Can Global Warming proponents formulate

[ed]

You are making a claim with far reaching implications, it is up to you to support that claim. Thats science 101.

Supporting it is fairly easy. We know CO2 levels are riseing and we know that CO" creates a greenhouse effect. We have no reason to think that the greenhouse effect will stop working once a certian level of CO2 is reached (in fact we know it doesn't from the issues with venus.

You are obfuscating again. The point is that you are claiming that CO2 levels are a cause of GW and that the rise is man made. You have not addressed either point.

Either one can make a falsifiable hypothesis or not. If not we have entered the world of religion.

Your earlier effort failed in that regard. You do realize that, no?

You lack of understanding as to what falsifiable isn't my problem. If you wish to alter your request to "falsifiable with currently availible technology within a reasonable timeframe" please just say so.

Hypothesising technology to make a claim falsifiable is really absurd. If that is acceptable I am hard pressed think of any claim, wackey or no, that is falsifiable. This is the GW version of the plaint of the Woo who declares that "the paranormal will not appear for unbeliever". Sadly, you appear to be the one with an imperfect understanding of falsifiability. It's ok, seen it before with believers.

ETA I suspect that you will draw parallels to cosmology or somesuch and I think the argument that I make still holds. If you can't test it the conjecture is simply a conjecture. This is relevent because of the massive impact that "combating global warming Inc." would have on lots of things.

You can test it.

I understand that you claim that.

We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit.

That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).


For CO2 not to cause a greenhose effect requires our understanding of the behavior of CO2 and electromagnetic radation to be complete bollocks. Which is somewhat unlikely. It would also cause the problem that we would be unable to explain the surface temp of venus or why liquid water can commonly be found on the earth's surface (without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of earth would be probably a bit bellow -10C).

:D Cute. How many assumptions does it take for this one? This is hardly a controlled experiment, is it?

Here is what you are doing

http://magicanimation.com/misc/SidneyHa ... cleWeb.jpg

[xouper]

We hear talk about Greenhouse gasses. Are they a cause or effect. If one cannot answer that then there is a lot of stuff that is going on that is bullshit.

That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).

Wow. That is totally awesome. From now on, whenever I need something scientific explained to me, I'm coming to you for edification.

Was there some part of that you wished to dissagree with?

If for some reason I were to admit to that, then you would (perhaps rightfully) insist that I explain. But in this case, I'm not interesting in spending the effort, which might be considerable given the magnitude of error in your answer.

[sparks]

xouper, FTW.

[xouper]

Slightly off topic from ed's question:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/scien ... .html?_r=1

KOHLUA, India — “It’s hard to believe that this is what’s melting the glaciers,” said Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, as he weaved through a warren of mud brick huts, each containing a mud cookstove pouring soot into the atmosphere.

... In Kohlua, in central India, with no cars and little electricity, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, are near zero. But soot — also known as black carbon — from tens of thousands of villages like this one in developing countries is emerging as a major and previously unappreciated source of global climate change.

... awareness of black carbon’s role in climate change has come so recently that it was not even mentioned as a warming agent in the 2007 summary report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that pronounced the evidence for global warming to be “unequivocal.”

... Like tiny heat-absorbing black sweaters, soot particles warm the air and melt the ice by absorbing the sun’s heat when they settle on glaciers. One recent study estimated that black carbon might account for as much as half of Arctic warming.

So, the science is settled, eh?

[ed]

Sounds like we are making jobs rather than sound policy.

[Geni]

You are obfuscating again. The point is that you are claiming that CO2 levels are a cause of GW and that the rise is man made. You have not addressed either point.

Well thats because you don't appear to be able to make up you mind what you want proven.

Still again a fairly easy one.

In reverse first is the rise in CO2 levels is due to human actions. The only non human actively that produces CO2 levels to any significant extent is volcanos. Back in 1991 their emissions were probably a little bellow 1% of those of human beings:

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... re-co2.php

Human emissions have increased since 1991

http://web.archive.org/web/200708050308 ... e_glob.htm

CO2 in gas form produces a greenhouse effect therefore will tend to produce a warming effect if it is released into a planet's atmosphere

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter2.pdf (page 141)

You cannot release CO2 into the atmosphere of a planet orbiting a star that is warm enough for CO2 to be a gass and not very hot indeed without getting a greenhouse effect. Thats simply the result of the way CO2 interacts with electromagnetic radation in the infrared range.

Hypothesising technology to make a claim falsifiable is really absurd. If that is acceptable I am hard pressed think of any claim, wackey or no, that is falsifiable.

