Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What Could Falsify Man Made Global Warming Theory?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Could Falsify Man Made Global Warming Theory?

    Over the years I have heard droughts, extreme cold, extreme heat, heavy snow fall, no snow fall, heavy rain fall, active hurricane season, calm hurricane season, etc... all blamed on man made global warming. Are there any weather conditions that could falsify this theory?
    Last edited by seer; 01-30-2014, 12:56 PM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    If you're asking what "weather" could falsify global "climate" change, you need a primer on the difference. This is a Pauli question. "It's not even wrong."

    If you wanted to falsify man-made global warming by asking the right questions, however, you could, conceivably, show that all of the basic science showing CO2 absorbs infrared radiation was faked, that all of the measurements showing rising CO2 levels were faked, and that the isotope measurements showing the excess CO2 was from fossil fuels were faked. Basically, you need to uncover a vast, global conspiracy among climate scientists.

    Or, you could accept what everyone else outside the lunatic fringe and the paid merchants of doubt accepts.

    Anthropogenic global warming is settled science.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Over the years I have heard droughts, extreme cold, extreme heat, heavy snow fall, no snow fall, heavy rain fall, active hurricane season, calm hurricane season, etc... all blamed on man made global warming. Are there any weather conditions that could falsify this theory?
      First you have to have an understanding of the cyclic climate over the past 800,000 or more years, and their causes and effects. For example solar cycles, CO2 and other gas content of the atmosphere. Ice core studies of Arctic and Antarctic climate history are very useful, because they give year to year records of over 800,000 years. Research and use primary academic sources concerning climate history. Develop falsifiable hypothesis and theories based on the observed climate trends over this period of time that would predict future trends. This is what climatologists have done for the past 60 years or so.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-30-2014, 01:44 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        If you're asking what "weather" could falsify global "climate" change, you need a primer on the difference. This is a Pauli question. "It's not even wrong."

        If you wanted to falsify man-made global warming by asking the right questions, however, you could, conceivably, show that all of the basic science showing CO2 absorbs infrared radiation was faked, that all of the measurements showing rising CO2 levels were faked, and that the isotope measurements showing the excess CO2 was from fossil fuels were faked. Basically, you need to uncover a vast, global conspiracy among climate scientists.


        Anthropogenic global warming is settled science.
        Really? So basically there are no observable or testable weather or climate events that could falsify this theory? Don't scientific theories have to be open to falsification to be considered scientific in the first place?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Really? So basically there are no observable or testable weather or climate events ...
          Seer thinks weather and climate are interchangeable terms, and won't budge from his ignorance on it.

          How's that working out for you?

          Next thread for me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
            Seer thinks weather and climate are interchangeable terms, and won't budge from his ignorance on it.

            How's that working out for you?

            Next thread for me.
            Do be an idiot, we get enough of that from Shuny. I said weather or climate events. Perhaps I should have said weather events or climate. But the question remains...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Over the years I have heard droughts, extreme cold, extreme heat, heavy snow fall, no snow fall, heavy rain fall, active hurricane season, calm hurricane season, etc... all blamed on man made global warming. Are there any weather conditions that could falsify this theory?
              Can i rephrase your question for you? Let me explain why.
              The greenhouse effect exists. We measure it on Earth and on planets like Mars and Venus. None of those planets would have the temperatures they do if it weren't for the greenhouse effect.
              Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That's basic physics, and we've measured its absorption properties.
              Humanity is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and CO2 levels are going up. Again, measured in a variety of ways.

              So, if you want to falsify concerns about anthropogenic climate change, you've got to knock one of those three pillars out. And that's almost impossible to do, given how thoroughly the above have already been tested. Put another way, we've already subjected it to lots of falsifying tests, and it's passed.

              Now, back to your question: there are two ways to think about this. One is, could there be another influence on the climate, one beyond all the ones we've studied and accounted for, but not yet discovered? That could mean that, although the greenhouse effect exists, it will be moderated by something else entirely - something that's big, but we've somehow managed to completely miss. I don't think that's especially likely, and it probably wouldn't reveal itself through weather events anyway.

              A more useful question: we predict a lot of weather consequences from a warming climate. Could specific classes of weather events, if occurring in sufficiently large numbers, falsify these predictions? The answer is yes, lots of them. But it's not an area i know especially well.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #8
                Weather cannot falsify a model for climate change, just as a single person's income cannot falsify an economical model.

                As for discoveries within climate science, there are lots of observations that could falsify current theories. Climatology is what Imre Lakatos would call following a 'successful research programme' and as such makes good predictions and gives handholds for continuing research. This means that old knowledge will be critically revised. I don't agree that climate science is settled; the basics, like the greenhouse effect, are settled, but there is a lot to be done still.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Do be an idiot, we get enough of that from Shuny. I said weather or climate events. Perhaps I should have said weather events or climate. But the question remains...
                  Careful, I may not be as eloquent as lao tzu, whom I give the highest respect, but do not delude yourself, as far as 'Climate Change,' we are on the same page.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Now, back to your question: there are two ways to think about this. One is, could there be another influence on the climate, one beyond all the ones we've studied and accounted for, but not yet discovered? That could mean that, although the greenhouse effect exists, it will be moderated by something else entirely - something that's big, but we've somehow managed to completely miss. I don't think that's especially likely, and it probably wouldn't reveal itself through weather events anyway.
                    Here is a for instance. Say, as we increase greenhouse gases over the next 30 years, and the overall global temperature remains flat or decreases a bit - Would that be evidence that greenhouse gases play a lesser role than we thought?

