Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[jc456]

These are not speculation. These are facts.

Our global thermometer since 1850

This is the 7th episode in a series recounting the history of measurements and data related to Global Climate Change. If you’re just joining, you can catch up on the previous episodes: Episod…

www.rescuethatfrog.com

Where’s that global thermometer? LOL Peter Pan

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[abu afak]

Dr Patrick Moore...."The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm."

​

Global climate change denial​

In 2006, [Moore] disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[60] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[61] He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change.[62]....
[.....]
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58]
Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9]
His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian Logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP)."..."

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[abu afak]

Dr Patrick Moore...."The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm."

​

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

 

[Crick]

From the Criticism segement of Wikipedia's article on Dr Patrick Moore

Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58] Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure.[44][68]

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group, criticized Moore, saying that his comment in 1976 that "it should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in this apparently insoluble problem" was seen as forecasting his own future.[69] A Columbia Journalism Review editorial criticizes the press for uncritically printing "pro-nuclear songs" such as Moore's, citing his role as a paid spokesperson of the nuclear industry.[69][70]

During an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot" and "I'm not stupid" before ending the interview. Monsanto, the primary producers of glyphosate weedkillers under the Roundup brand, denied claims that Moore is a paid lobbyist for their company.[71][72] The interview came shortly after the release of a World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of probable carcinogens.[73][74]

---

Dr Moore is paid to do PR work for the mining, timber and nuclear industries. He has never been involved in the conduct or analysis of climate research. He has, in fact, never been employed as a research scientist in any capacity. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth on this topic

 

[Pappadave1]

These are not speculation. These are facts.

Our global thermometer since 1850

This is the 7th episode in a series recounting the history of measurements and data related to Global Climate Change. If you’re just joining, you can catch up on the previous episodes: Episod…

www.rescuethatfrog.com

BS. There were NO "world-wide" temperature monitoring stations in 1850...not even close. These are ESTIMATES (guesses). Get a clue.

 

[Crick]

BS. There were NO "world-wide" temperature monitoring stations in 1850...not even close. These are ESTIMATES (guesses). Get a clue.

There are no ""world-wide"" temperature monitoring stations in 2023. There WERE thermometers in 1850 and it IS considered the beginning of the instrumented record.

 

[Pappadave1]

There are no ""world-wide"" temperature monitoring stations in 2023. There WERE thermometers in 1850 and it IS considered the beginning of the instrumented record.

Are you REALLY this ignorant, or is it an act? There were thermometers in 1850, but none nearly as accurate as those in use today and NONE world-wide so we could determine what were "average" global temperatures.

 

[Crick]

There were thermometers in 1850, but none nearly as accurate as those in use today

Thermometers could be calibrated even in 1850. And many of them still exist and can be examined. They can be recalibrated to see if their data ought to be adjusted one way or the other.

NONE world-wide so we could determine what were "average" global temperatures.

That's funny. Global temperatures are not taken by global thermometers. They are taken by thousands of thermometers from all over the planet, on land, in the air and under the sea. Computers put all those numbers together and if they discover something's off, like satellite sensor drift or some manufacturer did something wrong with all the thermometers he made, it can be fixed then. So, the computers come up with an average for the planet.

There were thermometers BEFORE 1850. They were invented in 1654 so we had 200 years to perfect and manufacture them before 1850. I guess there were just not enough around the world so that even the computers can come up with a reliable number for a global average.

 

[Samofvt]

These are not speculation. These are facts.

Our global thermometer since 1850

This is the 7th episode in a series recounting the history of measurements and data related to Global Climate Change. If you’re just joining, you can catch up on the previous episodes: Episod…

www.rescuethatfrog.com

Problem #1 - The chart does not show a cause-and-effect relationship. It is a well-known scientific fact that when you heat a liquid that is saturated with carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide will come out of the solution until it reaches an equilibrium.

Problem #2 - It is well known that climate can change rapidly over a short period of time. The chart only shows a very, *very*, short time frame. Yes, average temperatures are expected to increase because we are coming out of an ice age. In order to get a better understanding of the cycles of CO2 and Temperature, you have to look at least thousands of years. Millions of years is better. That information, along with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, has been decoded from geological records:

Average global temperatures will increase another 4 or 5 degrees C, regardless of what mankind does. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is required for life to flourish. Most likely, since concentrations of CO2 seems to be increasing alongside thawing tundra in northern latitudes, most likely there will be a vast increase in plant life. This is a good thing! Not something to be feared.

 

[Crick]

Hello, nice to meet you

Problem #1 - The chart does not show a cause-and-effect relationship. It is a well-known scientific fact that when you heat a liquid that is saturated with carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide will come out of the solution until it reaches an equilibrium.

Chart's don't show cause-and-effect relationship. I put up that chart in response to poster PappaDave1 claiming that AGW theory was not supported by any facts.

CO2 has two relationships with temperature. Gas solubility of all liquids is inversely proportional to temperature, so, as you say, when the ocean's temperature rises, less gas can go into solution there. Another point, however, is that the amount in solution is proportional to that component's partial pressure, opposing the first tendency. The second relationship, of course, is the greenhouse effect. When you increase CO2 or any of the Greenhouse gases into the air, temperatures will rise when it starts trapping IR coming off the surface of the planet.