Huh? With advanced enough technology it becomes much harder to produce a claim that isn't falsifiable.

This is the GW version of the plaint of the Woo who declares that "the paranormal will not appear for unbeliever". Sadly, you appear to be the one with an imperfect understanding of falsifiability. It's ok, seen it before with believers.

Have you every actualy read much about the philosophy of science?

:D Cute. How many assumptions does it take for this one?

An objective shared reality, the laws of thermodynamics (mostly the first one) and that our understanding of CO2s interaction with infra red (quite well studied because it's an easy way to work of the shape of the molocule) isn't complete rubbish.

which one of these did you wish to challange?

This is hardly a controlled experiment, is it?

We've been doing controlled experiments into the greenhouse effect for about 150 years. It's a fairly well established theory.

We can also observe it on a number of planets:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/ ... house.html

Results are consistent with our theories and our understaning of CO2 and infra red radiation.

So far there have been zero controled experiments on the effect of polonium on humans. Want to try eating it?

[xouper]

You are obfuscating again. The point is that you are claiming that CO2 levels are a cause of GW and that the rise is man made. You have not addressed either point.

Well thats because you don't appear to be able to make up you mind what you want proven.

Still again a fairly easy one.

In reverse first is the rise in CO2 levels is due to human actions. The only non human actively that produces CO2 levels to any significant extent is volcanos. Back in 1991 their emissions were probably a little bellow 1% of those of human beings:

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... re-co2.php

Human emissions have increased since 1991

http://web.archive.org/web/200708050308 ... e_glob.htm

CO2 in gas form produces a greenhouse effect therefore will tend to produce a warming effect if it is released into a planet's atmosphere

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter2.pdf (page 141)

You cannot release CO2 into the atmosphere of a planet orbiting a star that is warm enough for CO2 to be a gass and not very hot indeed without getting a greenhouse effect. Thats simply the result of the way CO2 interacts with electromagnetic radation in the infrared range.

Hypothesising technology to make a claim falsifiable is really absurd. If that is acceptable I am hard pressed think of any claim, wackey or no, that is falsifiable.

Huh? With advanced enough technology it becomes much harder to produce a claim that isn't falsifiable.

This is the GW version of the plaint of the Woo who declares that "the paranormal will not appear for unbeliever". Sadly, you appear to be the one with an imperfect understanding of falsifiability. It's ok, seen it before with believers.

Have you every actualy read much about the philosophy of science?

:D Cute. How many assumptions does it take for this one?

An objective shared reality, the laws of thermodynamics (mostly the first one) and that our understanding of CO2s interaction with infra red (quite well studied because it's an easy way to work of the shape of the molocule) isn't complete rubbish.

which one of these did you wish to challange?

This is hardly a controlled experiment, is it?

We've been doing controlled experiments into the greenhouse effect for about 150 years. It's a fairly well established theory.

We can also observe it on a number of planets:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/ ... house.html

Results are consistent with our theories and our understaning of CO2 and infra red radiation.

So far there have been zero controled experiments on the effect of polonium on humans. Want to try eating it?

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

[Geni]

So, the science is settled, eh?

That CO2 is a factor global warming yes.


Albedo changes are also an established uncertianty. Can go both ways. It means that ice melt can become dangeriously self re-enforceing on the other hand more storms at sea may reduce warming.

I mean sure if you painted a few deserts white global temps would fall but there are practical issues. Beyond fairly straighforward cases like that it gets complex fast.

[Geni]

Sounds like we are making jobs rather than sound policy.

Nah we are mostly make excuses to avoid doing much that would risk adressing the problem or for that matter result in significant job creation.

[xouper]

... we are mostly make excuses to avoid doing much that would risk adressing the problem ...

The problem? Which "problem" are you referring to (he asks, knowing full well he won't get a straight answer)?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, the science is settled, eh?

That CO2 is a factor global warming yes.

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

[Geni]

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

I've answered a number of ed's questions. So far his responce has always been to change the question. Perhaps you would like to predict what his next one will be.

[Geni]

... we are mostly make excuses to avoid doing much that would risk adressing the problem ...

The problem? Which "problem" are you referring to (he asks, knowing full well he won't get a straight answer)?

The loss of significant areas of costline to sealevel rises (as I understand it some people quite like some of our costal cities). Dissruption to global farming due to changeing climate patturns. Increase in malaria zones. Dissruption of water supplies due to glacial melt and shifting rainfall patturns.

[Geni]

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

Please provide some evidence for that claim.

