Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Pipirr]

I have to wonder ... if we got no real warming for the next two years, or four years, or eight years, or ...

at what point would we all call this a failed hypothesis?

Or to put it another way: at what point would we all call it falsified?

Plus, define real warming. If global average temperatures do not increase for the next ten years, but all the arctic summer ice melts, does that falsify 'anthropogenic global warming'? I'd say not.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for addressing the spin.

I suppose some people will just deny anything.

The more common problem is people not questioning what they hear, unless they have some reason not to like it.

 

[mhaze]

Or to put it another way: at what point would we all call it falsified?

Plus, define real warming. If global average temperatures do not increase for the next ten years, but all the arctic summer ice melts, does that falsify 'anthropogenic global warming'? I'd say not.

Wrong, it certainly would falsify it, as the theory is understood and promulgated today.

You could re engineer a new hypothesis to be tested which had perhaps, causative factors for this mix of events factored in.

 

[CapelDodger]

Excellent, necessary and exceedingly complex questions.

Which we won't even be able to answer precisely after the event, since we'll only have one real example to go on.

 

[mhaze]

Pixel,

That’s because I didn’t say anything that was incorrect.

I did not say what water vapour’s % effect was to warming.

As it turns out I wasn’t sure of the % effect.

So if the Carbon effect is a disputable high of 30 % it means that man 5 % contribution would be making a 1.5 % effect on Global Warming… still doesn’t sound shattering ?

Look, suppose we agree that the planet's "greenhouse effect" is 33C net-

Take all 20th century warming, 0.7C, assign it to AGW as a "max AGW".

AGW CO2 effect is 0.7/33 = 2.1% absolute maximum.

Realistically, maybe 0% to 0.5%. Zero is not unrealistic at all with negative feedback.

 

[AOK Tiger]

But keep in mind, too, that the scientific community already accepts that global warming is being caused, in part, by human activity.

Therefore, when they speak of "global warming" they don't bother to add "which, by the way, is driven largely by human activity".

 

[CapelDodger]

There is also the issue of what is causing change. The term they use is 'forcing'. Water vapour isn't causing any changes, but CO2 is.

Quite. The atmosphere isn't getiing warmer because it's getting wetter, it's getting wetter because it's getting warmer. Relative humidity remains the same, for the same physical reasons; absolute humidity responds to temperature.

 

[tyr_13]

Interesting. I just browsed over there and this is the top article:

Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds

Then there's this:

NASA Study Improves Ability To Predict Aerosols' Effect On Cloud Cover



That's also from page 1, the 10 most recent stories.

I can cite more if you like.

But keep in mind, too, that the scientific community already accepts that global warming is being caused, in part, by human activity.

Therefore, when they speak of "global warming" they don't bother to add "which, by the way, is driven largely by human activity".

Wait, the story you picked was one that says human warming is caused by aerosols that are caused by native people lighting fires? I'm not going to say that that invalidates the CO2 from industry AGW theories, but what are we supposed to do if we can't even have campfires to warm ourselves?

Also, the scientific community accepting that global warming is in part caused by human activity doesn't equate to them agreeing that it is largely due to human activity, what activity it is, how much, what to do about it, if anything, etc.

 

[Pipirr]

Wrong, it certainly would falsify it, as the theory is understood and promulgated today.

You could re engineer a new hypothesis to be tested which had perhaps, causative factors for this mix of events factored in.

Super. We can add you to the "anthropogenic global warming is falsifiable" camp.

 

[tyr_13]

Wait, AGW isn't supposed to be falsifiable? Do I have the wrong definition for the word, 'falsibiable'?

 

[CapelDodger]

I have to wonder ... if we got no real warming for the next two years, or four years, or eight years, or ...

at what point would we all call this a failed hypothesis?

I was thinking the same thing back in the mid-80's and my conclusion was "the next ten years will tell". My original opinion back in the early 70's was that AGW would be negligible, since I was brought up in the "get over yourselves, humans, you're not that important" scientific tradition that goes back beyond Darwin. By the mid-80's I wasn't so sure, given what had already happened.

The decades after the mid-80's have indeed told, and they've told us that AGW is not going to be negligible. It already hasn't been.

Some people will always hold out for failure just around the corner, but they've already been doing it far too long to be credible.

 

[CapelDodger]

You could re engineer a new hypothesis to be tested which had perhaps, causative factors for this mix of events factored in.

Wouldn't that be training a model to fit past events? I thought you disapproved of that sort of thing.

Hypothesis : increasing atmospheric CO2-load by a third will have a noticeable impact on global temperature. Basis for hypothesis : CO2 is a determining greenhouse gas and the total greenhouse effect is about 30K. Observation : look around you.

Hypothesis confirmed. There's no call for a new one.

