# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/641 "2013-09-20T08:56:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > . . . I do not engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/642 "2013-09-20T11:28:17Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I do not engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty. I can see why. A copy/ paste and he thinks he explained the climate model. Obviously he doesn’t understand the first principle, which is starting to seem a bit more than a little odd. Have the morons run off anyone with an actual science background form here\> ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/643 "2013-09-20T11:39:54Z")
Well, you certainly were right about the avoidance and change of focus. It’s like arguing with a pseudo-scientist. As soon as you point out one fallacy, they change the tune. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/644 "2013-09-20T13:52:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I can see why. A copy/ paste and he thinks he explained the climate model. Obviously he doesn’t understand the first principle, which is starting to seem a bit more than a little odd. I think that for the most part, people on the warmist side of the debate have little or no actual understanding of the issues involved. If they had such understanding, they would be able to (1) explain their position in their own words; (2) answer simple questions to clarify their position; (3) summarize the evidence which supports their position; and (4) describe what evidence would make them change their mind. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/645 "2013-09-20T13:55:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I think that for the most part, people on the warmist side of the debate have little or no actual understanding of the issues involved. > > If they had such understanding, they would be able to (1) explain their position in their own words; (2) answer simple questions to clarify their position; (3) summarize the evidence which supports their position; and (4) describe what evidence would make them change their mind. You mean, like I do? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/646 "2013-09-20T14:51:02Z")
A good example of the stupid that seems to dominate the green mindset, or the true believer in carbon as death, with the maniacal moral preaching about reducing fuel use, is there ignorance of solutions. If you really want to reduce CO2, there are things that could be fixed now, that would more than meet the panic have-to-act-now clamoring. First off, put out the coal fires. [https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/coal-seam-qr](https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/coal-seam-qr) China it seems is the only country actually planning on doing this. Currently coal seam fires are calculated to be 2 or 3% of the global carbon pollution. (no actual numbers available) 40 years ago they were 10% of the carbon. Because they also pollute with real pollution, they should be a priority. Putting them out RIGHT NOW would reduce carbon right now, and it won’t destroy the economy. One percent of the war budget might be enough to put them all out. Nobody knows. Nobody is even proposing this. Except China. Insanity. It’s one of those things that when the will to do it is there, the technology would be created, and it won’t cost the fortune it would in the past. Before you preach to the masses, get your shit together. And stop assuming anyone who disagrees with your batshit crazy talk is ignorant. That isn’t helping your cause. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/647 "2013-09-20T17:42:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course since the publishers of Skeptical Science **already published their consensus research** in a respected journal, Man oh man, the humor of that statement is one of those things most people will never get. (because you have to already know a lot more than what is said to get the joke) From the Discussion section of the “respected journal” [Radware Bot Manager Captcha](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) " **the fundamental science of AGW** is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics." This is the same John Cook (the SS blog author) that never defines what “the fundamental science of AGW” actually means. It’s why Gigogalloper couldn’t use SS as a source when confronted with questions about the science. Everything Cook and company says (“publishes”) is about AGW, which seems to be “a belief that recent warming is all due to CO2 and CO2 only”. It’s one of those marvelous and hugely ironic things, where the phrase **[the fundamental science of AGW](https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=%22the+fundamental+science+of+AGW%22)** is something Cook made up, and appears nowhere else in real scientific literature. When he adds that “(it)is no longer controversial” the comedy sketch explodes. And I bet he actually believes this, with out realizing that it is the core tenant of what he is trying to “prove” with the very “letter” he said this in. In short, he claims the conclusion of his “study” is true, within the definition of what he claims is just commom knowledge. Of course the title gave that away, but still. I mean, this joke of a letter actually does what skeptics keep pointing out, it assumes a fact, then goes on to study the issue, with out realizing the letter is being used to claim they have proven the contentious issue isn’t even an issue. Quantifying **the consensus on anthropogenic global warming** in the scientific literature And again, no definition of what is meant by **anthropogenic global warming** But wait, there’s more. It gets so much worse. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/648 "2013-09-20T17:58:25Z")
