There is the reports from Greenland’s ice melting:
Of notice is the conclusion that while this is evidence of warming causing changes, the change is not as severe as many feared.
AGW is here, CAGW that pertains to items like “what should we do about it” or “We will all suffer a catastrophe” is not so clear, that part needs more evidence and this is where future discussions should focus on.
IMHO it will depend on where you are on earth for the effects of AWG to show huge changes or small ones.
Yep, although it happened after I abandoned the thread to the threadshitting, that’s the one where you said that it can’t be falsified and couldn’t tell me of any evidence I could collect that would cause you to reject AGW. You tried to define the problem. You rejected the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date.
Like I said, nobody in your camp could give an example of any evidence at all that would convince them to reject AGW. AGW simply isn’t falsifiable. It isn’t science by the standard Popperian definition of science.
No, I did not say that. I said AGW has already passed tests of falsification and that if the results of those tests had come out differently AGW would have and should have been rejected.
What I am saying is that if a hypothesis (we’ll call it “Model A”) states “In 2020, temperatures will be 4.5 degrees higher than in 1990” it is not all of AGW - for example, what if in 2020, temperatures were 8 degrees higher than in 1990? AGW would still be a viable hypothesis, even though Model A would be falsified. Similarly, what if in 2020, temperatures were 2 degrees higher than in 1990? AGW would still be a viable hypothesis. What if temperatures were -5 degrees (5 degrees lower) 2020-2050 vs. 1990? Then Model A and AGW would both be falsified. People too easily confuse a particular model (e.g. Hansen’s 1988 scenarios A, B, or C) with the entirety of AGW.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I wanted to adopt no other hypothesis “potentially at some future date” what the hell does that even mean?
You didn’t say that and you certainly provided no evidence for such a claim. You said that they were examples of testing alternative hypotheses, which they were.
I’m sorry I have no idea what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that AGW will remain a valid hypothesis even when the predictions it makes fail to come true.
There’s no pont pretending to be confused when I can quote what yo said…
The AGW hypothesis as used by the IPCC is that human activities are causing measurable warming to the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans right now and have been doing so for ~50 years.
You OTOH (and I quote) “would define AGW theory as stating: Human emissions of greenhouse gases have the potential to increase the Earth’s average temperature and change the general state of Earth’s climate.” (emphasis mine)
So when you say that you don’t want to adopt any other hypothesis you are bare-faced not telling the truth. I dont; even know why you bother to make such untrue claims when i cna easily quote where you did make them.
Disingenuous at the very best.
So I repeat :
You tried to define the problem out of existence. You rejected the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date.
No, it hasn’t
Well name one. I’ve asked you to do so several times. I even started a thread asking you to name one.
Name one “test of falsification” that AGW will face that, if it fails, will cause you to reject AGW.
N, it isn’t. Not by Popper’s definition it isn’t.
You problem is that I understood it perfectly.
You tried to define the problem out of existence. You reject the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date.
In case anyone actually is interested in an alarmist’s theory, the June 29 New Yorker features an article titled, ‘The Catastrophist’. It is all about James Hansen (the ‘father of global warming’ according to the article), the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies- his past, his education, his career and successful AGW prediction stretching back 30 years, and then, his alarmist observations. Some quotes from the article:
Here’s some meant to outline the history of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature:
50 million years of correlation between CO2 and temp isn’t a bad track record, no?
And:
Of course the question is what level of CO2 will produce this scenario. People agree that the current 385 ppm (and rising) is already dangerous. What is the catastrophic level?
Over those 50 million years there was a very strong correlation, but it was because rising temperatures were followed by rising CO2 levels. IOW CO2 increase was caused by temperature increase,not the other way around.
And of course the alarmists acknowledge this but then say that this makes the current CO2 increase even more worrying because this time the CO2 increase preceded the temperature rise.
You can’t win with an alarmist who is perfectly comfortable that putative cause follows observable effect.
Remember I am taking no position on AGW itself, so I assume you are referring to the debate about why it is so broadly accepted, and why it has achieved the Great Cause status that it has.
You are right that I am making an assumption without formal data. I note that I do get the chance to meet quite a few folks, since I travel for a living. I’ve never met one–well only one, and he’s a relative who is an oceanographer–who can recite the science underlying AGW (he thinks AGW is probably real, with an exaggerated threat).
But you are right; I assume that the polloi have not come to a conclusion based on their own analysis or by a rational fact-based conclusion. As to why they trust the sources they do, well that’s part of my observation about the psychologic reasons we embrace Great Causes. The psychologic drive comes first and drives which expert opinions you find persuasive.
Let’s post on this again in 5 or 10 years…meantime perhaps you’d be willing to cover my investing bets based on AGW’s broad and continued acceptance. Or perhaps place bets of your own. All those people making fact-based decisions are not likely to be collectively wrong, are they?
