# 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:** 22
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/421 "2014-10-20T00:18:31Z")
Here’s an interesting [commentary on the falsifiability of climate science](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/), well worth a read in its entirety. For the impatient, this is the short version – the basic tenets of climate science could be falsified through any of the following – I’ve paraphrased some of them to make them (IMHO) clearer: 1. A drop in global temperature for longer than any pause seen in the instrumental record, without explanation, say 50 years or so; or [proof that this heat accumulation isn’t true](http://4hiroshimas.com/). 2. A drop in global sea level 3. An unexplained change in atmospheric CO2 4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger and/or temperature changes much smaller than presently believed 5. The discovery that the stratosphere is warming instead of cooling, stratospheric cooling being a signature of CO2 IR absorption in the troposphere 6. Satellites failing to detect outgoing longwave radiation absorption by CO2 and water vapor 7. Failing to detect increasing water vapor with rising temperature 8. Discovery of a new source of heat in the climate system 9. Discovery of a fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics 10. Discovery that CO2 molecules behave differently in the wild than they do in the laboratory Another take is [this excellent excerpt from comments by Eric Wolff](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/eric-wolff/), a British paleoclimatologist, which begins with a list of 10 things that we should all be able to agree on. Wolff also makes a number of other insightful comments that are worth a read and careful consideration in light of some of the recent denialist postings in this thread: > [@](#): > > I notice … several comments about who sets the “terms of the debate”, and about the “context of the debate”. While such phrasings may make sense in discussing energy policy, it is a strange way to discuss the science. **Our context is the laws of physics and our observations of the Earth in action; our aim as scientists is to find out how the Earth works: this is not a matter of debate but of evidence.** I think some of the comments on this blog come dangerously close to suggesting that we should first decide our energy policy, and then tell the Earth how to behave in response to it. > > … Regarding the idea that the “temperature increase stopped in 2000”: my point is that we know there are natural variations (due eg to El Nino) that cause runs of a few years of temperature colder than the average or a few years warmer. Look on the record at the decade around 1910 for example when there was a long run of cold years on a flat background. Such a period superimposed on a trend would look like the last decade (but more so). The point of my analogy is that you can’t determine the trend over several months by measuring the gradient in a run of a few days. Similarly, you simply can’t determine a multidecadal trend by measuring the gradient over a few years because all you get is the “noise” of natural variability … when models are run out for a century into the future, they do indeed show runs of years with flat temperatures amidst a trend (…) (because of El Nino and other natural factors). I am therefore not clear why this is evidence that something is missing. > > … I freely admit that I am not an expert on all, or even most, aspects of climate. When I reach a topic that I have not previously studied, I go to those who are experts, either in person or by reading their work. I maintain scepticism about some of their conclusions, but my working assumption is that they are intelligent and that they have probably thought of most of the issues that I will come up with. Can I observe as an outsider to the blogosphere, that **it surprises me that so many people, presumably mostly with even less knowledge and training than me, seem absolutely convinced they have mastered every area of climate science … and more so, convinced that they are right and almost all of the experts are wrong. That must be the height of hubris.** > > … However, Coldish specifically mentioned IPCC, and I think there is also an interesting point to make about that. At the Downing event, there seemed to be two IPCCs in the room. To some it was a huge plot, masterminded by some mysterious power that manipulates troublesome scientists. \*\*To me and the scientists in the room, [the IPCC] is (at least in WG1) simply a set of well-researched review papers, describing the present state of the peer-reviewed literature. \*\*I mention this only because I think the former view is a type of groupthink where, because people form an extreme opinion in their private space, they think it is widely held, or even true. > > … Just in case anyone thinks they are addressing me with their remarks: I thought this might indeed be a chance for a civilised discussion, and some of the respondents seem happy to have that. However there are also a lot of remarks on here that are frankly rude and aggressive, and I won’t be returning. Now I remember why I hate the blogosphere. That last statement is rather poignant in its naively academic innocence, where a climate scientist thinks it’s possible to have a civil and factual discussion on the denialist wackosphere, and gets smeared and insulted by the lunatics that inhabit it. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/422 "2014-10-20T00:42:34Z")