[xouper]

... we are mostly make excuses to avoid doing much that would risk adressing the problem ...

The problem? Which "problem" are you referring to (he asks, knowing full well he won't get a straight answer)?

The loss of significant areas of costline to sealevel rises (as I understand it some people quite like some of our costal cities). Dissruption to global farming due to changeing climate patturns. Increase in malaria zones. Dissruption of water supplies due to glacial melt and shifting rainfall patturns.

Ahh, those problems. :roll:

[xouper]

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

Please provide some evidence for that claim.

Again?

[Geni]

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

Please provide some evidence for that claim.

Again?

Feel free to link to previous posts provideing the evidence.

[Cool Hand]

I mean sure if you painted a few deserts white global temps would fall but there are practical issues. Beyond fairly straighforward cases like that it gets complex fast.

The largest desert in the world is already white. No need to paint it.

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/up ... ite-tm.jpg

[Tiosylanyl]

The largest desert in the world is already white. No need to paint it.

CH FTW.

[Geni]

I mean sure if you painted a few deserts white global temps would fall but there are practical issues. Beyond fairly straighforward cases like that it gets complex fast.

The largest desert in the world is already white. No need to paint it.

Indeed and for that you should be rather thankful. However if you wish to increase earth's albedo for any reason you need to find new areas to paint white.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

Please provide some evidence for that claim.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/


http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... Cores1.gif


Yep, science shows that CO2 increases follows temperature increases.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Increase in malaria zones.

That is an interesting one for you to use.

Where you not aware that the scientist that did the science for that report from which the IPCC made this claim threatened to sue the IPCC because they made that claim in contradiction to the science?

They removed his name from the "consensus", yet kept the claim.


The IPCC is a fraud.

[Geni]

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

Please provide some evidence for that claim.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/



Yep, science shows that CO2 increases follows temperature increases.

Sigh. Please is that the best you can do? You made a claim about current events. First notice the recent CO2 clime is faster than higher than any previous one. Assumeing that they have a common cause is unreasonable. Fortunetly we have a fairly simple explanation for the sudden increase. The human species has released ~315 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

Your second problem is that those temperature changes are likey Milankovitch cycle (or something simular) driven so again we have no reason to expect them to apply to the current situation (since at the moment the driveing factors of the Milankovitch cycle should probably be holding everything steady).

Your third problem is that the CO2 levels on the graph despite your claim frquently start riseing before the tempt does.

[Geni]

Increase in malaria zones.

That is an interesting one for you to use.

Where you not aware that the scientist that did the science for that report from which the IPCC made this claim threatened to sue the IPCC because they made that claim in contradiction to the science?

They removed his name from the "consensus", yet kept the claim.

Heh little secret in science. Just because you did some work doesn't mean that you are the only person who can derive valid conclusions from it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sigh. Please is that the best you can do? You made a claim about current events.

I made a claim about science you moron. I presented the SCIENCE.

You are nothing but a fraud BELIEVER.


Sorry about your choice in life.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Increase in malaria zones.

That is an interesting one for you to use.

Where you not aware that the scientist that did the science for that report from which the IPCC made this claim threatened to sue the IPCC because they made that claim in contradiction to the science?

They removed his name from the "consensus", yet kept the claim.

Heh little secret in science. Just because you did some work doesn't mean that you are the only person who can derive valid conclusions from it.

...but the science that was done concludes that malaria will NOT spread due to GW.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your third problem is that the CO2 levels on the graph despite your claim frquently start riseing before the tempt does.

You now evidence that you lack the ability to read a graph.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The human species has released ~315 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

Evidence that this is true, evidence that this is a cause of global warming?

Science please.

[Drooper]

That one is trivial to answer. Mostly by considering what it means if CO2 is the effect. If CO2 is the effect raiseing the temperature of a planet should cause CO2 to appear in all cases. Something which would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass/energy).

I am not sure that is true.

The planet is constantly redistributing energy from one place to another and one form to another at varying time lags and scales.

The oceans are a massive energy sink, which warm and cool over very long (but unkown) periods - especially with regard to the role of deep oceans and transfer from deep ocean to surface layers.

In that cycle of heat transfer CO2 is caught up, with the oceans giving up the GHG when warmer and absorbing more when cooler.

There is a well accepted plot of paleoclimatic data that shows atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagging estimated global temperatures.

[Drooper]

I think what we need for a falsifiable hypothesis is something along the lines of "This much man-made CO2/greenhouse gases causes this much of an increase in the world's temperature".

It's been done and continually done.

See my post above for 2 examples.

