# 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:** 23
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/441 "2014-10-20T23:05:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. You demanded an explanation for what I meant by “fundamental principles of AGW”. I answered it [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17824472&postcount=395). So now you invented a new question, pretending that it’s the same one, but now the kind of question that would take a book to answer properly – just the kind of book referenced by **Kimstu** in terms of the IPCC WG1. But those seeking brevity can look at the summarized points in the SPM. Still too long? The basic principles can be summarized in the ten points of falsifiability that I described [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17828854&postcount=421), which contains a link to a short article that explains them well. Each of those points is an important aspect holding up AGW theory – the observed warming, the known GHG emissions, the radiative properties of CO2, the fossil-fuel isotopic signature of new incremental emissions being among the key components. **Your turn.** My demands are simple, because the questions are much more specific and refer only to your own ridiculous statements. For convenience I’ll even repeat the last four questions: [What did I say about Cohen’s research that wasn’t accurate?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17814955&postcount=358) I asked you about six times for a cite that contradicts what I said. There’s been nothing but silence from you. 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)? Also: What is the evidence for saying things like [“climate science is agenda-driven, not science based”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17122677&postcount=27)? What is the evidence for referring to the IPCC as “woo woo science” (just a few posts up)? Why do you say shit like this? All it does is undermine whatever credibility you may have had left. Yes, it’s fun to discuss climate science, and to debate actual issues, but not with someone who is willfully obtuse and refuses to actually debate them, and constantly raises fake denialist talking points and ignores the refutations. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/442 "2014-10-21T01:32:18Z")
I tend to be quite forgiving, since the medium does not easily lend itself to this sort of contentious back and forth. It started (mostly) with the point about the boreal winter trend not being a predicvtion of AGW. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The feedback from warming winters, in the high latitudes, is a key mechanism for global warming. This feedback leads to even more warming, one of the main reasons a small increase from rising CO2 levels is supposed to cause a lot of warming. > > If it is causing colder boreal winters (Cohen et al etc etc), something by no means settled, then the theory is wrong. Or part of the theory is. > > This does not mean CO2 or greenhouse warming will stop, doesn’t exist, or doesn’t matter. It just means a key assumption about the consequences may be wrong. Note I was specific about what it might mean, in regards to theory. > [@wolfpup](#): > > At no point does Cohen suggest that this invalidates the fundamental principles of AGW – You introduced another thing, which has no definition, so I asked you what you mean by it. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once more. What do you mean when you say “the fundamental principles of AGW”. > [@wolfpup](#): > > You demanded an explanation for what I meant by “fundamental principles of AGW”. I answered it [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17824472&postcount=395). . In the context of my comment, which you insist means something, you did not clear anything up at all. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The lower levels of that hierarchy – the basic foundation of all the models – is what I mean by the fundamentals of AGW, and here is the point: this is why complaining about the failure of AOGCMs to predict specific recent short-term changes in the Arctic Oscillation or polar vortex has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying fundamentals. But that isn’t what _Cohen et al,_ or my humble self, is talking about at all. You were the one that introduced “the underlying fundamentals”, which is why I asked you to define what you meant. \*Cohen 2012 \*used winter 1988-2010, proposing the cooling trend couldn’t be explained away as “natural” any longer, and **theorized** that the low arctic sea ice might be the cause. _Cohen et al 2014_ goes further, and since the trend has become even more irrefutable, goes on to note that global warming theory does not predict this behavior, **nor do any models create a scenario where boreal winter trends are colder**. In essence, **if it is an actual real trend** , and no natural (or other cause) **can explain it** , then the models are wrong, **and PART of the theory is wrong**. A big part of the expected warming is from the much warmer arctic, and feedbacks from this, leading to a smaller temperature differential between the very cold arctic, and the high latitude areas, which should result in more rain and less snow. Hence the predictions of milder winters, the warming should be noticeable, with extreme cold nights decreasing, while warmer nights increases. That’s an expected result of global warming. It’s essential for the large amount of change predicted by the theory. This is also what _Caesar et al 2006_ and _Alexander et al 2007_ are talking about. The (possible) error they made is become (maybe) obvious, and you can’t blame