From the comment section of [Is Climate Science falsifiable? | My view on climate change](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/) Heathergirl1234 Says: March 29, 2014 at 19:23 > [@](#): > > The winter is either going to be cold or it is going to be warm. Those are the options, one of those options will occur. So if we are told that both confirm global warming theory, then what is left to not confirm global warming theory? > > The summer is going to be hot or mild. If a hot summer and a mild summer are both considered the results of global warming, what option remains to be considered disproof of global warming? This goes right over the collective heads of the warmers, who can’t seem to understand what is being said. Of course nobody actually responds to the point made. citizenschallenge Says: March 27, 2014 at 16:57 > [@](#): > > you simply need to learn about climate specifics, such as the increasingly weird Jet Stream behavior effecting weather. After a few more avoidances, she seems to get to the heart of the matter. heathergirl1234 Says: March 27, 2014 at 17:22 > [@](#): > > So let’s try, tell me which of the following is NOT proof of global warming? > > A lot of snow…… No snow…… a lot of rain…… no rain…… a hot summer……. a cool summer…… > > From what I see and hear all of these events have been attributed to global warming! So what event is left that isn’t proof? Of course that point isn’t ever answered. How can it be? The person claiming to know what global warming will cause, is faced with that moment of truth. You have to answer, or admit you don’t know. But this is no problem for the warmer, as anything can change, depending on the needs of the moment. But this ignores the best part of all. The inevitable claim, that I spoke of early in the topic. Making a theory predict something so far in the future it is impossible to ever say if it was true. Not just because of the time, there is the added caveat as well. > [@](#): > > A drop in global temperature for longer than any pause seen in the instrumental record, **without explanation** , say 50 years or so It’s brilliant, just fucking brilliant. To understand, you just replace global warming with some other pseudoscience claim, one that threatens us all, and has to be acted on right now. But back to that wonderful comment section. heathergirl1234 Says: March 29, 2014 at 20:53 > [@](#): > > I am common citizen, I sit and watch the news during the sever snow storm we had in my area in 2013 and I see the “global climate change expert” declare that a huge blizzard “is not proof against climate change, one storm is just weather……” OK GOT IT…… > > Then I sit and watch my TV again, for coverage of Hurricane Sandy. There is the “global climate change expert” again… declaring the hurricane is obviously proof of global warming…… > > So I sit there and ask “odd, I thought no single storm was proof of global warming, so why is hurricane Sandy proof and the feet of snow I shoveled last year isn’t………” Yes, a regular person, especially if they are at all skeptical, might just ask questions. Of course she never got an answer to any of the questions. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/423 "2014-10-20T00:50:41Z")
Which of course brings us back to the issue so avoided here. What does the global warming theory predict? It certainly isn’t a simplistic claim of “over a long period of time the earth will get warmer, if nothing else happens”. That’s not a theory, it’s not even scientific. The warming has to be of a sort that we can say “this much of the increase is from human changes to the atmosphere”, or it’s useless. Not that we even know if such measurement is even possible. It’s exactly like people using a single hurricane as evidence of human caused climate change. It’s not scientific at all. Hurricanes, especially ones just like Sandy have happened before, so it’s pseudoscience to make a claim like that. Same for claiming one blizzard means anything. It’s pseudoscience, it’s absurd. Either you can say over a certain period of time “these changes will happen”, due to the increase in CO2, or it’s not a theory. Warming and cooling always happen. It has to be something different, to qualify as evidence. Now if we hadn’t seen any really cold winters in hundreds of years, a trend towards extreme cold and snow could actually be considered evidence of climate change. Same for if the planet hasn’t been as warm as present for thousands of years. Then just warming could be evidence. But since these thing happen already, that isn’t going to satisfy as evidence of AGW. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/424 "2014-10-20T01:23:45Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > heathergirl1234 Says: > March 27, 2014 at 17:22 > > > [@](#): > > > > So let’s try, tell me which of the following is NOT proof of global warming? > > > > A lot of snow…… No snow…… a lot of rain…… no rain…… a hot summer……. a cool summer…… > > > > But this is no problem for the warmer, as anything can change, depending on the needs of the moment. > > Of course that point isn’t ever answered. How can it be? The person claiming to know what global warming will cause, is faced with that moment of truth. You have to answer, or admit you don’t know. As Jon Steward said, you need to look at the science rather than the comment sections. > **[Comedy Central The Daily Show Fan Page](https://www.cc.com/fan-hub/the-daily-show?xrs=PPM-18-10caf1d)** > > The source for The Daily Show fans, with episodes hosted by Jon Stewart, Ronny Chieng, Jordan Klepper, Dulcé Sloan and more, plus interviews, highlights and The Weekly Show podcast. As mentioned before it is now wilful ignorance when a commenter reaches for misunderstandings from YouTube rather that to look at the explanations that were reported many times before. > **[2013 was the second-hottest year without an El Niño since before 1850 | Dana...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/06/2013-second-hottest-year-without-el-nino)** > > Dana Nuccitelli: 2013 was hotter than 1998 despite the latter being warmed by a powerful El Niño event > [@](#): > > According to the global surface temperate data set compiled by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way, which achieves the best coverage of the rapidly-warming Arctic by filling in data gaps between temperature stations using a statistical method called kriging, 2013 was the 5th-hottest year on record (since 1850). The top three hottest years (2010, 2005, and 2007) were influenced by El Niño events, which cause short-term warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere. > > Over the past decade, we’ve seen less warming at the surface and more warming in the oceans. This has been in large part due to a change in Pacific Ocean cycles. We’re currently in a cycle that tends to produce more La Niña than El Niño events, which has resulted in the oceans accumulating more heat, leaving less energy than normal to warm the atmosphere. This in turn has led to the widespread myth that the slowed rate of increase of global surface temperatures means we no longer have to worry about global warming, or that its consequences won’t be as bad as expected. > > The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it neglects a key fact: cycles are cyclical. > **[Less Snow Under Global Warming May Not Halt Blizzard Hazard](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/less-snow-under-global-warming-may-not-halt-blizzard-hazard/)** > > A warming world may have less snow, but the sort of severe snowstorms that caused chaos in the US this year will remain a serious hazard, according to new research > [@](#): > > LONDON − There’s still a chance that some people who dream of a white Christmas will get their wish. While there may be less snow falling overall in a warming world, there will still be blizzards. > > Paul O’Gorman, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reports in the journal Nature that that the kind of snowstorms that hit the US in 2014 will remain a hazard, even though there may be fewer of them. > > O’Gorman studied daily snowfall in the northern hemisphere through the prism of 20 different climate models. Each of these projected climate change over a century, according to various emissions of greenhouse gases. > > He also looked at seasonal average and extreme snowfall events, both under current conditions and as the planet warms. > > ‘Extremes actually increase’ > “There’s less known about these very heavy snowfalls,” O’Gorman said. “In some regions, it is possible for average snowfall to decrease but the snowfall extremes actually increase.” > > Climate scientists have consistently warned that a rise in average planetary temperatures is likely to be accompanied by a rise in the frequency or intensity of extreme events. > > By these, they usually mean windstorms, floods and heat waves. But ice storms remain part of the picture too. That is because even as temperatures on average creep up, there will be places and seasons where the rain could still turn to snow. > [@](#): > > There is a relatively narrow temperature range − just below freezing point − at which the heaviest snowfalls seem to occur. > > “People may know the expression, ‘It’s too cold to snow,’” O’Gorman said. "If it’s very cold, there is too little water vapor in the air to support a very heavy snowfall, and if it’s too warm, most of the precipitation will fall as rain. > > “Snowfall extremes still occur in the same narrow temperature range with climate change, and so they respond differently to climate change compared to rainfall extremes or average snowfall.” So, no, what we do have is evidence that the one that really does not know is heathergirl1234 and **FXMastermind**. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/425 "2014-10-20T01:26:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Which of course brings us back to the issue so avoided here. > > What does the global warming theory predict? It certainly isn’t a simplistic claim of “over a long period of time the earth will get warmer, if nothing else happens”. That’s not a theory, it’s not even scientific. Full stop here, as pointed many times before, deal with the predictions that were fulfilled and the observations that should be falsifiable from post #4 or just continue to pile up the clear evidence that you do not know what a scientific theory is even if it bites in the pants of your ignorance. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/426 "2014-10-20T02:08:53Z")