It indicates that the precision of the estimated attribution is significantly short of satisfactory.

[ed]

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

I've answered a number of ed's questions. So far his responce has always been to change the question. Perhaps you would like to predict what his next one will be.

No, you have not. Your hypothesis on the first page is not falsifiable. Appealing to technologies that do not exist is a non-starter and, interestingly, two hypotheses that were provided by another poster were rejected.

This is exactly the tendency that one can observe in paranormal research.

- hypotheses are obtained with difficulty
- words and explanations rather than experimental data take on the guise of an explanation process
- there is an undercurrent of snideness to the matter.
- at the proverbial end of the day, proponents insist that the thing in proven when in fact is has not been.

Taking a meta view of this little discussion, it seems to me that there is a basic problem. That is that one cannot point to one exemplar to prove a point. This is fine and good because it suggests that the science is not settled, certainly not to the extent that it would have to be for us to make major economic changes to the way we do things.

[Drooper]

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

I've answered a number of ed's questions. So far his responce has always been to change the question. Perhaps you would like to predict what his next one will be.

No, you have not. Your hypothesis on the first page is not falsifiable. Appealing to technologies that do not exist is a non-starter and, interestingly, two hypotheses that were provided by another poster were rejected.

This is exactly the tendency that one can observe in paranormal research.

- hypotheses are obtained with difficulty
- words and explanations rather than experimental data take on the guise of an explanation process
- there is an undercurrent of snideness to the matter.
- at the proverbial end of the day, proponents insist that the thing in proven when in fact is has not been.

Taking a meta view of this little discussion, it seems to me that there is a basic problem. That is that one cannot point to one exemplar to prove a point. This is fine and good because it suggests that the science is not settled, certainly not to the extent that it would have to be for us to make major economic changes to the way we do things.

Certainly as a robust explanatory model of climate we are demonstrably a long way from any "settled science".

[ed]

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

I've answered a number of ed's questions. So far his responce has always been to change the question. Perhaps you would like to predict what his next one will be.

No, you have not. Your hypothesis on the first page is not falsifiable. Appealing to technologies that do not exist is a non-starter and, interestingly, two hypotheses that were provided by another poster were rejected.

This is exactly the tendency that one can observe in paranormal research.

- hypotheses are obtained with difficulty
- words and explanations rather than experimental data take on the guise of an explanation process
- there is an undercurrent of snideness to the matter.
- at the proverbial end of the day, proponents insist that the thing in proven when in fact is has not been.

Taking a meta view of this little discussion, it seems to me that there is a basic problem. That is that one cannot point to one exemplar to prove a point. This is fine and good because it suggests that the science is not settled, certainly not to the extent that it would have to be for us to make major economic changes to the way we do things.

Certainly as a robust explanatory model of climate we are demonstrably a long way from any "settled science".

Not wishing to make this area my life's work, it seems to me that if the science isn't settled then dashing about, flapping and spending money, is a questionable activity. Yes?

BTW, what is Al Gores net-worth trend?

[Badger]

BTW, what is Al Gores net-worth trend?

I suspect that it lags the rise in global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, but tracks both graphs.

[Badger]

Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a product of warming?

The science that we have thus far says yes.

Please provide some evidence for that claim.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/



Yep, science shows that CO2 increases follows temperature increases.

Sigh. Please is that the best you can do? You made a claim about current events. First notice the recent CO2 clime is faster than higher than any previous one. Assumeing that they have a common cause is unreasonable. Fortunetly we have a fairly simple explanation for the sudden increase. The human species has released ~315 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

Your second problem is that those temperature changes are likey Milankovitch cycle (or something simular) driven so again we have no reason to expect them to apply to the current situation (since at the moment the driveing factors of the Milankovitch cycle should probably be holding everything steady).

Your third problem is that the CO2 levels on the graph despite your claim frquently start riseing before the tempt does.

You had better start running in circles, shouting in terror, then!!

[Geni]

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

I've answered a number of ed's questions. So far his responce has always been to change the question. Perhaps you would like to predict what his next one will be.

No, you have not. Your hypothesis on the first page is not falsifiable.

Every step is.


1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

You could falsify this by showing an alurnative explanation for the measured rised in CO2 levels or by showing that without humans around rather a lot of coal seams would have spontainiously ignited. You could also approach the problem by showing that the billions of tons of CO2 we have released have been absorbed by a mechanism that would not have applied to the carbon that is in the atmosphere through other means.

2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp

Model the temperature of venus with a nitrogen rather than CO2 atmosphere. Actualy modeling venus as a black body would probably be close enough. If the temperate remains the same or rises you have falsified the claim.

