Climate Change Causation And The Scientific Method
Let’s have yet another go at trying to apply the scientific method to the subject of causation of climate change. This is just basic logic, and not that complicated. We can do it.
As simple and basic as this is, you will shortly see that the agglomeration of all of the world’s leading “climate scientists” can’t figure it out. They are completely lost and befuddled. Check me and see if I’m wrong.
The proposition we are addressing is the one for which you see a constant drumbeat of advocacy. It runs something like, “the climate is changing, and we are the cause.” OK, nobody denies that the climate is changing; but how about the “we are the cause” part? What is the proof?
Let’s apply the scientific method. We start with the basic maxim that “correlation does not prove causation.” Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses.
Everybody knows how this works from drug testing. We can’t prove that drug A cures disease X by administering drug A a thousand times and observing that disease X almost always goes away.
Disease X might have gone away for other reasons, or on its own. Even if we administer drug A a million times, and disease X almost always goes away, we have only proved correlation, not causation.
To prove causation, we must disprove the null hypothesis by testing drug A against a placebo. The placebo represents the null hypothesis that something else (call it “natural factors”) is curing disease X.
When drug A is significantly more effective at curing disease X than the placebo, then we have disproved the null hypothesis and established, at least provisionally, the effectiveness of drug A.
Back to climate change. The hypothesis is “humans are causing significant climate change.” An appropriate null hypothesis would be “observed climate change can be fully explained by some combination of natural factors.” How might you test this?
The most obvious test would be to ask, in Earth’s recent history, has it been warmer than the present — the present having been the subject of significant human greenhouse gas emissions?
If periods in the recent past prior to human emissions have been warmer than the present, then quite obviously some combination of “natural factors” is sufficient to bring about temperatures as warm or warmer than we are experiencing.
And it doesn’t matter whether or not we know what the alternative “natural factors” might be, any more than, in the failed drug trial, it matters whether or not we know why the placebo beat the experimental drug.
In the failed drug trial, it could have been the human immune system, or it could have been gut bacteria, or it could have been the weather, or anything else. The fact is that, whatever they might have been, the “natural factors” outperformed the experimental drug.
For the test of the climate hypothesis, consider a December 28 blog post from retired physicist Ralph Alexander titled: “New Evidence That Ancient Climate Was Warmer Than Today’s.”
Alexander summarizes the results of two recent studies:
-
A June 2020 piece from Nature titled “Persistent warm Mediterranean surface waters during the Roman period,” by a group of Italian and Spanish authors led by G. Margaritelli.
-
A November 2020 piece from New Scientist titled “Climate change has revealed a huge haul of ancient arrows in Norway,” by C. Baraniuk.
The Margaritelli et al piece analyzes proxy data from “fossilized amoeba skeletons found in seabed sediments” to reconstruct Mediterranean Sea temperatures over the past 2000 years.
“The ratio of magnesium to calcium in the skeletons is a measure of the seawater temperature at the time the sediment was deposited; a timeline can be established by radiocarbon dating.”
Conclusion:
With the exception of the Aegean data, the results all show distinct warming during the Roman period from 0 CE to 500 CE, when temperatures were about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average for Sicily and western Mediterranean regions in later centuries, and much higher than present-day Sicilian temperatures.
The Baraniuk study, from Norway, analyzes large new finds of ancient artifacts, including arrows, arrowheads, and clothing, that have been revealed by recent retreats of glaciers in that country.
But of course, the existence of the artifacts in these areas implies that the areas were not covered in ice at the time the artifacts were deposited:
That the artifacts come from several different periods separated by hundreds or thousands of years implies that the ice and snow in the region must have expanded and receded several times over the past 6,000 years. During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred from approximately 10,000 to 6,000 years ago and preceded the period of the stunning Norwegian discoveries, global temperatures were higher yet. In upper latitudes, where the most reliable proxies are found, it was an estimated 2-3 degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than at present.