them, at that time it was pretty much pure denial that Antarctica was cooling, or that large regions of the boreal winters showed increasing cold and snow, and putting forth **the idea that global cooling was happening** would have been certain death for any future funding. (to speak to the other part of the OP) Moving along (quotes are from a related topic, 2010) > [@Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/198): > > This is one of the problems with the CO2 theory: we lack the ability to test it. Not really, as Kimstu will explain. > [@Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/199): > > On the contrary, AGW is not only a perfectly legitimate scientific hypothesis but currently the best scientific hypothesis available to describe current climate trends. It would be silly to try to pretend that it’s thoroughly established or infallible, but it’s even sillier to try to pretend that it somehow shouldn’t be accepted by researchers as a reasonable working hypothesis. > [@Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/203): > > AGW may be an uncertain and still far-from-confirmed hypothesis, but there’s nothing about that that makes it “bad science”. Here we see it being called a hypothesis, rather than theory. Since \*Hansen et al 1981 \*used theory, I prefer it. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The question is about what DOES the theory predict, because unless it predicts anything (other than ‘it gets warmer’), it’s not a theory, much less a scientific issue. Now looking at the first claim from the blog post. > [@](#): > > **1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause** That caveat removes any chance of falsification. It’s much like what we see for the last 20 years, where there is no obvious trend of a warmer global mean. Rather than question the assumptions (like, it has to keep getting warmer, with no pause), all kinds of reasons have been put out there to explain it away. > [@](#): > > The average global temperature is almost 1 °C higher now than it was in the early 20th century. … It is what we expect to happen, based on the greenhouse theory. And there’s no other explanation that is supported by a reasonable amount of evidence. [Is Climate Science falsifiable? | My view on climate change](http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/) And there is the obvious flaw in the reasoning. If CO2 was the cause of the warming (and they are talking about recent warming), then the lack of warming, as CO2 levels went much much higher, is a real problem. With out a “clear cause”, it challenges the basic assumption, that as CO2 levels rise, temperatures have to keep rising. If you base your assumption on CO2 as the cause of all the warming, which some certainly have, then it’s impossible to explain why it was warming so fast, then pretty much just stopped. That is not explained by the theory. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/443 "2014-10-21T01:34:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Also: What is the evidence for saying things like [“climate science is agenda-driven, not science based”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17122677&postcount=27)? What is the evidence for referring to the IPCC as “woo woo science” (just a few posts up)? The post you partially quoted contains an abundance of evidence, as well as explaining the reasoning for what is said. Asking questions like you do seems willfully ignorant. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/444 "2014-10-21T01:46:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I tend to be quite forgiving, since the medium does not easily lend itself to this sort of contentious back and forth. It started (mostly) with the point about the boreal winter trend not being a predicvtion of AGW. Nah, just there is the obvious flaw in the reasoning, this thread was not started by you, and the subject is about a general view about how to falsify this, not just your pet point. As it turns out your pet point is easy to counter with articles from Science Magazine and other sources, and you are avoiding the fact that we do know that global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and **everything else** that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect. And so we have the case that the confirmations that were also attempts at falsifying this seen in post #4 are ignored by FX, because there are several items that the theory predicted that were confirmed already, pretending that a flawed idea about few areas of the world that are cooling in winter alone does refute all the rest of the evidence what has been found is really silly. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/445 "2014-10-21T01:48:27Z")
I’m pretty sure you can’t understand the errors you are making, so trying to explain it to you is an impossible task. > [@wolfpup](#): > > My demands are simple, because the questions are much more specific and refer only to your own ridiculous statements. For convenience I’ll even repeat the last four questions: > > [What did I say about Cohen’s research that wasn’t accurate?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17814955&postcount=358) I asked you about six times for a cite that contradicts what I said. There’s been nothing but silence from you. 