atmosphere.

As such, water vapor and CO2 are proven to combine to cause cooling, not warming.

Thus, the alleged “radiative greenhouse effect” merely delays the flow of energy by less than a blink of an eye through the system and has no effect on “average temperature”. It thus has no impact on the response time of the gases in the climate. Since atmospheric gases have the least thermal capacity of all the components present (atmosphere, oceans, land masses) the idea that they are controlling the “average temperature” is absurd.

Nahle’s paper affirms the overlooked 1950’s findings of the eminent former head of Britain’s Met Office, CEP Brooks, and the American Meteorological Society (AMS). They revealed that CO2 in the atmosphere could not cause warming. Brooks, Britain’s top climatologist at the time, along with America’s best meteorologists agreed that (see: pp. 1004-18 (at 1016)) the idea that CO2 could warm the climate:

“was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

[see: “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association]

This is especially true given the universal failure of climate models to correctly predict the current rate of warming, given the rapid increase in industrial CO2 emissions. In any other branch of science, this failure would be strong evidence that the theory is fundamentally wrong. The distinction of a scientific hypothesis from a superstition is that a superstition cannot be falsified. To the extent AGW is a scientific hypothesis, it is reasonable to say it’s been falsified by empirical evidence.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) seeks climate realism and asks that the null hypothesis be applied to the greenhouse gas theory. Uphold the traditional scientific method and reject the junk science that CO2 is our climate’s control knob.

John O’Sullivan, CEO, Principia Scientific International (PSI). PSI is legally incorporated in the UK as a non-profit serving a charitable purpose to advance knowledge of the traditional scientific method, as per the philosophy and ideas of Karl Popper.

Please donate $25 today to support PSI’s mission.

Trackback from your site.