Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

The rate of global warming is not a function of CO2 concentration. That is clear from the real world data. And it is also clear that global warming is net beneficial.

 

And if I do, will you then admit that your statement is false?

 

That is just plain nonsense

- - - Updated - - -

Then why do you argue the point? Experiments can be done to show how much CO2 concentration warms the atmosphere and how much. Even Myth busters can do it. Your point is mute.

 

Thanks for proving my point. You think a jar in a light box duplicates all climate positive and negative feedbacks?

 

Thanks for proving my point....ya got nuthin.

 

Well, since you think a jar in a lightbox proves the Earth reacts the same way, I would say you have more than nothing, in fact not even a rudimentary understanding.

 

Please look up the definition of a functional relationship.

Experiments cannot be set up because it is not possible to hold everything constant for thirty years whilst the CO2 concentration rises and the global average temperature is measured. Running experiments in test tubes is not equivalent.

 

So you got nothing also. If increased CO2 causes warming on a small scale it will do so on a large scale.

 

The environment in a test tube is the same as the global environment ?? Come'on man - that's ridiculous. But it does illustrate the difference between climate science and the religion of global warming.

 

The earth is still warming and man is the cause. That is a proven fact.

 

Increase in CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere cannot be proven to be the cause of the recent global warming trend starting in the mid 19th century. That is a factual statement.

 

Your statement is BS. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. It is not the only cause but it is a major cause. This has been proven.

 

Please read my statement again with a focus on understanding.

 

I did. It is still BS.

 

A purely false statement. It has been warming since the end of the little ice age long before SUVs were invented.

 

Sure. The hypothesis that CO2 sensitivity is much greater than the ~1C predicted by the physics of radiative heat transfer would be -- has been -- falsified by observations showing climate is relatively stable under varying CO2 concentrations.

The hypothesis that bad weather is caused by human CO2 emissions.

No.

Yes. But they are politically useful.

 

As CO2 has been steadily increasing the globe has gone through periods of cooling, warming, and stable temperatures. That is a factual statement.

 

First, let me say thank you for your picking up the discussion where Hoosier left off. Apparently, asking him to answer a direct question is his personal kryptonite as he has abandoned the conversation. Or it could be that a conversation was never really what he wanted in the first place. <shrug>

Your phrasing seems a little tortured here but, I think I agree with the overall gist of your example were it rephrased like this: "If the physics of radiative heat transfer indicated that there was a climate sensitivity of 1ºC, and someone hypothesized that there was some other mechanism 'X' that would contribute to a greater sensitivity" ... I would agree that that could be falsified by various observations. I would be more specific about what I meant by "observations showing climate is relatively stable under varying CO2 concentrations". But the fact that it would be falsifiable is correct.

I suspect that you would not find the rephrasing satisfactory however. So maybe in the interest of this discussion you could give me an example of a hypothesis that does not have to do with environmental science at all and what you feel would falsify it. That way we know we are both talking about the same thing here.

I don't know of anyone who has ever said anything like this but, again for the sake of discussion, if this hypothesis were ever made it would not be 'unfalsifiable' ... it would just be plain old 'False'. Bad weather demonstrably existed before any man made CO2 was emitted. So no, this is not a good example of an 'unfalsifiable' hypothesis.

The important bit here would be the 'why', why do you feel that the example given would not be 'unfalsifiable'? What in your opinion would falsify it?
Here was the example for reference:

1) All scientists who are proponents of AGW are 'Alarmists' and in on a global conspiracy.
2) Smart people reject 'alarmists'
3) There are no scientists (other than 'alarmists') who support the idea of AGW, and all smart people reject the theory of AGW, so therefore AGW is false.​

Sad but true. I have spoken out against both deniers and alarmists both. The press is the absolute worst communicators of science it is possible to imagine. All that they want is a catastrophe to cover, real or imagined, as long as it gets views.

 

The IPCC only makes projections not predictions. Only predictions are falsifiable. The projections are based on unfalsifiable computer models.

 

I am a retired engineer who has concluded that AGW is a fact. I am not an alarmist but I do reject them.

 

AGW is definitely not a fact. It is, at best, a theory (which in scientific parlance is pretty damn strong), and at worst a very, very well supported hypothesis. Any real engineer would be able to tell you the difference between a scientific fact and a theory.

Here is a handy guide I made for non-engineers you can print out and use for reference:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.​

 

Oh please - "I am a retired engineer who has concluded that AGW is a fact."

 

You have no clue what 'falsifiability' means

The above sentence is an assertion ... it's not a prediction and yet it is falsifiable (theoretically). Therefore the statement that ...

... is demonstrably untrue. All it would take to falsify it would be a coherent statement from you re: falsifiability.

That would be theoretically possible but not bloody likely.

 

I encourage you to use that handy guide to the 'fact', 'hypothesis', 'law', and 'theory' terminology. It will really help you out.