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)? You can make no demands, so there is your first error. As for all the questions, they are answered in each post. That you can’t follow the reasoning, that is the big problem for you. I can try and expand, make it simpler, but it may not help at all. > [@](#): > > Why do you claim that AGW theory [“could be completely wrong”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17166658&postcount=561)? We were discussing the claim that because the deep oceans are supposed to be warming, as land temperatures fall, that this means global warming. In essence, even as the global mean goes down, it’s still called warming. To understand this, consider the opposite is happening. (it’s a hypothetical example) > [@](#): > > For example, if the ocean+land temps were showing warming, and somebody said the ARGO network showed the deep ocean had cooled (the amounts are .01 C over a century), the warmer would not then say the world is cooling. of course not. Get it? If surface temps were still rising, but the deep ocean was cooling, the global warmer would in no way accept the statement, “global warming is not occurring”. It would be resisted with great violence. Can you understand that? Now we return to the actual case, what has happened. > [@](#): > > But because the land+ocean mean is dropping, they insist the heat has somehow stopped warming the world, and is only warming the deep oceans. See? Because **the surface is not warming** , they claim the deep ocean warming means it is still global warming. I used the exact opposite to show how illogical the claim is. If it was the other way, somebody claimed because the deep ocean is cooling, the rising global temps mean nothing, you would have no trouble understanding the objection to that. > [@](#): > > That is actually what they are claiming. Are you following yet? People are claiming that no rise in the global mean doesn’t matter, because the deep ocean is warming. If the deep ocean was cooling, during a period the global mean was rising, you could then say it isn’t warming. It’s illogical. > [@](#): > > It actually could be true as well. If so, then the AGW theory is completely wrong. It’s a real conundrum. By that I mean the current situation could actually be what is happening. The surface temps stop warming, but the deep ocean starts to warm. In essence the ocean stops surface warming somehow. If that is actually true, then basic global warming theory is wrong. It does not, in any way, predict that happening. It can’t explain it, nor does it explain how that could even happen. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/446 "2014-10-21T01:53:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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)? Rather than clutter the topic, simply read the explanation, it is in the post. That you can’t follow the reasoning, what am I to do about that? Explaining it again won’t help. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/447 "2014-10-21T02:01:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The post you partially quoted contains an abundance of evidence, as well as explaining the reasoning for what is said. > > Asking questions like you do seems willfully ignorant. You actually claimed that scientists are ignorant indeed. You claimed that it was a “display of willful ignorance, perhaps even deception, is appalling to me. It certainly is to all astromomers (sic), who know a lot about this matter. Same for oceanography, which is based on science, not politics or belief.” The point here is that we can check the paper that is cited, that was published in a peer reviewed science journal: > **[aa6725-06.pdf](https://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/aa6725-06.pdf)** > > 4.44 MB > [@](#): > > Methods. > The total solar irradiance is reconstructed from the end of the Maunder minimum to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple > but consistent physical model. > Results. > Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic > aa-index. It came from the Astronomy division of the Max Plank institute. What they found was that over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing during that time. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. So, the question here is: what is your evidence that these researchers displayed willful ignorance? Deception? Who are the astronomers that know a lot in this matter that do disagree? And oceanographers? And where do the researchers here are using politics or belief? ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/448 "2014-10-21T02:06:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And so we have the case that the confirmations that were also attempts at falsifying this seen in post #4 are ignored by FX, because there are several items that the theory predicted that were confirmed already, At least you grasp that there are of course, many predictions from the theory, about how the warming must happen, to be able to say “this is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, not something else”. Which is the best we have for trying to confirm the theory. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/449 "2014-10-21T02:10:02Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Are you following yet? People are claiming that no rise in the global mean doesn’t matter, because the deep ocean is warming. If the deep ocean was cooling, during a period the global mean was rising, you could then say it isn’t warming. It’s illogical. This is rich, since when are the oceans not part of the earth? And using the deep ocean is a straw man, the latest reports are that the deep ocean is not warming, but other levels do, BTW it is because the heat is not going to the deep ocean the reason why scientists are more confident that the warming will continue after this “pause” as the cycles that are currently pushing the heat into the upper levels of the ocean will come back or revert. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/450 "2014-10-21T02:16:29Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > At least you grasp that there are of course, many predictions from the theory, about how the warming must happen, to be able to say “this is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, not something else”. > > Which is the best we have for trying to confirm the theory. And it shows why relying on just one pet idea that is flawed from you is not going to convince many, I can predict with 99% confidence that you will never publish your findings or do any attempts to convince academics about the great “progress” you have made. And it is clear that you claimed for awhile that those predictions/falsification attempts had not been done or reported before. The scientists that did the work to convince almost all the current experts and academics in post #4 did the right thing, they did publish. They have not been contradicted at all, so the point stands. This can be falsified, but the past attempts at it have convinced many about the problem we are facing. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/451 "2014-10-21T02:17:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You actually claimed that scientists are ignorant indeed. Bollocks old bean, I was speaking about the SS blog, which is where the claim comes from, not the paper. > **[aa6725-06.pdf](https://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/aa6725-06.pdf)** > > 4.44 MB They clearly state their model and research lead them to conclude the TSI was less than other science had calculated, but that their model showed a continued rise in TSI since the Maunder minimum, and the little ice age. They made no claims about recent TSI and climate. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/452 "2014-10-21T02:23:56Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Bollocks old bean, I was speaking about the SS blog, which is where the claim comes from, not the paper. > [http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/aa6725-06.pdf](http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/aa6725-06.pdf) > > They clearly state their model and research lead them to conclude the TSI was less than other science had calculated, but that their model showed a continued rise in TSI since the Maunder minimum, and the little ice age. > > They made no claims about recent TSI and climate. Nothing what you say here contradicts the conclusion that was reported. The sun activity in the period reported did not increase. Simple logic then told many (and not only the fellows at SS) that the sun was not responsible. And it should be noted that you are attempting to avoid what you claimed: What is your evidence that these researchers displayed willful ignorance? Deception? Who are the astronomers that know a lot in this matter that do disagree? And oceanographers? And where do the researchers here are using politics or belief? ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/453 "2014-10-21T02:31:30Z")
BTW: I can report with confidence that other researchers agreed with SS, your sorry idea that they are pulling that just for shits and giggles is really silly. In 2004, solar researcher Sami Solanki examined solar activity and climate over the last 11,400 years. Upon observing a recent divergence between sun and global temperature, Solanki concluded[“solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html). More recently, UK scientist Mike Lockwood concluded that “…[solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise](http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract)…”. So, yes: What is your evidence that these researchers displayed willful ignorance? Deception? Who are the astronomers that know a lot in this matter that do disagree? And oceanographers? And where do the researchers here are using politics or belief? ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/454 "2014-10-21T02:36:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Who are the astronomers that know a lot in this matter that do disagree? > > And oceanographers? I call that willful ignorance, since I clearly posted links to evidence supporting what I said, in the post where I said it. > [@](#): > > 5.9 Variations in Solar Constant > We have assumed so far that the solar constant, the output of light and heat from the sun, is steady. Recent evidence based on variability of sunspots and faculae (bright spots) shows that the output varied by ± 0.2% over centuries (Lean, Beer, and Bradley, 1995), and that this variability is correlated with changes in global mean temperature of Earth’s surface of ± 0.4°C. (Figure 5.14). In addition, White and Cayan (1998) found a small 12yr, 22yr, and longer-period variations of sea-surface temperature measured by bathythermographs and ship-board thermometers over the past century. The observed response of Earth to solar variability is about that calculated from numerical models of the coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system. [http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng\_textbook/chapter05/chapter05\_09.htm](http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_09.htm) Oceanographers, and solar researchers, clearly identified in the page. So asking “who are” is more than just ignorance. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/455 "2014-10-21T02:43:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I call that willful ignorance, since I clearly posted links to evidence supporting what I said, in the post where I said it. > > [http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng\_textbook/chapter05/chapter05\_09.htm](http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_09.htm) > > Oceanographers, and solar researchers, clearly identified in the page. So asking “who are” is more than just ignorance. “The correlations are somewhat controversial” No, they do not claim at all that the correlation does maintain in the period that was mentioned. Solanki concluded “solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”. More recently, UK scientist Mike Lockwood concluded that “…solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise…”. The cite you use stops before the year 2000 and it is really incomplete. So what is your evidence that these researchers displayed wilful ignorance? Deception? Who are the astronomers that know a lot in this matter that do disagree? By the way the oceanographers are mentioned because you have to produce evidence that they contradict the observed divergence of the last 35 or so years. So where do the researchers here are using politics or belief? ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/456 "2014-10-21T02:48:54Z")
I knew it wasn’t going to matter at all. Logic, reason, and scientific facts, these are the last things that will matter. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is rich, since when are the oceans not part of the earth? Rather than even try and grasp the point, which would mean it could be responded to, we get something out of left field. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/457 "2014-10-21T02:52:01Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I knew it wasn’t going to matter at all. Logic, reason, and scientific facts, these are the last things that will matter. Since that ocean quip is not important by your own words, do not avoid what it is being pointed out, you are only ignoring the scientific fact that “solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”. and that “…solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise…" ---
**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 21, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/458 "2014-10-21T03:05:15Z")
There was also more that I posted in that post that FX cut short as to avoid this: That declaration of FX about the deep ocean is a straw man too, the latest reports tell us that the deep ocean is not warming, but other levels do. It is because the heat is not going to the deep ocean the reason why scientists are more confident that the surface warming will continue after this “pause” as the cycles that are currently pushing the heat into the upper levels of the ocean will come back or revert. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/459 "2014-10-21T09:43:43Z")
Pausing my embargo on reading FX’s posts to respond to this: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. This is so fundamentally wrong I don’t even know how to respond to it. The “theory” of global warming is an overarching framework composed of countless hypotheses and predictions. It’s the kind of thing you’d need a book to explain. It’s like asking “what is Quantum Mechanics theory, and please don’t point me to some huge book”. I’m sorry, but the number of different things encapsulated within this theory means that to read the whole damn thing _would take a book_. You’re right - these are basic questions. That doesn’t mean they have basic answers. Indeed, do you know _why_ when you asked for AGW theory people directed you to the IPCC report? Because replicating the full contents of AGW theory is quite a task! Because the list of hypotheses therein is long and complex and takes time to read and understand, and the IPCC does a good job of explaining it all. If you’re not going to read that, then it’s a waste of time to try to summarize it ourselves. This is honestly like you demanding “what’s the fundamental theory of origins” and then complaining when, instead of detailing every single hypothesis to do with our evolutionary history and the tree of life, we instead direct you to an open source book that does it and welcome you to read up. Because - and this is the crucial part - _you cannot get the full picture in less pages_. Now, if you just wanted a few core hypotheses, then we could give you that. And we _did_. Then you shifted the goal posts. I’m impressed by the mental fortitude of **Wolfpup** and **GIGOBuster**. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/460 "2014-10-21T14:25:25Z")
**Just what is the theory here?** First, we need to get straight on just what we might be talking about when referring to “The Theory of Global Warming.” There’s a natural tendency to identify such a theory with the statement that “The Earth is Warming.” That’s wrong because it confuses a theory with observations that might be used to test a theory. It’s also wrong because it would imply that the only reason we think that the Earth will continue warming in response to increased CO2 is that we already see it warming today; it loses the chain of physical causation. Somewhat better would be the statement, “The Earth is warming, and the warming is largely due to increases in atmospheric CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases.” This is defensible as a hypothesis, but I think it would be far better to consider this statement, too, as more properly in the domain of one of the tests we might apply to the Theory of Global Warming. My own preferred statement of The Theory of Global Warming is this: 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. The last part of the statement of the theory is, of course, the hard part, and the most uncertain. - See more at: [RealClimate: Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/#sthash.kmRWKuwC.dpuf) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=24)