# Is global warming falsifiable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786 "2014-05-06T07:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/221 "2014-09-05T22:21:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > They’re probably not contrarians, but honest scientists doing honest work. > > That their conclusions point the direction some people say is what is – as you note – tricky. Note that this is very indirect evidence, as opposed to actual temperature measurements. They might be incorrect in their ideas of what this chemical nucleation actually means to climate. > > Science often comes up with dissenting views; the overall process tends toward consensus, and minority views are challenged. > > Crackpottery and denialism become pathological and non-scientific, not when they disagree with the consensus, but when they become politicized, pronouncing conclusions on the basis of ideology and not evidence. > > Dissent is good. Velikovskyism isn’t. One thing to notice is that indeed these researches are doing a good job, specially by pointing out the limitations or how useful this would be in the climate change front. The problem for the ones looking at that as being a counter to the man-caused global warming is that: > **[What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?](https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm)** > > \While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.\ > [@](#): > > While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at their highest on record. > [@](#): > > In fact, from 1957 through 2012, cosmic rays had a slight upward (cooling effect) trend while global surface temperatures warmed rapidly. Around 2009-2010, cosmic rays reached record high levels, which should mean a large cooling effect if the cosmic ray hypothesis is correct. Instead, global temperatures were at their highest on record (Figure 3). The correlation between the two variables (surface temperatures vs. decreasing cosmic rays) from 1957 to 2012 is -0.009. > > GCR vs. Temp > > Figure 3: Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits. > [Erlykin et al. (2013)](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x) noted (emphasis added), > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming." > > > > ``` > **[Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/)** > > Cosmic rays can have played at most a very small part in global warming, new research finds > [@](#): > > LONDON – Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists. > > The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun’s changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up. > > The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/222 "2014-09-05T22:30:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You did not read the article then. No, I only have access to the Abstract. > [@](#): > > Recently, experiments were undertaken by Dr. Kirkby (interviewed above) at the European Atom smasher facility, – CERN – to learn more about the particle interactions that might validate this theory. The publication of his recent paper on the results has been bouncing around in the denialosphere as yet another “final nail in the coffin of man-caused global warming”. > > Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much. I find it extremely hard to believe that quote came from an article published in the journal _Nature_. If you would read the abstract again you should see why I’m staring at you in complete disbelief. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > So anyone that still thinks that people like me are calling them deniers are indeed just supporting what I pointed before: they are wrong even on how they imagine the scientists are discussing this or the levels of wrong the scientists have (according once again to the imagination of the deniers). Again, perhaps this is fully demonstrated in the text of the article, but frankly, just reading the abstract I just can’t see why you call these twenty-five folks denialists. These are honest people doing honest work and reporting their results honestly. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/223 "2014-09-05T22:36:23Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No, I only have access to the Abstract. I was referring to the Climate Crocks one. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I find it extremely hard to believe that quote came from an article published in the journal _Nature_. If you would read the abstract again you should see why I’m staring at you in complete disbelief. Of course it is clear why, your sources misrepresented what the scientists were doing. SO no, I do not see them as deniers either because (as one can hear in the interview of a lead CERN scientist posted by Climate Crocks) reaching for that research as a counter for man made green house gases causing the current warming is silly. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Again, perhaps this is fully demonstrated in the text of the article, but frankly, just reading the abstract I just can’t see why you call these twenty-five folks denialists. These are honest people doing honest work and reporting their results honestly. :rolleyes: **Cite where I do call them denialists or it never happened**. \*\*The deniers \*\*are the ones that grabbed this research and made unreasonable conclusions. (And the deniers I was referring to are denying what the scientists here concluded indeed) ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/224 "2014-09-05T23:27:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I was referring to the Climate Crocks one. Ah … but it’s the _Nature_ article that supports my statement … that global warming is falsifiable. Climate Crocks looks self-published to me, kinda has that feel of being a crock. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course it is clear why, your sources misrepresented what the scientists were doing. SO no, I do not see them as deniers either because (as one can hear in the interview of a lead CERN scientist posted by Climate Crocks) reaching for that research as a counter for man made green house gases causing the current warming is silly. I’m wondering if we’re talking about the twenty-five co-signers of the _Nature_ article … > [@GIGObuster](#): > > **Cite where I do call them denialists or it never happened**. \*\*The deniers \*\*are the ones that grabbed this research and made unreasonable conclusions. (And the deniers I was referring to are denying what the scientists here concluded indeed) Who are these denialists you speak of? You haven’t said what is being misrepresented in the _Nature_ article. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/225 "2014-09-05T23:43:18Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Ah … but it’s the _Nature_ article that supports my statement … that global warming is falsifiable. Climate Crocks looks self-published to me, kinda has that feel of being a crock. > > I’m wondering if we’re talking about the twenty-five co-signers of the _Nature_ article … > > Who are these denialists you speak of? > > You haven’t said what is being misrepresented in the _Nature_ article. :rolleyes: So, no. Clearly you can not find where I supposedly did call them deniers as you claimed. It is clear why it is important for you to claim that I’m calling the the twenty-five co-signers of the _Nature_ article deniers. Just FUD. Once again, the cite I made reports the misinterpretation of their research is for the deniers to claim that the research at CERN was the “final nail in the coffin” for man made caused global warming. It was not. And as the other cites I made to **Trinopus** show it is really not an important factor in the overall picture. Their research is useful to understand an aspect of the issue, but plenty of research already made shows that it is not likely to be important to drive the global warming issue. The point that you painfully miss is that the researchers are not wrong, only the ones that claimed that their research was conclusive regarding a related issue. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/226 "2014-09-05T23:59:29Z")
Honestly, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m reading the abstract and I don’t see how this leads to any “final nail in the coffin”. Scientific falsification is a thing that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, like _Nature_. Things that are self-published are philosophical, one person’s opinion. Maybe I’m reading the OP too narrowly here, because global warming can never be falsified if one’s philosophy is infallible. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/227 "2014-09-06T00:11:11Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Honestly, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m reading the abstract and I don’t see how this leads to any “final nail in the coffin”. Scientific falsification is a thing that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, like _Nature_. Things that are self-published are philosophical, one person’s opinion. > > Maybe I’m reading the OP too narrowly here, because global warming can never be falsified if one’s philosophy is infallible. :rolleyes: Read it again, I consider what Nature and the scientists say and what Climate Crocks reports to be 2 different things. You are being very naive if you think that what I and Climate Crocks describe is not in the background and the reason for the misrepresentation, many did and continue to claim that the scientists are “like deniers” or that they are on your team. **That is indeed bull**. What the scientists report is good for cloud research, and no one is denying that. **What you can not produce also \* is a good cite that shows that it is good to claim that the scientists at CERN are claiming that their research dismisses the man made caused global warming.** - Besides a cite confirming your unfounded claim that I call the CERN researchers deniers. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/228 "2014-09-06T00:13:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > misrepresentation Cite please. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/229 "2014-09-06T00:44:53Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Cite please. [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#.VApX3q2Vu1M](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/#.VApX3q2Vu1M) > [@](#): > > No, a new study does not show cosmic-rays are connected to global warming > > However, this study shows that under the conditions of the experiment, the effect of cosmic rays by themselves is too low to trigger cloud formation at the rates actually seen in our atmosphere. What is very clear is that any claims at this time that cosmic rays definitely affect global warming are baloney. As the authors of the experiment say, this is a good first step but there’s a long way to go to understand this problem, and as the website PhysOrg reiterates, “Though this most recent experiment doesn’t really answer the question of whether cosmic rays are having an impact on our weather, it does open the door to more research.” > > Not just a river in Egypt > > So why did the Financial Post run with a headline that says the exact opposite of what the study actually found? They’re not alone, either; the Telegraph has a blog filled with similar dubious statements about the study (mostly quoting from the Financial Post blog, so take that into account). The claim they both make is that some of the science was suppressed, but that’s thin air. And it’s certainly not enough to state with certainty that cosmic rays affect our climate. > > And my irony gland explodes every time I hear a global warming denier say that the science has become politicized (as the Financial Post OpEd piece did, and as Rick Perry does). Ya think? The problem isn’t the politization of global warming (since by its very nature the changing climate affects everyone, and is therefore a concern of politics), it’s the attacks on the science based on politics. As pointed before, the misrepresentation is not coming from you, but it is clear that you swallowed up the one made by the deniers. CERN did good science and when one takes into account what the interview posted at Climate Crocks shows, then there was no reason for the denier sources to claim that the CERN research did falsify man made caused global warming. The armchair scientists were correct in one item, this could indeed had been a possible way to falsify or modify what to expect out of the theory of global warming gases, but the other science articles cited shows that even if cosmic rays are an influence it is likely to be not an important factor. If the numbers showed for example that cosmic rays and cloud formation was going to definitely overwhelm the positive influence of human made CO2 then even if the AGW theory is right we have evidence that would tell us that we should not worry much about the issue. Do you really think this effort was not an attempt at falsification that fell short? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/230 "2014-09-06T00:49:05Z")