Whether 2,000 years ago (the Roman Warm Period) or 6,000 years ago (the Holocene Thermal Maximum), these periods clearly long preceded any significant human greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Obviously, then, some combination of “natural factors,” whatever they may be, is sufficient to cause terrestrial temperatures to increase to levels as high or higher than we are experiencing today, in the era of human use of fossil fuels.
I should mention that the two papers discussed by Alexander are just the latest of many dozens of studies giving evidence for the proposition that times in the recent geologic past — either the Medieval Warm period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the Holocene Thermal Maximum — were warmer than today.
One collection of many papers, mostly focusing on the Medieval Warm Period, can be found at Craig Idso’s CO2 Science website.
You would think that the mainstream climate “science” would be focused like a laser beam on trying to deal with these early periods that were warmer than today. But instead, these guys have almost entirely taken a different approach.
They call their approach “detection and attribution.” Of many examples of the art, here is a major paper from 2018, sponsored by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with the title “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.”
The authors are a who’s who of the official climate establishment, including the likes of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gerald North, Gabriele Hegerl, and Ben Santer.
Instead of evaluating whether available data refute either their main hypothesis (human causes) or the null hypothesis (natural factors), these guys adopt a different approach which I would describe as “we can’t think of anything else other than human greenhouse gas emissions that could be causing this, so therefore human emissions it is.”
They create so-called models of what they think natural factors might cause in the way of warming and then test those against the data. Since when does that prove anything?
The article is very long and riddled with nearly impenetrable jargon that makes it nearly impossible to get a good quote, but here are a couple of the best:
Attribution studies have applied multi-signal techniques to address whether or not the magnitude of the observed response to a particular forcing agent is consistent with the modeled response and separable from the influence of other forcing agents. The inclusion of time-dependent signals has helped to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic forcing agents. As more response patterns are included, the problem of degeneracy (different combinations of patterns yielding near-identical fits to the observations) inevitably arises. Nevertheless, even with the responses to all the major forcing factors included in the analysis, a distinct greenhouse gas signal remains detectable. Overall, the magnitude of the model-simulated temperature response to greenhouse gases is found to be consistent with the observed greenhouse response on the scales considered.
And here’s another:
To detect the response to anthropogenic or natural climate forcing in observations, we require estimates of the expected space-time pattern of the response. The influences of natural and anthropogenic forcing on the observed climate can be separated only if the spatial and temporal variation of each component is known. These patterns cannot be determined from the observed instrumental record because variations due to different external forcings are superimposed on each other and on internal climate variations. Hence climate models are usually used to estimate the contribution from each factor.
Apparently, this kind of mumbo jumbo is good enough to fool pretty much all of academia, and almost all journalists, not to mention gaggles of billionaires. But how about the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period? Don’t those refute the whole thing?
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
In medieval times witches were thought to control the weather and by burning them all severe weather events would be eliminated. Now we are all guilty and must stop using fossil fuels which will result in the death of millions because of unaffordable energy and increased poverty and suspect a complete failure of our electricity supply systems.
Reply
Globeinfolive
| #
[…] Trackback from your site. […]
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan and Francis and PSI Readers,
You (Alan) wrote: “Let’s apply the scientific method. We start with the basic maxim that “correlation does not prove causation.” Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses.”
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of ‘Dialogues Coneerning Two New Science’ wrote a preface to the readers of this book. In which I read (as translated to English from Italian by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio): “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
After I read your statement, I have to ask: What is this scientific method? Is it a maxim?
However, the reason I decided to make this comment was: “Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses.” You have not tried to accurately define (describe) how this might be done.
I consider the author of the Sherlock Holme’s Mysteries does accurately define How? “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” However, I, as a scientist, I have been taught that we can never learn the TRUTH; for as you wrote “by disproof of all relevant … hypotheses.” I do not believe that hypotheses need to be limited. So, as scientist, I can never know what all relevant hypotheses might be.
In fact, as I attempt to illustrate how common measured atmospheric temperature and common measured atmospheric dew point temperatures, being measured at the same time and place (anywhere) absolutely refute the hypothesis of the idea (theory) known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE) I discover that neither Francis nor you have identified this as the fundamental hypothesis related the ‘issue’ of human caused climate change.
