Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would he debate a losing argument when he's totally unarmed?
What's he going to do show the only and only lab experiment that shows 200PPM CO2 causing hurricanes?
Who are you talking about?
Tyson?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA... Jesus Frank thinks Tyson is "totally unarmed". Pay attention Skooks, now THIS is FUNNY.
Why would he debate a losing argument when he's totally unarmed?
What's he going to do show the only and only lab experiment that shows 200PPM CO2 causing hurricanes?
Who are you talking about?
Tyson?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA... Jesus Frank thinks Tyson is "totally unarmed". Pay attention Skooks, now THIS is FUNNY.
I have been told by four different deniers that AGW was not falsifiable. I have yet to get an explanation for that position. What's the hold up?
Frank, why don't you go back to bed. The grownups need to talk.
This is certainly a point worth discussion on AGW and any other scientific topic of public interest. What I see, however, when I look for arguments on this topic is some very widespread misunderstanding as to what many members of the public believe AGW is theorized to DO. That is, a great many people believe - or claim to believe - that AGW predicts things which it does not.
Climate scientists are not predicting that every piece of matter on the planet's surface, in its atmosphere or in its ocean is going to continually increase in temperature in lockstep with the atmospheric CO2 level. Both theoretically and observationally, warming from the Greenhouse effect is relatively weak and can be and has been overcome repeatedly by transient natural phenomena. The common complaint: that people who accept AGW have claimed it can be responsible for cooling as well as warming is simply false. AGW is simply easily overcome on a temporary basis and thus temporary cooling does not falsify it. The prediction here would be that a transient cause will be found for the hiatus and that warming will resume when former conditions resume. Now this particular point is actually moot. The measured radiative imbalance at the ToA and the increased rate of warming of the deep ocean show quite clearly that the EARTH'S TOTAL HEAT CONTENT IS STILL RISING. There has been no hiatus in warming. The only thing that has changed has been the locations where that heat energy ends up. This is actually off the topic of falsification, but I couldn't let such a faulty assumption go unchallenged.
As was noted in several of the articles I read on this topic, the crucial point is not whether or not warming is taking place (I won't go into how stupid you'd have to be to challenge the thousands and thousands of direct measurements that show that it has) it is whether or not that warming has been primarily anthropogenic.
Falsifiable predictions of AGW
1) Direct measurements of the radiative imbalances at the ToA will show that the Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating away (establishes radiative warming)
2) CO2, methane, ozone or other anthropogenic gases will be found to preferentially absorb IR radiation (establishes the Greenhouse Effect)
3) Humans will be found to be responsible for the vast majority (let's say 95%) of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 (establishes that human activity bears primary responsibility for the CO2-based Greenhouse warming since 1750)
4) By direct calculation, warming from anthropogenic GHGs will be found responsible for the majority (>50%) of the radiative forcing warming the planet (establishes predominance of Greenhouse warming over other effects)
Would anyone care to explain why any or all of these four predictions can't be falsified?
Frank, why don't you go back to bed. The grownups need to talk.
This is certainly a point worth discussion on AGW and any other scientific topic of public interest. What I see, however, when I look for arguments on this topic is some very widespread misunderstanding as to what many members of the public believe AGW is theorized to DO. That is, a great many people believe - or claim to believe - that AGW predicts things which it does not.
Climate scientists are not predicting that every piece of matter on the planet's surface, in its atmosphere or in its ocean is going to continually increase in temperature in lockstep with the atmospheric CO2 level. Both theoretically and observationally, warming from the Greenhouse effect is relatively weak and can be and has been overcome repeatedly by transient natural phenomena. The common complaint: that people who accept AGW have claimed it can be responsible for cooling as well as warming is simply false. AGW is simply easily overcome on a temporary basis and thus temporary cooling does not falsify it. The prediction here would be that a transient cause will be found for the hiatus and that warming will resume when former conditions resume. Now this particular point is actually moot. The measured radiative imbalance at the ToA and the increased rate of warming of the deep ocean show quite clearly that the EARTH'S TOTAL HEAT CONTENT IS STILL RISING. There has been no hiatus in warming. The only thing that has changed has been the locations where that heat energy ends up. This is actually off the topic of falsification, but I couldn't let such a faulty assumption go unchallenged.
As was noted in several of the articles I read on this topic, the crucial point is not whether or not warming is taking place (I won't go into how stupid you'd have to be to challenge the thousands and thousands of direct measurements that show that it has) it is whether or not that warming has been primarily anthropogenic.
Falsifiable predictions of AGW
1) Direct measurements of the radiative imbalances at the ToA will show that the Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating away (establishes radiative warming)
2) CO2, methane, ozone or other anthropogenic gases will be found to preferentially absorb IR radiation (establishes the Greenhouse Effect)
3) Humans will be found to be responsible for the vast majority (let's say 95%) of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 (establishes that human activity bears primary responsibility for the CO2-based Greenhouse warming since 1750)
4) By direct calculation, warming from anthropogenic GHGs will be found responsible for the majority (>50%) of the radiative forcing warming the planet (establishes predominance of Greenhouse warming over other effects)
Would anyone care to explain why any or all of these four predictions can't be falsified?
You take a political stance on science Frankie.
Instead of accepting our BEST information at the time you accept a political driven pack of fucking lies.
there is just no way around that
You take a political stance on science Frankie.
Instead of accepting our BEST information at the time you accept a political driven pack of fucking lies.
there is just no way around that
The Vostok Ice Cores, apolitical, show CO2 lagging temperature on the increase and decrease