I really don’t know if Galloper even knows the following. If not, it’s Priceless. > [@](#): > > In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In a forum thread titled, “Introduction to TCP” (2012-01-19) John Cook layed out **the game plan for the 97% consensus study** , Cook et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’, > **[Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed](http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html)** > > In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online . In a forum th... “Hacked” no doubt means somebody with a clue copied and released the secret forum thread. > [@](#): > > I **ntroduction** > > It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. **So Jim Powell, Dana and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus**. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus. Deniers like to portray the myth that the consensus is crumbling, that the tide is turning. However, our survey of the peer-reviewed literature shows that the opposite is true - the consensus is getting stronger and the gap between those that accept and reject the consensus is increasing. What we have in mind is an extended campaign over 2012 (and beyond). > **[Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed](http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html)** > > In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online . In a forum th... if you still think this was a scientific study, it’s not. It’s propaganda, and it’s bad propaganda at best. > [@](#): > > The end goal of Phase 2 is publishing the results in a peer-reviewed paper. As far as co-authorship of the paper goes, I was thinking perhaps a practical approach would be that to be a co-author on the paper, you rate at least 2000 papers - seems a fair requirement to get your name on a peer-reviewed paper. And of course input into the writing of the paper - **we’ll need to anticipate all the various attacks our results will get as this result will be highly threatening to the denialosphere**. And there you go kids, that’s how “science” is done on the blogosphere. Conspire to create something to promote an agenda, create a fake letter, get it “published” online, promote it in advance, and have a plan in place to defend it, and even after your conspiracy is revealed, still go ahead with it. And they truly can’t understand why people are skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/649 "2013-09-20T18:29:50Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > A copy/ paste and he thinks he explained the climate model. Where do you get that idea? I didn’t say the description I quoted _explained_ the standard climate model, just that it was a reasonably accessible _description_ of one typical model to give you an idea of what it’s about. If you want the standard climate model fully _explained_, you’ll have to go to a source of detailed research or education on climate modeling, like the sites that I linked to in the same post. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > the true believer in carbon as death Again, your biggest problem here is that you can’t tell the difference between two ends of a spectrum. You apparently think that there’s no difference between a hypothesized ill-informed environmental extremist (and yes, there are certainly a lot of them out there, although perhaps not as many as ill-informed climate-change-denial ideologues) and an actual climate scientist. The fact that some nutty doomsayers are almost certainly wrong about their more extreme pronouncements doesn’t in any way invalidate the actual science that **GIGObuster** and others are talking about here. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > And there you go kids, that’s how “science” is done on the blogosphere. Conspire to create something to promote an agenda, create a fake letter, get it “published” online, promote it in advance, and have a plan in place to defend it, and even after your conspiracy is revealed, still go ahead with it. Nope. This claim has been exposed already as a dishonest denialist talking point, as noted in [this recent article](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial) by one of the correspondents involved: > [@](#): > > In order to deny the consensus, [Andrew] Montford employed the Climategate strategy, using material stolen during a hacking of the private Skeptical Science discussion forum. He then pulled quotes out of context to claim the study was “a public relations exercise,” because we discussed how to effectively communicate our consensus results. In reality, the comments Montford used to support this argument were made after we had preliminary results reviewing nearly 14,000 peer-reviewed abstracts that found only 24 rejecting the human-caused global warming consensus. > > _ **Montford’s article demonstrates the inherent dangers in quoting illegally obtained private correspondence. First, there is the obvious ethical issue of republishing private correspondence obtained through an illegal act. Second, using isolated quotes extracted from private conversations runs the risk of taking comments out of context and misrepresenting the facts.** _ > > In any case, we have set up a public ratings system so that anybody can read and rate the scientific abstracts. If you don’t believe the vast body of evidence of an expert consensus on human-caused global warming, test it for yourself. Emphasis added. (You have to go to the linked article site to reach the link for the public ratings system.) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/650 "2013-09-20T18:46:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The fact that some nutty doomsayers are almost certainly wrong about their more extreme pronouncements doesn’t in any way invalidate the actual science that **GIGObuster** and others are talking about here. Of course not, and nobody has said that. Also, the “actual science” is still being asked for. So far, nobody seems capable of even a simple description of “the consensus on the science of AGW”, except for that most people believe in it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/651 "2013-09-20T18:46:36Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > And again, no definition of what is meant by **anthropogenic global warming** Well, if **that’s** the level of climate science concept that you’re struggling with, we can certainly help you out without requiring you to wade through full-scale technical specifications of climate models that are definitely going to be over your head. (As they are for most of the rest of us too, mind you, at least in a lot of their technical details; no shame in even a well-informed layperson not understanding every issue.) But a basic working definition of “anthropogenic global warming” itself is reasonably accessible. From the [IPCC AR4 Attribution of Climate Change section:](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html) > [@](#): > > Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”. > > The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperatures of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. > > It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). So to break down the technical terms for you: 1. “Global warming” refers to the observed continuing increasing trend in global average temperatures over the past several decades. 