I do thing that we will have plenty of time to adapt to the changes, I even think that some regions of the earth will do better, I do think that we still are not quite there on properly predicting how the change will affect different regions of the earth.
What I’m trying to say is that AGW is a phenomenon that has plenty of evidence. Now, can we or should we do something about it? That is IMHO a different issue.
I can tell you that there are good arguments and evidence that many efforts of today are not going to make much of a difference and that many terrible predictions could not be as bad as it was thought before, but it seems to me that it is ridiculous to assume that one **has **to discredit AGW to make a good argument against some alarmists that worry about the effects or the results of AGW.
A good reason for a lefty to be dubious on the proposed solutions for AGW is that, most of them are sure to make the poor of the world poorer in the short term and maybe richer in the long term (when most would be dead).
As opposed to them starving to death in AGW-caused famines ? Or being reduced to refugees by rising sea levels ?
Arguments like yours contain the hidden assumption that letting AGW take it’s course has no cost, no downside. You only count the cost for doing something about it.
Really, the main reason that AGW is a lefty issue is because the only real reason to solve it is to save wildlife and impoverished nations. Righties can’t really be bothered to save those two groups.
He’s saying he won’t believe it until he sees observations which aren’t likely expected during his lifetime.
There’s a realistic limitation to his claim. Why not just look at the evidence around us at the moment which is predicted? That’s doable today. Many thousands of scientists are able to do so, why not him?
By this logic of until the final result, I suppose I won’t believe that all humans have a heart until such time as every human is examined. After all, it’s not enough that I look at all the examples of humans (all of whom so far have had one) and draw the logical inference that all humans actually do have a heart.
Or dogs.
Or cats.
So, no, he’s not saying that he wants to see evidence as it abounds today. He wants to see what will happen in perhaps a hundred year’s time. In other words, despite the overwhelming evidence which supports the claim he perversely chooses to withhold his provisional consent. That’s his right, but it isn’t smart.
Of course, one wonders what happens if scientists devise some method to abate the current situation. Since it’s been stopped, will this person suddenly claim victory by saying that since the end-result never materialized, the entire line of reasoning of theory was thus bunk?
Shit, who cares if somebody gets a neener-neener moment? If all it would take to obviate the threat of global warming would be me eating some shit, well, here’s my spoon, here’s my grin, ready as I’ll ever be…
Such as? What was predicted that could only be a result of AGW that we can see today?
Nonsense. You are attempting to engage a slothful induction.
The prediction of this theory (if anyone felt the need to make it) would be that in any sample size of humans tested all would have a heart. You can define your sample size as 2 or 2, 000, 000, but the theory predicts that all will have a heart. You can go out and start collecting that evidence right now. It’s easily collectable data and if you find any single exception the hypothesis “hat all humans have a heart” will be rejected
He can not do any similar evidence collection based on global warming, though he has stated that he desires to, because global warming makes no falsifiable predictions of that type that can be collected within this lifetime.
No, he just wants to see evidence that is compatible with AGW and not compatible with a natural explanation. The fact that such evidence can only be collected in 100years time speaks volumes about the scientific strength of AGW.
Ah yes. Buy my rock, it keeps tigers away. Once again, a slothful induction.
If some method of abatement is produced it will presumably be the ultimate falsification attempt. The models all predict, to within 90% confidence according to the IPCC) what the temperature will e at certain CO2 levels. If some method of abatement reverses or halts atmospheric CO2 levels we will see in very short order whether the predictions of the models hold up. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline or remain stable and temperature continues to rise I think that should convince everyone.
But a sample size no matter how large (unless, of course, the sample size is exactly the same as the population such that each person in the population is examined) can’t tell you that every human has a heart. It can only fail to reject the null hypothesis, which isn’t accepting it. It essentially means that in the sample examined, no case was found where a human didn’t sometime have a heart. We could sample all people in the world minus one and that still won’t definitively say that the last person in the world will have a heart. While I know that person would, the statistics doesn’t require that it be true. Is this very fundamental idea of probability really that novel?
No, I suppose he can’t. Or, more realistically, he refuses to go out and do the work. Merely because he’s too limited to do it doesn’t mean that others share his inability.
Not so much. That we know our star will eventually burn out based on the evidence of how stars work isn’t somehow bullshit simply because we won’t be around to see it when it happens. Or do you contend that astronomy is bunk too simply because the distances are far, the speeds are great and we can’t actually get there from here right now to see it with our own eyes?
It’s cute that you ask me to list the data that’s been otherwise listed here. How about instead of my copying and pasting in the data, you just learn to scroll up and read.
I love your “if” science. How about “if” we dwell in reality and look at what the models say and the data which bear on it? You know, just to take a whack at that science gig.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I wanted to adopt no other hypothesis “potentially at some future date” what the hell does that even mean?