You use venus because it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 which simplifies things

3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.

Well to be exact the volume increases above 4 degreesC. This can be falsified by measureing the density of water at various temps.

So entirely falsifiable. Feel free to do so.

Taking a meta view of this little discussion, it seems to me that there is a basic problem. That is that one cannot point to one exemplar to prove a point.

The real world doesn't work like that

This is fine and good because it suggests that the science is not settled,

Real science is never settled.

certainly not to the extent that it would have to be for us to make major economic changes to the way we do things.

It is. Feel free to read the ICCP report to find out why. Problem is it's rather questionable if the changes required are mearly "major" or for that matter economic.

[Geni]

You had better start running in circles, shouting in terror, then!!

None of the currently proposed temperature reduction methods require running in circles (well one requires sailing in circles spraying water but it also involves 1,500 of them).

[Drooper]

All that typing and you still haven't answered ed's question.

I've answered a number of ed's questions. So far his responce has always been to change the question. Perhaps you would like to predict what his next one will be.

No, you have not. Your hypothesis on the first page is not falsifiable.

Every step is.


1)CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increaseing faster than they would without mankind being involved.

You could falsify this by showing an alurnative explanation for the measured rised in CO2 levels or by showing that without humans around rather a lot of coal seams would have spontainiously ignited. You could also approach the problem by showing that the billions of tons of CO2 we have released have been absorbed by a mechanism that would not have applied to the carbon that is in the atmosphere through other means.

2)Atmospheric CO2 levels have a posertive correlation with global temp

Model the temperature of venus with a nitrogen rather than CO2 atmosphere. Actualy modeling venus as a black body would probably be close enough. If the temperate remains the same or rises you have falsified the claim.

You use venus because it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 which simplifies things

3)The volume of a given number of moles of water increases with temperature.

Well to be exact the volume increases above 4 degreesC. This can be falsified by measureing the density of water at various temps.

So entirely falsifiable. Feel free to do so.

Taking a meta view of this little discussion, it seems to me that there is a basic problem. That is that one cannot point to one exemplar to prove a point.

The real world doesn't work like that

This is fine and good because it suggests that the science is not settled,

Real science is never settled.

certainly not to the extent that it would have to be for us to make major economic changes to the way we do things.

It is. Feel free to read the ICCP report to find out why. Problem is it's rather questionable if the changes required are mearly "major" or for that matter economic.

The overriding shortcoming of your proposed hypotheses is that they are necessary but not sufficient.

None of those three hypotheses are in genuine dispute in the AGW debate. But their efficacy does not get us to dangerous climate change. Hell, they don;t even get us to the IPCC central temperature projections for 2100.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is. Feel free to read the ICCP report to find out why. Problem is it's rather questionable if the changes required are mearly "major" or for that matter economic.

I have read the IPCC reports.

Did you know that the final IPCC reports (The Consensus) are written by a 9 to 1 ratio of governmental officials (this is how they are referred to in the documents) to scientists?

[robinson]

a falsifiable hypothesis?

Just curious. Since it seems that every event is due to global warming I am sensing a sort of religious quiver to it.

So, can they? It is sorta a yes or no, actually.

Hansen 2010

Cohen 2012

Lewis and Curry 2018

Because the matter is completely political, my take is easy to understand. Yes, from a scientific POV the theory of global warming can be shown to be wrong.

From the political POV, it won’t matter.

Then there is the practical real world situation. Which is not impacted by either political nonsense, or scientific theory.

Looking at the scientific issue, the theory of global warming actually contains predictions. (Any theory that does not predict and explain is worthless)

Because of the political nonsense it’s almost impossible to even find the basic global warming theory online, much less find anyone who has read it, and even harder to find a person who understands why the theory predicts the type of warming that would confirm the theory.


That’s not rhetoric, which makes it even more fucked up.


It gets even worse. If the advanced climate models are right, the predictions from the basic theory are definitely wrong. Then we have a different set of predictions. If Hansen 2010 is right, then those predictions are wrong, and if Cohen 2012 is right, then that set is wrong, and if the solar influence is factored in, then those predictions are wrong as well. There is more, but the point is made.

It may even be a case of fractal wrongness, where the big picture is wrong, but also all the small parts are also wrong.

To be able to discuss it in a scientific manner requires a huge amount of learning just to be able to understand the many many factors, which won’t matter at all to the political asshole who is sure the understand enough to tell you how wrong you are.

Which is why I say it won’t matter.