 

[Pipirr]

Wait, AGW isn't supposed to be falsifiable? Do I have the wrong definition for the word, 'falsibiable'?

Yeah, this one comes up from time to time. I won't derail by going into it.

I don't know if you have the wrong definition, but you do have the wrong spelling...

 

[CapelDodger]

Wait, AGW isn't supposed to be falsifiable? Do I have the wrong definition for the word, 'falsibiable'?

Of course it's falsifiable. If it hadn't happened it would have been falsified. If it stops happening it will be falsified.

How long are you prepared to wait before you accept that it isn't going to be falsified?

 

[CapelDodger]

Super. We can add you to the "anthropogenic global warming is falsifiable" camp.

Did you perhaps mean "isn't falsifiable camp"? I'm familiar with that sad bunch.

 

[Piggy]

Wait, the story you picked was one that says human warming is caused by aerosols that are caused by native people lighting fires? I'm not going to say that that invalidates the CO2 from industry AGW theories, but what are we supposed to do if we can't even have campfires to warm ourselves?

I picked the story because it was there.

The allegation was made that none of the stories on SD's climate page link human causes to GW.

So I was responding to that.

And the fires in the Amazon basin are not "campfires".

Also, the scientific community accepting that global warming is in part caused by human activity doesn't equate to them agreeing that it is largely due to human activity, what activity it is, how much, what to do about it, if anything, etc.

If you want an assessment of that, check out the IPCC recommendation to policy makers, as well as the position statements by EPA and NOAA.

 

[mhaze]

Super. We can add you to the "anthropogenic global warming is falsifiable" camp.

When you (they) come out with the New Improved Version, with no ancillary Big Government Taxes , No Carbon Cons, No Carbon Footsies, New Super Low CO2 Sensitivity, let me know.

By the way since you don't get it, let me explain:

"anthropogenic global warming is not falsifiable"

Is the complaint of skeptics of the handling of AGW hypothesis by Warmers. .

 

[mhaze]

....Hypothesis : increasing atmospheric CO2-load by a third will have a noticeable impact on global temperature. Basis for hypothesis : CO2 is a determining greenhouse gas and the total greenhouse effect is about 30K. Observation : look around you.

Hypothesis confirmed. There's no call for a new one.

yep, that's warmopia at werk.

 

[Piggy]

If anyone is interested, you can find the EPA's "State of Knowledge" summary here.

You can find the NOAA's climate change page here.

To save myself some time and trouble, I hope you don't mind if I repost a bit from another thread:

Regarding Tsonis and your other sources:

You have claimed they incidate valid predictions of a cooling trend which we should take seriously as a competing hypothesis standing alongside the predictions of warming trends.

Others on this thread have said that you are misinterpreting your sources.

My question to you was, and still is: If you are right and they are wrong, why is no research and testing being done using such predictions?

You're not going to wiggle out by trying to get me to do what others on this thread are already doing in an attempt to get me to drop the question.

As an example, look at Alzheimer's research. We don't know exactly what's going on. Therefore, people are doing research and testing on many different models.

So why aren't scientists doing any work based on these cooling predictions you speak of?

A: Because the data from all our various sources clearly indicates a warming trend.

Continued....

If you search the NOAA site for climate change information, you find that they agree with the IPCC.

For example, the director's testimony before the US Senate begins with 3 broad conclusions:

1. "The natural 'greenhouse' effect is real, and is an essential component of the planet's climate process."

2. "Some greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and increasingly trapping more heat."

3. "Some greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and increasingly trapping more heat."

The NOAA does not agree with you.

Director Karl continues:

"As atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increase, the resulting increase in surface temperature leads to less sea ice and snow cover helping to raise temperatures even further."

"There is a growing set of observations that yields a collective picture of a warming world over the past century."

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

"Scenarios of future human activities indicate continued changes in atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century.... The corresponding projected increase in global sea level by the end of this century ranges from 9 to 88 centimeters (4 to 35 inches). "

That was 7 years ago. Improvements in data and modeling have only confirmed the warming trend, and our confidence in the human role in causing it.

If you go to the current NOAA FAQ page on climate change, predictions of cooling are non-existent. Here is their predicted range of temperature change:

"According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used."

Yes, there is a scientific consensus on AGW.

 

[tojohndillonesq]

I am a bit disappointed in the continued ad hominem attacks. Is the goal of the sceptic to "win" by belittling and silencing the opponent, or to reach a rational conclusion?

The "majority of qualified scientists agree" is a classic error in logic known as "argumentum ad verecundiam." It is a reverse use of ad hominem. I could counter that the history of scientific revolution is the history of the majority being wrong... but that would be the reverse use of argumentum ad verecundiam.