Just thought I should point out that **FX** completely ignores the commentary from Eric Wolff, Royal Society Professor of Earth Sciences at Cambridge, or the other scientists I quoted, much as he ignores the entire climate science community. His authority here is _ **heathergirl1234** _ from the comments peanut gallery, whose stated expertise is “I am a common citizen, I sit and watch the news …”. You tell 'em, _ **heathergirl1234** _! 😃😃 This from someone whose question has already been answered about five times in this thread alone but it went right over his head and was ignored, just like the concept of what a positive feedback is, which last I checked he still didn’t understand. Or my five-time request (at least) to describe exactly what I supposedly got wrong when I explained Cohen’s research. Vaguely amusing, perhaps, but really quite sad. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/427 "2014-10-20T02:54:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Just thought I should point out that **FX** completely ignores the commentary from Eric Wolff Rubbish old bean, I can’t be expected to read, think about, research and respond to every blog post you slap into a debate, all the while you avoid answering, in your own words, straight up direct questions. It might take days. Meanwhile, you still avoid answering simple direct questions. Like, what does the global warming theory predict? ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/428 "2014-10-20T03:01:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Here’s an interesting [commentary on the falsifiability of climate science](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/), well worth a read in its entirety. > [@](#): > > I don’t think Popper’s philosophy implies that some three word hypothesis – Anthropogenic Global Warming – can be rejected by nothing but a few simple claims. [Is Climate Science falsifiable? | My view on climate change](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable) There is a great example of several things. First, he calls it a hypothesis, while others call it theory. Theory in a scientific sense is something quite different than hypothesis. Second, he commits a fallacy, he shifts the burden of proof, as we see happen so often, somehow turning the ordinary debate and questioning of claims made by a hypothesis/theory into a situation where “claims” are used to reject a hypothesis. That’s not how it works. If you claim “rising CO2 levels will result in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_”, then that must happen, or the claim is false. Or the hypothesis must be rejected, changed, that’s how science advances. Claims do not invalidate a theory, evidence is what matters. Plus he is talking about “climate science” rather than global warming, but we know he really means global warming. Calling it “climate science” and insulting all opponents as “deniers” is bad form, and just wrong. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/429 "2014-10-20T03:03:55Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Rubbish old bean, I can’t be expected to read, think about, research and respond to every blog post you slap into a debate, all the while you avoid answering, in your own words, straight up direct questions. > > It might take days. > > Meanwhile, you still avoid answering simple direct questions. > > Like, what does the global warming theory predict? Third avoidance of post #4 noted. And the evidence is overwhelming that **wolfpup** is correct and FX is wrong. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/430 "2014-10-20T03:05:53Z")
An example of a claim, and one actually made by people, is that the arctic will be “ice free in summer”, which has been made several times now. This is attributed to global warming, or AGW. At some point the arctic will actually have to be a much warmer ocean, free of pack ice, or that claim is simply wrong. But if you keep extending it out in time, it’s impossible to be able to falsify the claim. I could claim the arctic will be ice free and palm trees will grow in Alaska, and it will happen by 2130. There is no way to prove me wrong. I win, and anybody who doesn’t believe me hates science, and is a fossil shill. That’s how easy it is to win. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/431 "2014-10-20T03:09:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Is Climate Science falsifiable? | My view on climate change](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable) > > There is a great example of several things. > > First, he calls it a hypothesis, while others call it theory. Theory in a scientific sense is something quite different than hypothesis. > > Second, he commits a fallacy, he shifts the burden of proof, as we see happen so often, somehow turning the ordinary debate and questioning of claims made by a hypothesis/theory into a situation where “claims” are used to reject a hypothesis. > > That’s not how it works. If you claim “rising CO2 levels will result in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_”, then that must happen, or the claim is false. Or the hypothesis must be rejected, changed, that’s how science advances. Claims do not invalidate a theory, evidence is what matters. > > Plus he is talking about “climate science” rather than global warming, but we know he really means global warming. Calling it “climate science” and insulting all opponents as “deniers” is bad form, and just wrong. And this item is really tiresome, the effort here is to discredit opponents as if they do ignore important issue, the failure and silliness of this comes when one does point out that we will accept his definition like I did on the global warming and climate change definitions from NASA, but that is not important for him because he will ignore the conclusions that NASA also reported when talking about those definitions. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/432 "2014-10-20T03:13:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Third avoidance of post #4 noted. It’s not that post that is being ignored. However, since it does contain a scientific claim, it’s a good point to repeat. The real issue is, are we observing the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect? All quotes from [10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html) [ol] > [@](#): > > If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed ([Braganza 2004](http://www.met.sjsu.edu/%7Ewittaya/journals/diurnalTempRange.pdf), [Alexander 2006](http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706)). > [@](#): > > Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening ([Jones 2003](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016377.shtml)). > [@](#): > > With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed ([Santer 2003](http://www.math.nyu.edu/%7Egerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf)). > [@](#): > > An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites ([Laštovi?ka 2006](http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf)). [/ol] ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/433 "2014-10-20T03:19:36Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > An example of a claim, and one actually made by people, is that the arctic will be “ice free in summer”, which has been made several times now. This is attributed to global warming, or AGW. > > At some point the arctic will actually have to be a much warmer ocean, free of pack ice, or that claim is simply wrong. But if you keep extending it out in time, it’s impossible to be able to falsify the claim. > > I could claim the arctic will be ice free and palm trees will grow in Alaska, and it will happen by 2130. There is no way to prove me wrong. I win, and anybody who doesn’t believe me hates science, and is a fossil shill. > > That’s how easy it is to win. Yes, some people, but among scientists this is a straw-man, the prediction was that ice was going to be less during the summers in the Arctic, the problem was that it turned out to be worse than expected. Hence the realization to investigate more and conclude that indeed a lot of heath in the poles was missed and so we have the adjustment that show that indeed even the so called pause in the land surface temperatures is not real. The falsification anyhow was already talked many times among the deniers out there, that the ice was going to recuperate in the following years, the deniers were wrong. [http://www.awi.de/en/news/background/climate\_change/will\_the\_north\_pole\_be\_ice\_free\_in\_summer/](http://www.awi.de/en/news/background/climate_change/will_the_north_pole_be_ice_free_in_summer/) > [@](#): > > Since 1978, we have continuously recorded the sea ice extent, using satellites. These measurements show a pronounced negative trend. In figures: the Arctic ice cover during September decreased by an average of eleven percent per decade. However, the ice is not shrinking uniformly or continuously, and the cover can vary significantly from year to year. In summer 1996, the ice cover reached a record high for the whole period covered by satellite measurements. The lowest extent ever was recorded in summer 2007. It is noteworthy that the summer ice extent did not recover very much in 2008 and 2009. The long-term trend is clear: The ice cover in the Arctic is definitely declining. > The future climate is likely to be even warmer. How will global warming affect the Arctic sea ice? Will the North Pole at some point in summer be ice-free? > > The warming will lead to a further decrease in ice extent and thickness. This trend will be reinforced by feedback processes: the more the ice retreats, the more ocean is exposed. And since the ocean absorbs solar energy more efficiently than sea ice, it will warm up. This heating then leads to an even more rapid retreat of the Arctic sea ice. At which point in time we can expect an ice-free Arctic during summer, is currently still difficult to predict. Climate models do not give us a clear answer on this. Some indicate that the North Pole will be ice-free by the year 2080, or even later. Other models suggest that this could be as early as 2040. But there are also voices which see an even earlier ice free Arctic- within the next few years. But this is not necessarily credible. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/434 "2014-10-20T03:23:04Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s not that post that is being ignored. > > However, since it does contain a scientific claim, it’s a good point to repeat. The real issue is, are we observing the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect? All quotes from [10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html) And if your idea is that repeating it does change the result, you are as usual mistaken. Those are indeed linking or referring to the scientific papers that report the already observed results of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and several of them were predictions of the result of it, just like the loss of the ice in the north pole and regions like Greenland. So yeah, you are still ignoring the science, and that this can be falsified, only that the experiments talked about confirmed what what the scientists were expecting. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/435 "2014-10-20T20:29:40Z")
The problem with trying to debate the questions/issues in the OP, is that people want to make every topic into an argument over global warming in general. This is self evident, and I think it happens so often, the Mods are reluctant to enforce any off topic rule, which is a shame really. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Warmer weather is not a bad thing for the earth. Yes, it will lead to changes in the ecosystem. Some species may go extinct, and others will emerge. Some species will flourish. That’s a process that’s happening all the time, regardless of man’s input. In fact, in the past warmer periods are associated with more diversity and a general flourishing of the ecosystem, even if there are winners and losers in the process. It’s so easy to get sucked into the general topic, since there isn’t an actual “debate global warming forever here” topic. But it’s red herrings all the way down. > [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re trying to blur the distinction between that scientific improvement process and _ad hoc_ flailing around to “just change the predictions” after the fact in an endless astrology-style game of increasing pseudo-scientific ramification. No, that is why I am specific and careful when I explain my reasoning, and why I provide scientific sources, to explain the logic behind it all. > [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re deliberately conflating “refining the theory” with “just changing the predictions”. No, and in fact if you actually read what I write, you will see that I fully support an open exchange of ideas, challenges and new theories about climate change, all of which is how real science works. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Of course, as I noted, what science is supposed to do is to use additional data to make a **better** theory that will over time **improve** the success of its predictions. In other words, the whole process of refining a theory consists of using data to falsify the parts of it that don’t work, and replace them with more successful hypotheses. Exactly, and when you say “a **better** theory that will over time **improve** the success of its predictions”, that is exactly right. If there are no predictions, it’s not even a hypothesis. Why does it seem we disagree on so much then? > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So both sides are stuck in this stupid binary yes/no argument. We should have moved far beyond that by now, but there is no political incentive for either side to do so. Exactly. I usually note that I am against rampant and increasing fossil fuel use, deforestation, destroying the oceans, turning the remaining rain forest into cattle pastures, palm oil plantations, or deserts, cutting down the boreal forest and the general fuck over of our shared world. I live carbon neutral already, but that is mostly due to benefiting from safe nuclear power, and living in the tropics. It’s much harder in the north to live with out fossil fuels. But back to the topic. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The “enhanced greenhouse theory” predicted the most warming would be over land, in winter, in the high latitudes of the NH. If you change the predictions from an enhanced greenhouse effect, you are changing the theory. Colder winters, with much more snow and ice, is 100% the opposite of what the enhanced greenhouse effect theory predicts. If you either don’t know that is true, or you wish for it to not be true, or you can’t bring yourself to admit it, I understand. The politics have indeed made it very hard for anyone to simply look at the modern consensus theory on global warming. The one climate models use. Why this is so, is no doubt political, not scientific. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The irony is, and this is real irony, in reality it might actually be a result of CO2 forced climate change, that at first a rise in CO2 causes warming of the boreal winters, an end to the glacier period of an ice age, then the high levels of CO2 lead to the glacier period returning. It “could” happen. This is based on our sketchy understanding of both past climate, as well as past level of CO2. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > After all, the ice core records do show that global glaciation (the really cold part of an ice age) does happen when CO2 levels are high. Nobody actually knows. it’s all hypothesis. Nobody knows, as in we don’t actually know why the glacial period returns, after the warm period. CO2 levels are high, why does it get colder? Why do CO2 levels not cause continued warming? Why doesn’t the warming ocean cause CO2 to increase, water vapor to increase, until drastic warming happens, in the past inter-glacial periods? What causes it to become cold again, when everything is so very warm? > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The greenhouse theory of climate change was, after all, a theory to explain why ice ages behave as they do. The enhanced greenhouse theory is to predict that raising the CO2 levels will result in catastrophic warming. The first ideas and hypothesis revolving around CO2 were about trying to explain the ice ages. Not AGW. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Yes, you’re absolutely right about this. There’s no doubt that CO2 is increasing, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that all else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere should result in an increased amount of heat trapping. Actually, there is quite a bit of doubt about the last part. The physics of what happens is very theoretical, and far from settled science. The big issues are what effect the very small amount of heating the extra CO2 will cause, and what the results of this will be. Hell, it’s fucking a huge area of dispute. The observations of what has happened, what is happening, are all about this. Since all the heating occurs in the upper atmosphere, it is far from certain what will happen. If we already knew the answer to this, there would be no debate at all. It is the theoretical issues that are the real bones of contention, with even very obscure and very technical issues still unresolved. Because the world and it’s oceans and atmosphere are so very complex, and we have to deal with so many variables, including biology, almost nothing about global warming is actually settled. Except the part where we are adding a fuckton of CO2 to the atmosphere. At least we can all agree on that. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/436 "2014-10-20T21:11:30Z")
In case you’re interested, here are a few reasons that I’m not going to respond to that pile of gibberish – and I doubt anyone else will in any detail, since you’re clearly not interested in having a serious or honest discussion… > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Rubbish old bean, I can’t be expected to read, think about, research and respond to every blog post you slap into a debate, all the while you avoid answering, in your own words, straight up direct questions. > > It might take days. So let us all understand this: I summarized Professor Wolff’s main points in five short paragraphs which I put right in my post. You had no time to read that, and still haven’t, but you apparently had lots of time time to scan through **a massive listing of 541 comments in the peanut gallery** section of the other article – maybe 50 times the size of the whole original article – in order to pick out the wisdom of _ **heathergirl1234** _, the “common citizen” who gets her climate training from watching the weather on television. 😃 And all your questions have been answered. **None of mine have.** [What did I say about Cohen’s research that wasn’t accurate?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17814955&postcount=358) Why do you claim that [water wapor isn’t a feedback](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17030924&postcount=135), and that if it was, [we’d have runaway climate change](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17068419&postcount=1704)? Why do you claim that AGW theory [“could be completely wrong”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17166658&postcount=561)? These are just a few examples that leave one doubtful that you understand anything about science at all. There are quite a few scientists on this board. Ever wonder why you have such a hard time getting anyone to agree with you? Now you know. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Is Climate Science falsifiable? | My view on climate change](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable) > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t think Popper’s philosophy implies that some three word hypothesis – Anthropogenic Global Warming – can be rejected by nothing but a few simple claims. > > There is a great example of several things. > > First, he calls it a hypothesis, while others call it theory. Theory in a scientific sense is something quite different than hypothesis. Yes, it’s a great example of the fact that y **ou didn’t even read the damn article** , the one where it says just a paragraph further down: “As a matter of fact, the ‘AGW-hypothesis’ is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted.” ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/437 "2014-10-20T21:30:56Z")