                    A more useful question: we predict a lot of weather consequences from a warming climate. Could specific classes of weather events, if occurring in sufficiently large numbers, falsify these predictions? The answer is yes, lots of them. But it's not an area i know especially well.
                    Yes, I would like to know what those can be since for just about every weather event imaginable the climate change card is played. We are experiencing one of the coldest winters in recent memory - why- climate change, of course!
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Here is a for instance. Say, as we increase greenhouse gases over the next 30 years, and the overall global temperature remains flat or decreases a bit - Would that be evidence that greenhouse gases play a lesser role than we thought?
                      Depends on what else we find at the same time. If we find another previously unknown climate forcing, then yes. If we find that the oceans have been heating up much faster than we though, then no - but we'd have to start revising our models of how heat transfer works. If the situation is more complex than either of these, i suspect we will have lots of evidence of scientists arguing with each other. :)

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yes, I would like to know what those can be since for just about every weather event imaginable the climate change card is played. We are experiencing one of the coldest winters in recent memory - why- climate change, of course!
                      Again, this is not something i know that well - the topic area is called "attribution", and mostly i know that it's really hard, and typically involves lots of computer time. We'll take the recent chill as an example. For starters, remember that climate is global - while we're shivering (i'm in the Northeast, too), Europe is having an unusually warm winter. So, the cold is due to a particular shift in how the air masses are distributed over the Northern Hemisphere. And, at the moment, the planet's not warmed enough to have events that are completely unprecedented. That means that we have historic examples of these patterns.

                      So, the question we need to examine is not whether this particular case is due to climate change, but whether a warmer climate will make this particular shift more common or not. One way to do that would be to set a weather model with preindustrial conditions and run it 1,000 times, and see how often we see this pattern. Then set it to current conditions, and see if the numbers differ. Etc. etc.

                      The key thing is that doing so requires a LOT of computer time. If a weather event is in progress, that means that nobody's had the time to do all the computer work to ascribe it to climate change or not. So, if you hear something like "it's cold because of climate change", it's probably someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

                      The exceptions to this: if we had a polar vortex last year, then the simulations might be done in time for this year. Or someone's done some general work, and found conditions like this will be more common in a warming planet. So, your best response to someone making the claim "this weather is because of climate change" is probably to ask "how do you know that?"
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It wouldn't be as hard for me to buy AGW if it weren't for the fact that fat cats like Al Gore stand to get filthy richer from it.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          It wouldn't be as hard for me to buy AGW if it weren't for the fact that fat cats like Al Gore stand to get filthy richer from it.
                          You're far from the first I've heard say that. We all filter what we accept or not through things like that - cultural and political influences and such (it's actually its own field of research). I'm no different. Ultimately, it comes down to a choice: does the evidence matter more to us than who else has accepted it?
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Here is a for instance. Say, as we increase greenhouse gases over the next 30 years, and the overall global temperature remains flat or decreases a bit - Would that be evidence that greenhouse gases play a lesser role than we thought?
                            Actually, it would not. The greenhouse effect in itself is beyond doubt, as sure as science can het. However, that doesn't mean that it is beyond doubt that everything that should warm the earth actually does in practice.

                            To illustrate with an example. Let's say you have central heating in your home. You turn it on, the water starts to flow through the system and all radiators become hot as they should. This you observe, and you have no reason whatsoever to doubt your observations. However, the room isn't getting warmer. Would you conclude that, in spite of everything you see, the radiator has broken down? No, you'd start looking for some other explanation. Somehow, the heat is disappearing from your home: that would be the likely conclusion. Perhaps you just need to close a window.

                            If temperatures don't rise, the first reaction would be a similar hypothesis. Something would be slowing down the warming due to the greenhouse effect. Perhaps this something is in itself connected to CO2 or another greenhouse gas. Perhaps it would be unrelated - it's a hypothetical situation, I don't know what could do this. But the basic mechanism that warms the planet - the greenhouse effect - would still be in place. After all, it has been keeping our planet at a nice temperature for millions of years already, it's just a bit too much at the moment!

                            Yes, I would like to know what those can be since for just about every weather event imaginable the climate change card is played. We are experiencing one of the coldest winters in recent memory - why- climate change, of course!
                            That is a very bad habit committed by some media. Such speculation is not actually from scientific journals, so you shouldn't blame climate science for this. Weather is not climate, so weather events are not fingerprints of climate.

                            In my country this was also done for a couple of years. At one point climate change was even blamed for lambs born early in the season. We had a joke that if Easter came early that year, it was due to climate change. Now the weather is seen as normal variation within the general climate by most.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              It wouldn't be as hard for me to buy AGW if it weren't for the fact that fat cats like Al Gore stand to get filthy richer from it.
                              What did I note in the other thread?

                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              The reasoning of many AGW deniers seems to be

                              "I hate Al Gore,
                              Gore champions taking steps to combat AGW,
                              therefore AGW must be a fraud perpetrated by tens of thousands of climate scientists."
                              There's always going to be someone somewhere making a profit off of a bad situation. Seems to be human nature. That doesn't change one iota the scientific realities though.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 09:08 PM
                              1 response
                              11 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 06:43 PM
                              2 responses
                              11 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X