What is the testable AGW Hypothesis?

[jc456]

The experiment is in progress, and we cannot go back or change the results, except for the worse.

Well than, you have no theory! The experiment isn't complete

 

[Crick]

What's your testable hypothesis Frank? Did you ever explain what you think constitutes evidence? I'll go look.

 

[Billy_Bob]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

What about the eighteen year pause in the IPCC AR5 report. Explain?

The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.

Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?

It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.

I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.

Then, how hot is 120PPM?

No testable hypothesis, no experiments, but the "Science" is settled

They are playing a shell game with temperatures hoping no one will uncover the real temperatures. Funny how I posted the IPCC and EPA version of CAGW and not one lib has refuted it or posted the real experiments to quantify their lies.. I predict that the same old crap will be posted up again by Tricky Dick Crick and others..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's your testable hypothesis Frank? Did you ever explain what you think constitutes evidence? I'll go look.

My testable hypothesis is that the AGW Cult has no hypothesis, you just point to the top weather story and blame it on, what are you calling it today, global warming? Climate Change? Climate Disruption?

What's the AGW Hypothesis?

I said, you tell my your AGW Hypothesis and I'll set up the experiments and tell you what would constitute evidence

 

[Crick]

That's incorrect Frank. You said that Mamooth's links to published, peer reviewed studies weren't evidence of AGW. You said they are just observations and that observations are not evidence. I then asked you to tell us what constitutes evidence. It was THEN you started demanding that we answer your demands for an AGW hypothesis.

That's just bullshit Frank. Why do you believe observations don't constitute evidence? If you don't know, be a fucking man and admit it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's incorrect Frank. You said that Mamooth's links to published, peer reviewed studies weren't evidence of AGW. You said they are just observations and that observations are not evidence. I then asked you to tell us what constitutes evidence. It was THEN you started demanding that we answer your demands for an AGW hypothesis.

That's just bullshit Frank. Why do you believe observations don't constitute evidence? If you don't know, be a fucking man and admit it.

Here's what Mamooth, to his/her credit, said, "The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Assuming that GHG have increased by 120PPM over the past 150 years, but I'll give you that, how much of the 120PPM is due to mankind? Let's say that it's 100%, I'll give you that!

The experiment should test for temperature increases in increments up to 120PPM of CO2.

Now, here where you post a chart with no temperature axis as "proof" that a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature -- right?

 

[mamooth]

Frank, there are these things called "thermometers" that have measured the warming and confirmed the hypothesis.

Now, you'll probably keep claiming that a measured increase in temperature isn't evidence confirming a theory that predicted an increase in temperature.

And that's why you're thought of as a pathologically dishonest troll.

 

[jc456]

Frank, there are these things called "thermometers" that have measured the warming and confirmed the hypothesis.

Now, you'll probably keep claiming that a measured increase in temperature isn't evidence confirming a theory that predicted an increase in temperature.

And that's why you're thought of as a pathologically dishonest troll.

no, what the argument is is that adding CO2, particularly, 120 PPM of it doesn't make the mercury go up. That's the argument. Now you claim you have 6 papers that show it does, and like I said, I'm too stupid to understand your 6 papers cause I didn't evah see that in any of what you ever posted EVAH. So why don't you just post the abstract of one of those 6 here on how CO2 makes the mercury go up.

 

[jc456]

That's incorrect Frank. You said that Mamooth's links to published, peer reviewed studies weren't evidence of AGW. You said they are just observations and that observations are not evidence. I then asked you to tell us what constitutes evidence. It was THEN you started demanding that we answer your demands for an AGW hypothesis.

That's just bullshit Frank. Why do you believe observations don't constitute evidence? If you don't know, be a fucking man and admit it.

Observed what? that CO2 increased to 400 PPM? yep we all agree with that, no argument by anyone on that, man made, not sure but ok, but now you need to show the observed increase in temperature due that added CO2 and bubba, you ain't evah done that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's incorrect Frank. You said that Mamooth's links to published, peer reviewed studies weren't evidence of AGW. You said they are just observations and that observations are not evidence. I then asked you to tell us what constitutes evidence. It was THEN you started demanding that we answer your demands for an AGW hypothesis.

That's just bullshit Frank. Why do you believe observations don't constitute evidence? If you don't know, be a fucking man and admit it.

Observed what? that CO2 increased to 400 PPM? yep we all agree with that, no argument by anyone on that, man made, not sure but ok, but now you need to show the observed increase in temperature due that added CO2 and bubba, you ain't evah done that.

Like I posted above:


"The 1 dimensional no feedback calculations for the expected warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 were done with a dry atmosphere and ignored the increased convection caused by the CO2 increase. Redoing the 1 dimensional calculations with using a conservative estimate of water vapor in the atmosphere and reducing the lapse rate due to increased convection reduces the surface warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2, no feedbacks by roughly a factor of 16 from 1.2C to 0.075C.