2. “External forcing” means an influence on climate trends that is not part of the regular climate cycle (seasonal changes, ocean circulation, etc.) External forcings can be natural extraterrestrial effects like long-term orbital variations, changes in solar output, etc., or _anthropogenic_ effects, q.v.: 3. “Anthropogenic” just means “generated by humans”, and refers in this context to the increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that are unambiguously due to human activity. Hope this helps. > [@brazil84](#): > > I do not engage with this poster because of his past dishonesty. I don’t mean to brag, folks, but I do get a little thrill of pride when this is posted. How many of the rest of you have achieved the Straight Dope Accolade of making **brazil84** ’s ignore list? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/652 "2013-09-20T19:00:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, if **that’s** the level of climate science concept that you’re struggling with, we can certainly help you out You obviously haven’t read the thread, or you would realize you didn’t even reach the level we already have discussed. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/653 "2013-09-20T20:15:41Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You obviously haven’t read the thread, or you would realize you didn’t even reach the level we already have discussed. I have, actually. If you felt that “anthropogenic global warning” was sufficiently defined in the thread already, then why were you complaining just a few posts ago about the lack of a definition for it? Or were you perhaps complaining that the article you linked to in that recent post—_ **a technical article in Environmental Research Letters** _, no less—didn’t contain an explicit definition of “anthropogenic global warming”? I hope not, because I have to say that would be a seriously stupid complaint. I think you can safely assume that typical readers of _Environmental Research Letters_ already have a grasp of the basic definition of “anthropogenic global warming” that’s at least as good as yours. So again, why exactly were you complaining about a lack of a definition for “anthropogenic global warming”? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/654 "2013-09-20T20:58:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I have, actually. If you felt that “anthropogenic global warning” was sufficiently defined in the thread already, then why were you complaining just a few posts ago about the lack of a definition for it? Now I know you haven’t been reading. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, if **that’s** the level of climate science concept that you’re struggling with, See? Nobody said anything about feelings, it started when claims were made, and the people making them refused (or are unable) to simply explain what they mean. I blame gigogalloper, as he was by far the most prolific poster who simply can’t compose a paragraph explaining himself. > [@Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/131): > > The IPCC still got some items wrong like the actual loss of ice. But it is really silly for the contrarians to expect that finding one or a few wrong items means that we should overturn all the theory and science. ``` While that is an obvious strawman, still, what does he mean by "all the theory and science"? Then he started the other line of bullshit. ``` > [@Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/131): > > It does not work that way, the problem for the contrarian is that it has to also propose an alternative that works (that is, that explains all the current warming and the effects observed). Otherwise the needed changes and modifications actually tell the scientists that the overall current theory is more robust now with the slight changes that were and will be made. Once more, what does he mean by “the overall current theory”? That’s the hilarious and yet fucked up part. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you can safely assume that typical readers of _Environmental Research Letters_ already have a grasp of the basic definition of “anthropogenic global warming” that’s at least as good as yours. > ? Here we go again. It’s like the Wikipedia nonsense. if you search for “anthropogenic global warming” you get redirected to “Global Warming”, but that article does not contain the phrase “anthropogenic global warming”. Not even once. > [@Kimstu](#): > > So again, why exactly were you complaining about a lack of a definition for “anthropogenic global warming”? Like I said, you clearly have not read the thread. Dishonest indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/655 "2013-09-20T21:09:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Here we go again. It’s like the Wikipedia nonsense. if you search for “anthropogenic global warming” you get redirected to “Global Warming”, but that article does not contain the phrase “anthropogenic global warming”. Not even once. What the [Wikipedia article on Global Warming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) **does** say: > [@](#): > > Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. […] > > Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. […] > > Proposed policy responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, and possible future geoengineering. Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[16] whose ultimate objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) climate change. I think the Wikipedia reader of average intelligence would be easily able to deduce from this information what “anthropogenic global warming” means. I’m sorry if you found it confusing, though. So, are you going to answer my question? Why exactly are you complaining about a lack of a definition for “anthropogenic global warming”? Where and in what context do you claim that the term is being inadequately defined? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/656 "2013-09-20T21:32:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think the Wikipedia reader of average intelligence would be easily able to deduce from this information what “anthropogenic global warming” means. There is little confusion over what some people mean when they use that phrase. That was never the issue. it is about what the “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory” means. No matter what the name (and there seem to be many), that was the issue, and specific questions were asked about this. So far, there isn’t any clarity, much less a link to the theory, and all kinds of tap dancing around this has occurred. It’s quite entertaining in a sick sort of way. You can of course, end it all and simply spill the beans. When the phrase/term “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory” is used, what is the definition that you mean? And what is your source? If you don’t know, just say so. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/657 "2013-09-20T21:39:56Z")