No … I’m asking for a citation of something that is misrepresented. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/231 "2014-09-06T00:51:37Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No … > > I’m asking for a citation of something that is misrepresented. :rolleyes: So why did the Financial Post, the Telegraph, WAWT and many other denial sites run with a headline that says the exact opposite of what the study actually found? Are you then confused that simply because this falsification effort did not falsify AGW or the expected consequences that therefore to you it is not a valid attempt at falsification? How about what Berkeley Earth and Muller attempted to do then? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/232 "2014-09-06T01:19:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So why did the Financial Post, the Telegraph, WAWT and many other denial sites run with a headline that says the exact opposite of what the study actually found? I wouldn’t know until I read them. Do you have a link? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Are you then confused that simply because this falsification effort did not falsify AGW or the expected consequences that therefore to you it is not a valid attempt at falsification? [scratches nose] I’m presenting the CLOUD research as an example of a valid attempt at falsification. How’d you get the idea I wasn’t? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > How about what Berkeley Earth and Muller attempted to do then? I have no idea what you mean here, all I’m asking for is an example of someone misrepresenting the research results. You’re being vague about who these denialists are and what their effect is on scientific research is. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/233 "2014-09-06T01:30:22Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I wouldn’t know until I read them. Do you have a link? A lot of it was posted and discussed at Realclimate: > **[RealClimate: Cosmic rays and clouds: Potential mechanisms](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/)** > > RealClimate: Guest Commentary by Jeffrey Pierce (Dalhousie U.) I've written this post to help readers understand potential physical mechanisms behind cosmic-ray/cloud connections. But first I briefly want to explain my motivation. Prior to the... > [@](#): > > Final thoughts > > While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, **so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change.** > [@watchwolf49](#): > > [scratches nose] I’m presenting the CLOUD research as an example of a valid attempt at falsification. How’d you get the idea I wasn’t? Because it failed, of course since you acknowledge that is a valid attempt one wonders why you claimed that falsification was not possible in this subject. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I have no idea what you mean here, all I’m asking for is an example of someone misrepresenting the research results. You’re being vague about who these denialists are and what their effect is on scientific research is. :rolleyes: The links to the Financial Post and The Telegraph are in the article cited. The source of your sorry idea that I and many consider the CERN scientists to be deniers can be figured out. And no, it is clear that you are not paying attention when you claim that I’m vague. The important thing then is to figure out what was your sorry source of your claim about the CERN scientists being deniers. That was grossly wrong, and you do need a cite to show who is supporting your peculiar view. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/234 "2014-09-06T01:38:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because it failed, of course since you acknowledge that is a valid attempt one wonders why you claimed that falsification was not possible in this subject. Ah, the confusion is on your part then. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/235 "2014-09-06T01:52:58Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Ah, the confusion is on your part then. The reality is that you are not even wrong. So any luck in finding any good support for your claim that the CERN scientists were deniers? You also are not dealing with the implication of the failed attempt by Berkeley Earth. Sceptics that do research to investigate the assumed errors and attempted to falsify this reached the opposite conclusion of what you assume. You need to understand that since the falsifications are failing then the logic is simple: this issue has support from virtually all climate scientists also thanks to those falsifications attempts coming short. ---
**Author:** ![Knowledgable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/67e7ee/32.png) [@Knowledgable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowledgable)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/236 "2014-09-07T21:32:06Z")
Global Warming, short-term. Pattern, long-term. Research on this, you’ll get what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/237 "2014-09-07T22:25:53Z")
The above gets my nomination for “most useless post ever”, but I admit that there are quite a few other worthy contenders. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/238 "2014-09-07T22:58:11Z")
Looks more like a failed verse **wolfpup** , don’t be so spiteful with that recent failed haiku as in the past I have seen worse I’m terribly sorry… :o ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/239 "2014-09-08T00:05:05Z")
Grin! Beautiful! **GIGObuster** , you’re invited to read poetry at my wedding! (Well, y’know, if I ever get married…) ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/240 "2014-09-08T00:18:37Z")
> [@Knowledgable](#): > > Global Warming, short-term. > > Pattern, long-term. > > Research on this, you’ll get what I mean. If by “short-term” you mean tens of thousands of years and “long-term” as hundreds of thousands of years, then I think the OP is asking the wrong question. It would have to be “Can global warming be proved?” where global warming is the continuous rising of average global temperatures over the next hundred thousand years instead of what should be a period of global cooling. If we consider the ice core data as “ordinary” evidence, then the “ordinary” claim would be that we’ve reached the maxima and we’ll see falling average global temperatures over the next 20,000 years. However, if we consider the current levels of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations as “extraordinary” evidence, then that leads to the “extraordinary” claim of continued global warming over the same time period. Can the cyclic nature of global temperatures be falsified? Of course it can, or it’s not science. 20,000 years from now we’ll know for sure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=13)