For Francis wrote: “The proposition we are addressing is the one for which you see a constant drumbeat of advocacy. It runs something like, “the climate is changing, and we are the cause.” OK, nobody denies that the climate is changing; but how about the “we are the cause” part?”
The idea of the GHE has a prediction by which the idea can be tested. I have also learned that if an idea is totally explaining what is already known, it does not qualify as being a scientific hypothesis (idea, theory). There must be a prediction so a ‘new’ idea can be tested. It is well known that the prediction of the GHE is that the temperature of the atmosphere what be about 33C less than it observed to be if not for the presence the carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.
So back to the ‘proof’ that the GHE is an absolutely wrong idea. The observation is that the measured atmosphere temperature is never less than the measured atmosphere’s dew point temperature being measured at the same time (whenever) and the same place (wherever). Hence, the measured atmospheric temperature can never be less (for any reason) than that being measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan and Francis and PSI Readers,
You (Alan) wrote: “Let’s apply the scientific method. We start with the basic maxim that “correlation does not prove causation.” Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses.”
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of ‘Dialogues Coneerning Two New Science’ wrote a preface to the readers of this book. In which I read (as translated to English from Italian by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio): “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
After I read your statement, I have to ask: What is this scientific method? Is it a maxim?
However, the reason I decided to make this comment was: “Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses.” You have not tried to accurately define (describe) how this might be done.
I consider the author of the Sherlock Holme’s Mysteries does accurately define How? “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” However, I, as a scientist, I have been taught that we can never learn the TRUTH; for as you wrote “by disproof of all relevant … hypotheses.” I do not believe that hypotheses need to be limited. So, as scientist, I can never know what all relevant hypotheses might be.
In fact, as I attempt to illustrate how common measured atmospheric temperature and common measured atmospheric dew point temperatures, being measured at the same time and place (anywhere) absolutely refute the hypothesis of the idea (theory) known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE) I discover that neither Francis nor you have identified this as the fundamental hypothesis related the ‘issue’ of human caused climate change.
For Francis wrote: “The proposition we are addressing is the one for which you see a constant drumbeat of advocacy. It runs something like, “the climate is changing, and we are the cause.” OK, nobody denies that the climate is changing; but how about the “we are the cause” part?”
The idea of the GHE has a prediction by which the idea can be tested. I have also learned that if an idea is totally explaining what is already known, it does not qualify as being a scientific hypothesis (idea, theory). There must be a prediction so a ‘new’ idea can be tested. It is well known that the prediction of the GHE is that the temperature of the atmosphere what be about 33C less than it observed to be if not for the presence the carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.
So back to the ‘proof’ that the GHE is an absolutely wrong idea. The observation is that the measured atmosphere temperature is never less than the measured atmosphere’s dew point temperature being measured at the same time (whenever) and the same place (wherever). Hence, the measured atmospheric temperature can never be less (for any reason) than that being measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Now that is a well written piece. Other scribes should take note of it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
The title of Francis’s article was: ‘Climate Change Causation And The Scientific Method’.
I consider ‘The Scientific Method’ a more important and fundamental scientific issue than the causation of climate change.
For much of my life I did not consider the study of history a productive activity. Because of what I read here at PSI and elsewhere it has become obvious that it is an essential activity. And ‘accurate definition’ requires that I refer to the ‘modern Scientific Method’ and not just to the ‘Scientific Method’. For I see I never named the author of ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ for modern non-scientists are often aware of the fact that the author was the Italian Galileo Galilei. And I believe that these modern non-scientists are aware that this book transformed that which might be called the ‘Science’ of Aristotle and his fellow Greek philosophers who endorsed his reasonings.
For most modern non-scientists who that Galileo began to refute a few of Aristotle’s wrong ideas by observing and reporting what he observed in his book. Hence these non-scientists know that Galileo’s dramatically changed the old science into a modern science. However, I doubt if many modern (todays) scientists and non-scientists alike, know what the issue of accurate definition was and is about.