Looks like a meltdown with FX discussing with himself. But the demand that everything is complex so therefore we should not worry is negated by the times science was not maligned for political reasons when the problem with CFCs and Acid Rain were identified they were essentially solved in good part by not adding politics into the mix. Back then computer models also helped the scientists to deal with the complexities, it looks to me like the contrarians will never acknowledge that in the past complex issues could also be analyzed and solutions applied. As mentioned in another thread the idea that all paleoclimate research remains sketchy is only made to deny that there was a lot of progress that was made, and the conclusion from the scientists stands, there is no reason to assume that CO2 has reformed from what it was doing in the past, and scientists do have very good data and research that shows what took place in the deep past. > **[Ice age study delivers blow to global-warming skeptics](https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0405/Ice-age-study-delivers-blow-to-global-warming-skeptics)** > > A new study finds that rising levels of carbon dioxide drove rising temperatures at the end of the last ice age. The findings contrast with previous studies, which skeptics of human-triggered global warming said showed that CO2 levels weren't an... > [@](#): > > Ice age study delivers blow to global-warming skeptics > > A new study finds that rising levels of carbon dioxide drove rising temperatures at the end of the last ice age. The findings contrast with previous studies, which skeptics of human-triggered global warming said showed that CO2 levels weren’t an important factor. > > Rising levels of carbon dioxide drove much of the global warming that thawed Earth at the end of the last ice age. > > That’s the conclusion a team of scientists has drawn in a new study examining the factors that closed the door on the last ice age, which ended about 20,000 years ago. > > The result stands in contrast to previous studies that showed temperatures rising ahead of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. This has led some skeptics of human-triggered global warming to argue that if warming temperatures came first, CO2 wasn’t an important factor then and so can’t be as significant a factor today as most climate scientists calculate it to be. > > The measurements from the previous studies were taken from ice cores extracted from thick glaciers in Antarctica. The new work supplements that data with temperature evidence from 80 locations around the globe. > > The results show that while temperature increases around Antarctica appear to have led increases in atmospheric CO2, the picture globally was the opposite – CO2 increases paved the way for temperature increases. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/438 "2014-10-20T21:37:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Meanwhile, you still avoid answering simple direct questions. > > Like, what does the global warming theory predict? > [@wolfpup](#): > > In case you’re interested, here are a few reasons that I’m not going to respond Of course you won’t. Instead of direct answers to direct questions, you want to go and on about a blog somewhere else, or how I didn’t respond to it right away. I don’t blame you. Faced with direct questions, an actual concerned scientist would never miss a chance to expound on a subject he knows well. That it’s a great debate, all the more fun. What is the theory of global warming? Is it theory or hypothesis? In either case, what does it suppose? What does it predict? How can we know if it best explains what we observe? These are the basic questions. Insisting we read the entire 2013 TS from the IPCC, rather than answering, well you know what that means. Slapping a blog post instead of answering, not a good way to win points. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/439 "2014-10-20T22:33:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “As a matter of fact, the ‘AGW-hypothesis’ is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted.” It’s a little confusing sometimes. The page says it’s by By Jos Hagelaars, but it’s a Guest post by Hans Custers, but you are angry because I haven’t responded to Eric Wolff yet. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Just thought I should point out that **FX** completely ignores the commentary from Eric Wolff, Royal Society Professor of Earth Sciences at Cambridge, or the other scientists I quoted,. The blog didn’t have much by Eric Wolff at all. Can you quote the part you are angry about not being responded to? As for "The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. ", please list the hypothesis that are involved. As well as what is meant by “The human impact on climate is a theory”. What is the name of the theory? Is he talking about something besides the CO2 thesis? ---
**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:** [October 20, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/440 "2014-10-20T22:53:44Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > IThe blog didn’t have much by Eric Wolff at all. Wolff’s pertinent commentary [was right in my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17828854&postcount=421), with a link to the full article – the second half of the same post that you were linking and quoting from. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=23)