Or, to paraphrase **brazil84** : what predictions does it currently make, and what hypothetical future evidence would prove them wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/658 "2013-09-20T22:08:04Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > There is little confusion over what some people mean when they use that phrase. That was never the issue. So, never mind that, then? [QUOTE=FXMastermind] When the phrase/term “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory” is used, what is the definition that you mean? [/quote] AFAICT, that exact particular phrase is mostly just a dogwhistle for anti-science climate-change-denier types. I don’t think it has a standard scientific definition. There are several closely related terms, such as “Theory of Global Warming” which one climate scientist interprets [thus](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/): > [@](#): > > An increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to ultimately increase so as to maintain a balance with the absorbed solar radiation. The increase is amplified by water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), which increases with temperature in such a way as to keep relative humidity approximately constant. Melting of ice will further amplify the warming, particularly in high latitudes. The resulting widespread warming corresponding to a doubling of CO2 will be large enough and rapid enough to be well outside the range of past experience of the human species, by an amount comparable to the difference between a glacial and interglacial climate. Changes in atmospheric cloud properties may somewhat reduce or increase the sensitivity, but do not substantially alter the conclusion. That seems like a reasonable statement of climate science consensus views on global warming. Are you asking for information about scientific evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis? Or about the theoretical climate models that are used to study the hypothesis? Or are you asking, as **Waldo** is, for examples of specific falsifiable predictions made by the AGW hypothesis? That last is fairly straightforward; as the above-linked article notes, > [@](#): > > In one sense, the Theory of Global Warming is clearly a falsifiable scientific theory: all we need to do is wait around a while until industrial activities have doubled CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds. This indeed seems to be the experiment that most of the world seems intent on carrying out. […] > > There are indeed a great many aspects of the Theory of Global Warming that are falsifiable without waiting for the next century’s climate to come upon us. There are, to start, all the laboratory tests of basic physics, such as the infrared absorption properties of CO2 and water vapor. There are also field tests of the predictions of these basic physical theories, as is done when one measure[s] water vapor and temperature in the atmosphere, and compares the predictions of radiative transfer theory with observed infrared radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere by satellite, or at the surface by radiation sensors. One can check the evaporation formulae used in climate models against the measured evaporation at buoys in the ocean, or the predictions of cloud models against observed cloud reflectivity. Going up the scale in complexity, one can compare the predictions of the theory against observations of recent climates, and of climates of the more distant past. General circulation models encapsulate the assumptions of the theory, and provide the tool necessary for testing hypotheses in such a complex system. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/659 "2013-09-20T23:14:13Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Or are you asking, as **Waldo** is, for examples of specific falsifiable predictions made by the AGW hypothesis? > > That last is fairly straightforward; as the above-linked article notes, > > > [@](#): > > > > In one sense, the Theory of Global Warming is clearly a falsifiable scientific theory: all we need to do is wait around a while until industrial activities have doubled CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds. This indeed seems to be the experiment that most of the world seems intent on carrying out. Quite. However, that linked page makes a tremendously interesting point about specifics: _“The last part of the statement of the theory is, of course, the hard part, and the most uncertain. I have deliberately left the matter of the severity of the impacts of such a climate change out of the hypothesis. Theories regarding the impact are nascent and in many regards still rather ill-formed, in comparison to the theory dealing with the physical dimensions of climate change.”_ That’s . . .y’know, kind of the whole _point,_ there. It’s one thing to say it indeed seems to be the experiment that most of the world seems intent on carrying out; it’s another to then specify what hypothetical evidence would, at the end of said experiment, prove the theory false. How soon could it be disproven? What, at a minimum, would need to show up, by when? Like the man said: that’s _“the hard part”_. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/660 "2013-09-21T13:34:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Or, to paraphrase **brazil84** : what predictions does it currently make, and what hypothetical future evidence would prove them wrong? While I think these are important questions, there are even more fundamental questions which need to be answered – most importantly, what exactly is the Theory of Global Warming (or whatever you want to call it). Is it the claim that global surface temperatures have increased over the last 100 years, regardless of the cause? Is it the claim that man’s activities have caused global surface temperatures to increase over the last 50 years, regardless of the mechanism? Is it the claim that man’s CO2 emissions, significantly amplified by water vapor feedback, are likely to cause significant harm if unchecked? Once the exact theory (or hypothesis or claim) is spelled out, one can then discuss what evidence supports the theory; what predictions it makes; and what evidence would undermine the theory. But generally speaking, warmists refuse to even spell out exactly what their position is and is not. Why is that? At bottom, I think it’s because they want to simultaneously claim that (1) lots of people, including lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is lots of solid evidence supporting their position; (3) their is little or no evidence undermining their position; and (4) if their policy prescriptions are not followed, really bad things will happen. There is no one Theory of Global Warming which satisfies all 4 of these conditions so warmists need to be vague, ambiguous, and evasive about what their actual position is and is not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=34)