Louis Elzevir, a Dutch publisher, obviously could read the Italian language, and saw that Galileo had written (Third Day): “In dealing with steady or uniform motion, we need a single definition which I give as follows: By steady or uniform motion, I mean one in which the distances traversed by the moving particle during any equal intervals of time are themselves equal.
“We must add to the old definition (which defined steady motion simply as one in which equal distances are traversed in equal times) the word “any,” meaning by this, all equal intervals of time; for it may happen that the moving body will traverse equal distances during some equal intervals of time and yet the distances traversed during some small portion of these time-intervals may not be equal, even though the time-intervals be equal.”
Louis Elzevir understood the importance of the addition of the word ‘any’ to the old definition of uniform motion. If one has not read Galileo’s book, one likely does not know (be aware) that Galileo changed the old definition by adding the word ‘any’. Hence, one is ignorant because one does not know that which is simply HISTORY.
I have learned from John O’Sullivan the need to keep my essays and comments brief. So, I stop here, to give you time to ponder the history which I have reviewed as I hope you, or some other PSI reader, might get a copy of Galileo’s book to read if they have a real interest in learning what modern science and THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is about. So, after a day or two, I plan to add another brief comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
I was referring to Menton’s article.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
Sorry, but you really do need to learn to accurately define what you write. So, I will not waste my time writing to someone who doesn’t seem to care about what I write.
So unless some other PSI encourages me, I will look for other opportunities to share my knowledge. Knowledge because if read that Einstein stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience. For I have had many unique experiences as a scientist..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
The title of Francis’s article was: ‘Climate Change Causation And The Scientific Method’.
I consider ‘The Scientific Method’ a more important and fundamental scientific issue than the causation of climate change.
For much of my life I did not consider the study of history a productive activity. Because of what I read here at PSI and elsewhere it has become obvious that it is an essential activity. And ‘accurate definition’ requires that I refer to the ‘modern Scientific Method’ and not just to the ‘Scientific Method’. For I see I never named the author of ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ for modern non-scientists are often aware of the fact that the author was the Italian Galileo Galilei. And I believe that these modern non-scientists are aware that this book transformed that which might be called the ‘Science’ of Aristotle and his fellow Greek philosophers who endorsed his reasonings.
For most modern non-scientists who that Galileo began to refute a few of Aristotle’s wrong ideas by observing and reporting what he observed in his book. Hence these non-scientists know that Galileo’s dramatically changed the old science into a modern science. However, I doubt if many modern (todays) scientists and non-scientists alike, know what the issue of accurate definition was and is about.
Louis Elzevir, a Dutch publisher, obviously could read the Italian language, and saw that Galileo had written (Third Day): “In dealing with steady or uniform motion, we need a single definition which I give as follows: By steady or uniform motion, I mean one in which the distances traversed by the moving particle during any equal intervals of time are themselves equal.
“We must add to the old definition (which defined steady motion simply as one in which equal distances are traversed in equal times) the word “any,” meaning by this, all equal intervals of time; for it may happen that the moving body will traverse equal distances during some equal intervals of time and yet the distances traversed during some small portion of these time-intervals may not be equal, even though the time-intervals be equal.”
Louis Elzevir understood the importance of the addition of the word ‘any’ to the old definition of uniform motion. If one has not read Galileo’s book, one likely does not know (be aware) that Galileo changed the old definition by adding the word ‘any’. Hence, one is ignorant because one does not know that which is simply HISTORY.
I have learned from John O’Sullivan the need to keep my essays and comments brief. So, I stop here, to give you time to ponder the history which I have reviewed as I hope you, or some other PSI reader, might get a copy of Galileo’s book to read if they have a real interest in learning what modern science and THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is about. So, after a day or two, I plan to add another brief comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I paid strict attention to what I had done as I submitted this comment. So I know that I only clicked the Submit button once. I also know that I did not directly compose my comments here at PSI, instead they often are composed elsewhere, copied, and pasted here. Is this the problem and is there any solution to it?
Reply