Problem #2 - It is well known that climate can change rapidly over a short period of time.

That is not well known. The Earth's climate has changed rapidly on a few rare instance under rather special conditions. For the vast bulk of the Earth's history, climate has changed at a "glacial" pace.

The chart only shows a very, *very*, short time frame.

It shows what I intended it to show. I have posted many graph in this forum at every timescale available. I have explained why I posted that particular graph. Sorry you didn't notice.

Yes, average temperatures are expected to increase because we are coming out of an ice age.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. We were already OUT of a glacial period and were slowly descending into the next before AGW overwhelmed normal glacial cooling. Examine these graphs:

RealClimate: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene

RealClimate: Recently a group of researchers from Harvard and Oregon State University has published the first global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years – that’s the whole Holocene (Marcott et al. 2013). The results are striking and worthy of further discussion, after the...

www.realclimate.org

On this one, note the behavior of all the previous interglacial peaks and then the temperatures just prior to the present time. We had already passed the peak (the Holocene Optimum) and were headed down.

Climate Change Resource Center | US Forest Service Research and Development

The Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC) connects land managers and decision makers with useable science to address climate change in natural resources planning and management.

www.fs.usda.gov

The warmng experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is most assuredly NOT part of our glacial cycle.

In order to get a better understanding of the cycles of CO2 and Temperature, you have to look at least thousands of years. Millions of years is better. That information, along with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, has been decoded from geological records:

View attachment 780870​

If you want to see glacial cycles, the best plots are the EPICA ice cores

Average global temperatures will increase another 4 or 5 degrees C, regardless of what mankind does.

That is incorrect.

Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is required for life to flourish.

Let me know if you can find someone sufficiently ignorant as to not realize that point.

Most likely, since concentrations of CO2 seems to be increasing alongside thawing tundra in northern latitudes, most likely there will be a vast increase in plant life. This is a good thing! Not something to be feared.

Ohh... never mind that last...

 

[Pappadave1]

Thermometers could be calibrated even in 1850. And many of them still exist and can be examined. They can be recalibrated to see if their data ought to be adjusted one way or the other.

That's funny. Global temperatures are not taken by global thermometers. They are taken by thousands of thermometers from all over the planet, on land, in the air and under the sea. Computers put all those numbers together and if they discover something's off, like satellite sensor drift or some manufacturer did something wrong with all the thermometers he made, it can be fixed then. So, the computers come up with an average for the planet.

There were thermometers BEFORE 1850. They were invented in 1654 so we had 200 years to perfect and manufacture them before 1850. I guess there were just not enough around the world so that even the computers can come up with a reliable number for a global average.

LOL. So you're saying that someone has had access to the thermometers that someone had in northern Siberia or Antarctica or the Belgian Congo or the Australian outback in 1850 and calibrated them to assure their accuracy?

 

[Pappadave1]

There are no ""world-wide"" temperature monitoring stations in 2023. There WERE thermometers in 1850 and it IS considered the beginning of the instrumented record.

Actually, there ARE quite a number of monitoring stations all over the world today...just not as many as there used to be after the ENVIRO-NUTS found it too much trouble to drive or fly hundreds of miles just to read and calibrate all those remote stations so only decided to do that for the ones closest to their homes in the cities.

 

[Crick]

Actually, there ARE quite a number of monitoring stations all over the world today...just not as many as there used to be after the ENVIRO-NUTS found it too much trouble to drive or fly hundreds of miles just to read and calibrate all those remote stations so only decided to do that for the ones closest to their homes in the cities.

I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsense. There ARE thousands of weather monitoring stations all over the planet. No one has to drive hundreds of miles to remote stations because they report via satellite. But there are NO "world-wide temperature monitoring stations" as you twice claimed.

 

[Crick]

LOL. So you're saying that someone has had access to the thermometers that someone had in northern Siberia or Antarctica or the Belgian Congo or the Australian outback in 1850 and calibrated them to assure their accuracy?

Thermometers were not placed where they could not be accessed. What would be the point?

 

[Pappadave1]

Thermometers were not placed where they could not be accessed. What would be the point?

The POINT is, if you cannot place thermometers in Siberia, the Antarctic, Congo or Australian Outback, there's no possible WAY to "average global temperatures" in 1850 so trying to compare TODAY'S temperature with 1850's is an exercise in futility.

 

[abu afak]

The POINT is, if you cannot place thermometers in Siberia, the Antarctic, Congo or Australian Outback, there's no possible WAY to "average global temperatures" in 1850 so trying to compare TODAY'S temperature with 1850's is an exercise in futility.

Not true.
They do it with everything from comparative Tree Ring width, to Ice Cores to (and even the types of pollen) even WAY further back than that.
`

 

[jc456]

​

Global climate change denial​

In 2006, [Moore] disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[60] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[61] He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change.[62]....
[.....]
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58]
Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9]
His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian Logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP)."..."

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

So you agree green peace is ignorant

 

[jc456]

​

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

You can’t provide one link that can contain evidence man does anything to our atmosphere.

Typical nonsense

 

[jc456]

There are no ""world-wide"" temperature monitoring stations in 2023. There WERE thermometers in 1850 and it IS considered the beginning of the instrumented record.

And they kept global records, or not