The fact is we have not done one experiment that has been successful in actually changing world climate therefore, human caused GW is an unproven hypothesis.
Hey goober, anything can be a science but, hypotheses cannot be proven without repeatable experiments. Black holes are an hypothesis that is being studied. Drawing concrete conclusions about black holes and trying to initiate government programs to somehow manipulate them (as is being done with the unproven hypothesis of GW) would be ludicrous.
Scientific empiricism is based on direct experience as well as observation however, both must be replicable. A computer model is not direct experience as it relies on human created code. Humans causing climate change must also be replicable which is (as of today) impossible.
You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung–Russell_diagram Feel free to show me where any experiment has replicated the iron core collapse of a massive star
Please stop using the word "hypothesis" incorrectly. Scientific methodology starts with observation, then a hypothesis is generated, then facts and data are examined to see if they support or contradict the hypothesis, and finally a theory is developed. AGW is a scientific theory long past the stage of simply being a hypothesis. Of course if a "theory" is proven it is no longer a theory. The "theory" is a transitional phase in explaning that which is observed in nature. Many theories can never be proven to be facts but some can. As noted though an "experiment" can be conducted to "prove" that AGW is not a theory but instead a fact. The problem is that it would require mankind to stop polluting the atmosphere with CO2 as well as regrowing the rain forests that we've destroyed. Not likely to happen but it would certainly prove that AGW is a reality. Because the "experiment" cannot be pragmatically conducted we create computer models that can be verified by using past climate change as the "test" to the validity of the model. We've done that and when we apply it to current climate change the only way we get the dramatic increase in global warming is by introducing the burning of fossil fuels and destruction of the rain forests. The computer models have been "certified" as being accurate based upon past documented climate changes and it is the computer models that reflect that AGW is real and the exact causes behind it. Now a case could be made if the math behind the computer models is wrong but that has never been demonstrated by anyone. The reason is simple because the math is not wrong. 2+2=4 and that has not been disputed by the scientific community. I have read some of the so-called theories that attempt to contradict AGW but they are myopic and false based upon examination. For example Svensmart & Friis-Christensen proposed that magnetic variation from the sun affected cloud formation on Earth and water vapor in clouds represents a major greenhouse gas. The problem with their proposal is that there hasn't been a significant change in cloud formation over the last 100 years that would correspond to the increase in global temperatures. They can't even establish correlation much less cause and effect. Their "theory" contradicts observation of nature and is therefore false. Fools may want to believe it but they do so by ignoring the observations of nature that invalidate the theory. One of the greatest problems for the deniers of AGW is that they correctly cite that man-made CO2 emissions are a very small part of the total greenhouse gases but then ignore that we're dealing with a balance beam where only a small "weight" can affect the balance. We could have a sensitive "teeter-tooter" (balance beam) with hundreds of pounds on each side keeping it in balance but just a few grams placed on one side would throw it out of balance. Mankind has tipped the scales with just a "few grams" of greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere while at the same time removing a few grams from the other side with deforestation.
Humans causing global warming is one hypothesis. Changing the climate at will is a separate, distinct hypothesis. I think what you are saying is that once we destroy the current climate we should be able to repair it by some sort of reverse engineering. Highly doubtful.
"Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the "97% consensus" hoax." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/...so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/ From the link: "Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong” and must be discarded. Global Warming Theory Has Failed (1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only (2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s (3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated. (4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards."
In theory it is possible as we know how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. liquify the atmosphere and then distill off the CO2) but it is an extremely expensive process and would be financially unviable. There is just way too much CO2 that would have to be removed to reverse the global warming.
Wow! Them goal posts sure got shifted quick! Talk about your straw men Again we are currently running the experiment - the climate is changing and there is evidence man is causing it
This is either a serious misunderstanding, or it's a word game. A fact is an observation, a theory is an explanation of observations. Explanations themselves are NOT observations. They are a different category of things. Even if the conclusion from a set of facts is obvious, invariable, with no known exceptions or even close, this conclusion is STILL not itself a fact, it remains only an extremely well-supported explanation. No amount of support can turn an explanation into the facts being explained. Category error. GONG!
If the experiment is currently running, then there is no proven hypothesis and thus no proven theory.
This is silly. Let's come up with rigidly formal, limited definitions. And hey, according to our new definitions, reality can't be proved, and might not even exist! Wow, man, heavy. Science, meanwhile, strives to derive the best-fit explanation for a body of observations. That explanation suggests a new set of observations to refine or discard the earlier explanation (when the evidence changes, the best-fit explanation of it can also change). This process iterates.
Once again for the hard of thinking. In the empirical world, there is NO PROOF of anything. Proof is impossible. It is one of the tenets of science that EVERY explanation of everything is tentative, subject to improvement, refinement, extension, or correction. Forever and ever. Experiments and observations can DISprove any proposal, but can never prove it, only lend additional support to it. Anyone who thinks a scientific theory can be proved has no clue what science is or how it works.
