What has caused our global warming?

[IlarMeilyr]

Hey Abe:

In what way is it that you CLAIM that AGW is "falsifiable?"

Christ Almighty, lass. Don't you fucking even know what that term means?

 

[jc456]

Welcome to the mob. You're the 1,921st poster here to confuse weather with climate.

What about the climate? What exactly is it of concern with the climate that lights you up? Please, I'm interested.

 

[jc456]

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

That's the point nimrod. If it's untestable it's classified as pseudo-science. End. Of. Story.
Thanks for making that so crystal clear. And I agree with flacaltenn...there is no way in hell you're an engineer. None at all.

Exactly, right? I don't understand his argument then. If he is stating that it hasn't been proven, then how is it we're supposed to believe someone saying it is our fault? Really, this stuff just makes me laugh. They provide graphs and say there, see the temperature went up. Ok, so? Prove why it went up. For me, I do know one thing, thousands of years ago the earth was covered with ice, now it is not. Why is that you may ask, because the earth warmed up. So excuse me for saying....duh when they post thier graphs.

 

[jc456]

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

This has to be the post of the year for me!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Man Made Global Warming Disproved « JoNova

 

[Abraham3]

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

That's the point nimrod. If it's untestable it's classified as pseudo-science. End. Of. Story.
Thanks for making that so crystal clear. And I agree with flacaltenn...there is no way in hell you're an engineer. None at all.

Exactly, right? I don't understand his argument then. If he is stating that it hasn't been proven, then how is it we're supposed to believe someone saying it is our fault? Really, this stuff just makes me laugh. They provide graphs and say there, see the temperature went up. Ok, so? Prove why it went up. For me, I do know one thing, thousands of years ago the earth was covered with ice, now it is not. Why is that you may ask, because the earth warmed up. So excuse me for saying....duh when they post thier graphs.

Man you guys are thick.

I never gave the slightest hint of agreement that it was untestable (actually, unfalsifiable would be the appropriate approach) and, in fact, somewhere around here I posted four falsifiable predictions made by AGW. My comment was a criticism of Mylar's thinking. If it's not testable - as he insists - it can NOT have been disproven. If any of you disagree with that point, please feel free to explain how its done. And I really hope you haven't all made the mistake (that you all sound as if you have) that if something was untestable or unfalsifiable, it is necessarily false. Cause, that just ain't the case. But, to back up. AGW is completely falsifiable. No one has been able to falsify it or its predictions because it is a valid theory. That' why 97% of the world's climate scientists accept it as established science. That's why 97% of the world's climate scientists and a equally sizable proportion of the scientifically literate think you guys are all thinking with the wrong head.

 

[Wyld Kard]

 

[Abraham3]

That's what you've got? Do the colors and the faux flames add anything? Falsifiability?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

That's the point nimrod. If it's untestable it's classified as pseudo-science. End. Of. Story.
Thanks for making that so crystal clear. And I agree with flacaltenn...there is no way in hell you're an engineer. None at all.

Maybe an Afro-American engineer.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

1) AGW is falsifiable.
2) AGW has not been falsified.
3) Ms Myla said both that it was not falsifiable and that it had been disproved. I just asked her how that had been managed.

Did you just miss that point of was this another of your pathetic attempts to squirrel around the facts?

I don't think you could chart that post with Sacajawea and a GPS.

 

[westwall]

Hey Abe:

In what way is it that you CLAIM that AGW is "falsifiable?"

Christ Almighty, lass. Don't you fucking even know what that term means?

No, he clearly does not. He's a buffoon.

 

[Abraham3]

This was posted twice in the Tyson thread. No one except Frank responded to it. Why don't you two give it a try.

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?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow. Who exactly is denying the Earth is warming or the GreenHouse effect?? NONE OF THAT is the ocean boiling, penguin roasting, baby drowning Global Warming that we are laughing at.....

except for your Number4 which is already false of course.... All you have is a coincidence between CO2 and a MILD increase in temp...

Tell us again what the temp anomaly will be 2047?????? THATS the falsifiable we are looking for here.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

 

[Abraham3]

Wow. Who exactly is denying the Earth is warming or the GreenHouse effect?? NONE OF THAT is the ocean boiling, penguin roasting, baby drowning Global Warming that we are laughing at.....

except for your Number4 which is already false of course.... All you have is a coincidence between CO2 and a MILD increase in temp...

Tell us again what the temp anomaly will be 2047?????? THATS the falsifiable we are looking for here.

Sorry dude, but you're not ALLOWED to make up what you claim AGW predicts. That would be a red herring or a straw dog or some other bit of FALSEHOOD.

You have almost ALL now claimed that AGW makes nothing but unfalsifiable predictions. Those four items are basic, fundamental predictions of AGW. Show us why they are unfalsifiable or admit that they are not.

You served up this plate. It's time to eat.

 

[Abraham3]

And, if you think that I have failed to cover all the basic points that lead one, inexorably, to accept AGW as valid, let us know what other predictions you think are REQUIRED in order to accept AGW but are not falsifiable.

Or you could man up and address the points already made.

 

[Geaux4it]

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available."

The three dominant factors affecting the Earth's temperature are the dramatically increased levels of greenhouse gases, the changes to the surface from deforestation and melting snow and ice, and the presence of aerosols from various natural and synthetic (ie, anthropogenic) sources.

ibid

"Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:[4]
o A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
o Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
o Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
o Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]"

Reference 4 is US EPA, OAR, Climate Change Division (December 2009), Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: Climate Change: US EPA (PDF), Press release: EPA's Final Endangerment Finding: Climate Change Facts. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.

Here's an interesting graphic. This is the output of a COMPUTER MODEL (ALERT, all you deniers get your hackles up). The model summed the noted forcing factors (solar, volcanic, sulfates, ozone and greenhouse gases) to come up with a total forcing. This is shown against the observed temperature trend (note the decent fit those of you that keep screaming the models don't work).

Numerous lines of evidence connect these factors to human activities and these factors to the observed temperature increases. It may be difficult to proceed beyond this point, however, as unlike the deniers here, all the reasonable, objective articles on this topic assume that global warming has been taking place and that the Greenhouse Effect is real. Lacking agreement on those points from a number of the folks around here is quite a wrench in the works. However, we (the folks who accept mainstream science) have spent far more than enough time attempting to convince the deniers here of the reality of these two points. I intend to proceed as if the audience here had reasonable intelligence and will treat global warming and the Greenhouse Effect as established facts, whether or not the audience concurs. I will do my best not to get drawn off debating whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow.

Human activity: the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation are the primary cause of the global warming we have experienced over the last 150 years. That warming presents a real threat to the human species.

((((YAWN))))

I thought this thread would of been about something important. Instead, fiction

-Geaux

 

[Abraham3]

I thought for a change you might have something to say. But, as usual, no.

PS: the gun gif is cute. Just like your penis.

 

[Geaux4it]

I thought for a change you might have something to say. But, as usual, no.

PS: the gun gif is cute. Just like your penis.

Thanks.. Have you been peeking?

-Geaux

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And, if you think that I have failed to cover all the basic points that lead one, inexorably, to accept AGW as valid, let us know what other predictions you think are REQUIRED in order to accept AGW but are not falsifiable.

Or you could man up and address the points already made.

LOL. Try some of the basics, Abe, before you plunge into the deep end of the pool, you puddle dweller.

FIRST, stop ducking it.

To the best that your severely limited comprehension allows you to complete the assignment, STATE in your own words what "falsifiability" means in science.

I ask you to use your OWN words because otherwise you will (predictably) simply quote somebody else's work as though that establishes that you have the slightest clue of what the words mean.