Nah, there is already the IPCC with the most likely predictions, what I’m doing and you are so dense to see it is that I’m turning your denialist tactics around, the main reason why you need (what you think it is, an uneducated guess) is that you will nitpick it to death by you and your gang, what I conscientiously demonstrate is that the constant ducking of what the science paper say demonstrates how out of deep this subject is, and the longer you go at it the dumber you look to others.
I’m here to help in the process to make sure you are a warning to others.
Yes, there is. You indeed wrote: “There you can have that falsification”. However, you also wrote – in the sentence right next to that one – the following rider: “As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing.” I’m asking you what would falsify the whole thing. If you’re now saying “the whole thing” rather than “only one aspect” will be falsified if that predicted amount of warming doesn’t come to pass, then I’m content.
If, however, you’re still sticking with the “only one aspect” point, then I want to know what hypothetical data would falsify “the whole thing”.
In that I’ll note whether the prediction comes to pass or not, and then point out whether or not it came to pass?
I’m here to make sure your predictions are falsifiable.
First off, it isn’t simple, like some would try to sell you. For example, increased heat can lead to increased evaporation/transpiration of water.
Which leads to clouds, which causes decreased temperatures. So more heat can cause cooling of the lower atmosphere, and increased reflection of sunlight.
Same thing can happen with ocean circulation/wind effects. It’s why the Pacific ocean is such a driver of temperatures and climate. Which isn’t hard to fathom when you realize the Pacific ocean is actually half the planet.
No, we don’t. I already asked you to assume for the sake of argument that none of the 10 are falsified but the planet gets no warmer, and possibly gets cooler, for decades and even centuries to come; would your predictions, I asked, then be true?
Your reply: “assumes none of those items are falsified, then there is something wrong with the theory and should be modified and eventually rejected as the data would no longer fit the estimated projections.”
So you’ve already mentioned the answer without naming it; my question is merely: what data wouldn’t fit the estimated projections?
And I assume you are forgetting I said that we had to resort to go to fantasy land to deal with that?
What it is clear is this, you want a prediction that is based on fantasy to continue discussing your lousy 10:20:30 point gained from a misunderstanding of what the UN was really saying.
Oh, come on. Fox has nothing to do with this unless you are saying that the two facts are wrong:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, Resigns Over Global Warming
he did so because of a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”
It seems to me, that he isn’t denying global warming, and possibly every position you hold, only the claim that “the evidence is incontrovertible”. It seems to me that, as a man a of science, he thought the claim went too far. It seems to me that given the immense complexity of the issue that is the most respectful position for a man of science to take. Why must the level of confidence in the theory be 100%? Why not 99.99%. Hell, again, given the complexity of the problem, how can it be 100%? That stops feeling line science and starts feeling like dogma. No?
You really have no idea what a Gish Gallop is, please cite where just a single link to a published paper becomes a Gish Gallop. A link that shows that falsification is **understood by skeptics and attempted ** already while others continue to think it is a good idea to discuss endlessly if a poster on a forum has better ideas.
You are still clueless of what a strawman is, you are only doing projections on others, but at least it is good that you are becoming aware why a Gish Gallop is bad. (Really, what you demonstrated here is that your reptilian brain at least caught that what the Aji did was underhanded)
Nope, he just has to publish a paper and see if peer review will not tell him how wrong he is, what I have seen is that there is plenty of evidence to realize that scientists that are on the minority are aware of that problem and so they have two choices, try to publish on friendly journals in the hope their selected peers miss the flaws, or take their case to the public and become irrelevant sooner, that is the same path taken by creationist scientists before.
No; as it happens, I’d be equally happy if you’d instead answer my question the other way around: spell out that if, for decades yet to come, temperatures (a) don’t rise, or possibly even (b) drop, then your predictions of “warming” would be proven true so long as the fingerprints remain.
If you want to say that, then I’m content.
If you’d prefer to supply a 10:20:30 point, then by all means do so. But if your answer is that your predicted “warming” will be proven true regardless of whether the globe in fact gets warmer or cooler in decades yet to come, then I have no wish to offer or discuss a 10:20:30 point; I’m merely satisfied.
Well, going to fantasy land I have to say that even there nothing is satisfying you, so the point that you are just JAQing is still here.
Already the point was made in fantasy land, if we get another ice age before the one that was expected in about 12,000 years then this is all falsified.
But why wait? One has to just falsify the greenhouse effect, that is one of the main lines of evidence, specifically the one area that deals with how much heat CO2 is trapping and not allowing it to leave the earth and we will be as happy as a clam…
Well, scratch that, clams will still have to deal with all that acidification, but before you go for your knee jerk, this acidification issue does not depend on AGW.
We’ve established that “another ice age” will falsify it. But as we’ve also established, that’s not the minimum; some smaller amount of cooling, or perhaps just a long enough stretch of not warming – or perhaps even a sufficiently small amount of warming? – would falsify it, right?
I’m asking you to name the minimum for falsification.
How much heat do you predict will be trapped, such that we’ll know you’re wrong if less heat winds up being trapped?
Wait. He’s not putting forth a theory. He’s just saying that the current theory (which I think he agrees with) doesn’t rise to the level of being 100% certain, that it reaches the level of incontrovertibility. Your trying to shift the burden of proof. If others want to insist that the theory is 100% airtight. it falls to them to provide a commensurate level of evidence. Which, given the complexity of what we’re talking about and the data available, seems an impossibility. I don’t think that puts the theory in a bad light, just a realistic one. By insisting that not only is the theory true, but 100% incontrovertible requires a leap of faith that doesn’t mesh with science.
Nope, for fantasy land that is good enough, what it is clear is that we have established that this can be falsified, serious researchers already know how and for practical purposes your point about falsification here is a moot one. Deal with the science now, not a bloke on an internet forum.
Ah, good to see that there are indeed wiggle rooms on this, however we are on fantasy land, as most of the predictions of what would happen on a doubling of CO2 depend on this also, it is clear that on fantasy land we just need to show that the levels they find are lower than what they have been reporting for decades, after all it would be a very important feature to get wrong. Any lower levels will do (as this is one important factor used to predict what would happen on a doubling of CO2) as we are fantasizing.
Of course, going to the real wold, we still have to look at the odds, I agree with this comment in skeptical science:
That is what Feynman was referring to when mentioning that you need to replace the theory you are having a beef with something else, when you are not doing this, you are just wasting your time.
And that article needs to be read just to see how deniers are actually contradicting each others, even here, and they do not notice.
Hey, that’s fine by me. From now on, whenever you pop up in a thread to mention that “global warming” is on the way, I’ll do my best to see that someone spells out just what you’re claiming: that, when you predict “warming”, you mean we may well be in for decades of no warming, and possibly even cooling that stops just short of an ice age; it’s all consistent with your prediction.
If that’s what you’re predicting, then I’m content.
If I ever hear any of them refuse to name falsification criteria, I’ll treat 'em the way I’d been treating you. If I ever hear any of 'em claim that their predictions of “warming” mean they merely don’t believe the globe will soon cool down into another ice age, then I’ll be as satisfied with their answer as I now am with yours.
Nope, you are just saying that without looking at what they are declaring incontrovertible, there is a valid reason why the vast majority of physicists agree with the statement.
In 2007, APS adopted an official statement on global warming:[8]
You have to take into account the context, they are approaching this from a physics angle, unless you can show that all those confirmations of the levels of heat that CO2 is trapping and not allowing to leave the earth’s atmosphere are false, and the increase on the levels of the human CO2 made one are not increasing, then the evidence **is **incontrovertible, and this also because instrumental and natural physical thermometers are telling us that.