You're going to go with this as proof that the globe is NOT warming? The northern hemisphere is warming but the globe is not??? That's like saying the 4 cylinders on the right side of my truck engine are seizing but the radiator is not boiling over so drive on.
Cherry pick - and just watch where - because they have confined this to "satellite data" and in reality Australia (which last time I looked was in the SOUTHERN hemisphere) just had the hottest year on record http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...as-hottest-year-on-record-20131220-2zqpf.html Somehow this statement seems to imply that the southern hemisphere is not warming - wrong BUT the northern hemisphere is warming faster because THAT IS WHERE THERE IS MORE LAND (Duh!) This is merely an extension of the first Strawman - set up an unreferenced claim and then "prove" it wrong but his conclusion that somehow GHG theory is "wrong" is ludicrous - and even rejected by the respondents at WUWT and is he REALLY suggesting that enough to the surface temperature record is inaccurate enough to explain things? Has he not heard of the BEST project? Ah! NOW we get to the conspiracy theory!!
Citing Feynman as if he is with you on global warming isnt reasonable. - - - Updated - - - Oh good god do we need to go back to 101 and establish that no theory can ever be proven?
The mean temperature of the Earth is 287 Kelvin. (approx. 57F) ALL Greenhouse gases contribute about 32 Kelvin of that. That leaves 255 Kelvin (-0.67F) which would be the temperature of an Earth void of such gasses however, the Earth does not re-radiate the Sun's radiation, the Sun's radiation affects molecular movement which, in turn, causes a wide array of differing wavelengths to be emitted. These greenhouse gases are also not static, they typically react and are then gone and can also be transparent to altered re-radiated electromagnetic radiation received from the Sun. Your graph is woefully incomplete. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/161638/
But a computer program can be verified for accuracy based upon historical data. Does a computer projection match when compared to a know natural event? In fact the computer models have already been demonstrated to be overly conservative as the predictions of climate change based upon AGW are less than what we're actually experiencing. For example the models predicted polar melting but it is occurring faster than the model projected because of the conservative calculations related to CO2 increases and deforestation. That will obviously be adjusted in the model to achieve more accurate predictions in the future. Is the computer model perfect? Obviously not but they are very close as the trends predicted are extremely accurate with only the details being slightly off based upon conservative calculations that didn't want to over-estimate the problem of AGW.
This seems a bit beside the point. As people continue chuffing huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere, changes can be expected. What you're saying here is that the changes themselves are very difficult to predict, because the climate is a chaotic composite of countless independent variables, and no linear extrapolations are sensible. And I don't think anyone disputes this. All this chaotic non-linearity makes climate models annoyingly difficult to construct, and embarrassingly inaccurate in their predictions. But surely it's an error to say "we can't predict the effects in any detail, so let's all pretend there won't BE any effects."
No - although it is probably what you would have PREFERRED I discussed - no I mean this little inconvenient bit of scientific evidence here http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=337427&page=2&p=1063455830#post1063455830
False. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html False again. Global Mean Annual Temperature Average per Decade 1880s 13.73C 56.71F 1890s 13.75C 56.74F 1900s 13.74C 56.73F 1910s 13.72C 56.70F 1920s 13.83C 56.89F 1930s 13.96C 57.12F 1940s 14.04C 57.26F 1950s 13.98C 57.16F 1960s 13.99C 57.18F 1970s 14.00C 57.20F 1980s 14.18C 57.52F 1990s 14.31C 57.76F 2000s 14.51C 58.12F http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/changes-in-earth-temperature.php Where is this data. It is a known fact that the atmospheric temperature change far more radically than the Earth's surface temperatures. Check out the permafrost in the artic that never melts even when the air temperatures are well above freezing all summer long. Global warming by it's very nature is a long term event. Normally it takes thousands of years but that has been reduced to hundreds of years due to the dramatic impact of mankind adding tens of millions of year worth of the CO2 that was solidified by plant life in the past in coal as well as deforestation that diminishes the ability of the plant life to remove CO2 gases and return the carbon to a solid form. Annual climate changes fluxuate but global warming is a long term event measured in hundreds and thousands of years.
Exactly....the 'climate' is very complex and a graph proves nothing. My quarrel isn't with studying the climate and providing on-going information, it's with demanding that my tax dollars go to government programs that do nothing but try to prove there is a reason for their very existence and, in this case, creating a whole industry around an outcome based, so-called 'scientific' search to prove global warming.
Research isn't free. Are you saying it shouldn't be done? If so, why? If not, are you saying that those doing the research should not try to draw any tentative conclusions from their results? If not, who should? If nobody, why do any research? So far, the results strongly support AGW. I can't tell if your objection is to observing this support, or to publishing it, or to discovering it, or what. Are you saying we should not DO anything with our knowledge? If so, why bother learning? I don't understand your objection.