As the CO2 forcing in logarithmic half of the warming 0.075/2 or 0.037C can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore 95% of the 0.8C warming observed in the last 150 years is due to the solar cycle increase.

As there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate to solar cycle changes, the logical suspect for the cause of the warming in the last 150 years should have been solar cycle changes."

Some people are doing the math... Just 0.037 deg C is mans contribution.. The alarmists simply spew crap!

Source

 

[SSDD]

Some people are doing the math... Just 0.037 deg C is mans contribution.. The alarmists simply spew crap!

Source

And that 0.037 is probably just more natural variation due to an as of yet, unknown cause....we haven't even scratched the surface as to what actually drives the climate....maybe it's driven by monarch butterfly wings which are being killed off in droves due to idiotic biofuel requirements.

 

[mamooth]

Nah. You and Billy are just parroting hilariously stupid pseudoscience from a fake British lord.

Dang, that's desperate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nah. You and Billy are just parroting hilariously stupid pseudoscience from a fake British lord.

Dang, that's desperate.

No proof?

No rebuttal of the math?

You want to talk desperation, your showing it bad.. Your so desperate to make it go away you wont even try and show why you think its wrong.. Adhom attack is all you got...

 

[SSDD]

Nah. You and Billy are just parroting hilariously stupid pseudoscience from a fake British lord.

Dang, that's desperate.

No proof?

No rebuttal of the math?

You want to talk desperation, your showing it bad.. Your so desperate to make it go away you wont even try and show why you think its wrong.. Adhom attack is all you got...

Its all she ever had....she is a believer and in her eyes, you are a filthy heretic... If the bitterness and bile in her posts are any indication, she and people like her would have us unbelievers executed if it were within their power...crick already said as much and I didn't see any of the faithful speak up against his suggestion.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, We get it already. Your unrequited gay-lust has made you bitter towards those who won't give in to your gay-lechery.

Now, if you and Billy want to scream the discount viscount is an authority on something besides being a potty peer without peer, you are free to do so. Just understand even the other deniers want nothing to do with you. Even most deniers have limits to how far they're willing push the fraud, and Monckton goes way past those limits.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, We get it already. Your unrequited gay-lust has made you bitter towards those who won't give in to your gay-lechery.

Now, if you and Billy want to scream the discount viscount is an authority on something besides being a potty peer without peer, you are free to do so. Just understand even the other deniers want nothing to do with you. Even most deniers have limits to how far they're willing push the fraud, and Monckton goes way past those limits.

How troubled, and desperate and confused do you have to be to interpret someone calling you a bitter, dried up, humorless old woman as hitting on you? Apparently, that confusion and desperation spans all aspects of your life.

If you believe you have actual observed, measured data to refute anything he has claimed, by all means lets see it...you have been asked before and don't seem to be able to provide any actual data to support anything you believe...of course, that's how it is with faith. You feel it, but when you try to prove it, it's a whole different story. Perhaps much of your confusion, bitterness, and desperation stems from that conflict.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, you and Billy are now only interesting as examples of abnormal psychology and cult behavior. Otherwise, you're just boring. Do you think I haven't had gay stalkers before, and learned how to brush them off? (My stalkers seem to regard me as a stern daddy-figure who will punish them appropriately.)

Now, if you'd like to discuss the issues, don't do it by pointing to Monckton's inane Gish Gallop, since the use of that tactic is an admission of defeat. If you have a specific point to make, you should be capable of stating that point clearly in your own words. But if you have nothing, you can just keep pointing to Monckton's avalanche o' crap.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, there are these things called "thermometers" that have measured the warming and confirmed the hypothesis.

Now, you'll probably keep claiming that a measured increase in temperature isn't evidence confirming a theory that predicted an increase in temperature.

And that's why you're thought of as a pathologically dishonest troll.

Are you referring to the recent 2 decade pause?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do the warmers get paid per post?

 

[SSDD]

[QUOTE="mamooth, post: 13645600, member: 39072" ] SSDD, you and Billy are now only interesting as examples of abnormal psychology and cult behavior. Otherwise, you're just boring. Do you think I haven't had gay stalkers before, and learned how to brush them off? (My stalkers seem to regard me as a stern daddy-figure who will punish them appropriately.)[/quote]

Pitiful old woman...thinking someone who blatantly insults you is hitting on you....living in a fantasy world where AGW is real and people hit on you....how sad.

[QUOTE="mamooth, post: 13645600, member: 39072" ]Now, if you'd like to discuss the issues, don't do it by pointing to Monckton's inane Gish Gallop, since the use of that tactic is an admission of defeat. If you have a specific point to make, you should be capable of stating that point clearly in your own words. But if you have nothing, you can just keep pointing to Monckton's avalanche o' crap.[/QUOTE]

The issue is your inability to provide any actual observed, measured data that supports your claims....as you can clearly see...or not...you don't have any.

Hell, you can't even provide any actual evidence to support the most basic claim that man is altering the global climate...failing that, you fail everything else.