# 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:** 27
**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 25, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/522 "2014-10-25T00:27:09Z")
I meant to say that in FX world, there are no droughts, and locations are **un** important. He also does not seem to mind ever if the Daily Mail and other sources he uses continue to pull his leg. ---
**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 25, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/523 "2014-10-25T01:08:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In reality, of course, the warming Arctic is one of the most dramatically visible phenomena of recent decades, and the link to extreme weather is precisely what countless recent papers have been about Show us some of the countless papers, predicting more extreme weather, especially in regards to warming winters causing it. From before it happened. Oh wait, there aren’t any. Of course you have to define “more extreme”, a unscientific term, that can mean anything. Certainly the 2004 and 2005 North Atlantic hurricane seasons were extreme, and blamed on global warming. But now a record low number of storms is also “more extreme”, which of course is rubbish. It’s woo woo science, making it up as you go. > [@wolfpup](#): > > including the Cohen papers that **FX** likes Nobody is going to deny that NOW, after things changed, many people are writing papers, about what is observed. Blaming AGW for all bad weather. But that isn’t predicting anything. If you find papers from before it happened, predicting it, we would all love to read them. Because the skeptical mind is insulted when after the fact things are claimed to have been predicted. Like if you read the 2001 IPCC report, and see claims about winters, and storms, matching what happened, that would be great science. > [@wolfpup](#): > > – because once again **_FX_ gets the science exactly backwards** – a warmer Arctic tends to contribute to _ **more** _ extreme weather, not less Not according to greenhouse theory. The subject of this topic. Warmer arctic temperatures are assumed to lead to less snow and ice (except Greenland), and milder winters. The only thing expected to increase is rainfall, as warmer air holds more moisture, and warmer winters have less snow. AGW theory DOES NOT PREDICT COLDER WINTERS WITH MUCH GREATER SNOW. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/524 "2014-10-25T01:14:05Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Of course you have to define “more extreme”, a unscientific term, that can mean anything. Certainly the 2004 and 2005 North Atlantic hurricane seasons were extreme, and blamed on global warming. But now a record low number of storms is also “more extreme”, which of course is rubbish. 😕 If it’s a record low number, is that not extreme? ---
**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 25, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/525 "2014-10-25T01:30:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > AGW theory DOES NOT PREDICT COLDER WINTERS WITH MUCH GREATER SNOW. Even in the baseball cartoon the UCAR scientist reported that yes, there will be still cold record winters in a warming world. [https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/steroids-baseball-climate-change](https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/steroids-baseball-climate-change) The scientist explaining it is Jerry Meehl [https://www2.ucar.edu/news/experts/gerald-jerry-meehl](https://www2.ucar.edu/news/experts/gerald-jerry-meehl) Yes, and that was months before the polar vortex was popularized and the analogy and reports that cold winters will still come in a warming world are not new either. ---
**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 25, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/526 "2014-10-25T02:00:29Z")
The new research is based on data and the theories related to the weirding of the weather does not contradict the global warming caused by humans, in reality the trend that is being found is that this piece of the puzzle is leading the weather to not behave as before. It will not be as pleasant as the do nothings in congress and contrarians are telling us. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HTAZue6ylZ8/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AHUBoAC3AOKAgwIABABGH8gWSgUMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBbRghBRAkxJp5vgP51RS8D7wiNoQ "Weird Winter - Mad March - Part 2") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6ylZ8) > [@](#): > > One of the most confusing effects of climate change is the increasing incidence of weather extremes, that may include hot, AND cold, snow and rain, wet and dry, drought and flood. > Scientists have been examining this problem intensely over recent years, as Europe, America, and Asia have all been subject to wave after wave of record breaking weather events. Now the picture is coming into focus. One thing to realize is that most predictions of seeing an average of a 3 degree Celsius increase thanks to a doubling of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is just about the world, the nonsense here from FX is to pretend that cold in an specific area of the world discredits all the dryness and heat observed in places like the North Pole, Areas of the south pole, Alaska, the southwest, Australia and many others. As explained before tackling specific weather events is just happening now as the tools of the climate scientists are allowing a higher resolution and scientists are starting to figure out what climate change will do in smaller regions of the world. As Richard Alley explained, we should not wait for what local weather will do as ocean rise, ocean acidification, droughts in several regions and more water vapor in the areas were hurricanes will still appear (causing more damage) are still coming. That is enough to tell us that we need to control our emissions. That most scientists are finding evidence that goes for extreme weather as being added into the big puzzle as “there will be more intense events in a warming world” is yet another bad result that tell us that we should not stand still to wait to see if the scientists are 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 25, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/527 "2014-10-25T02:38:45Z")
> [@andros](#): > > 😕 If it’s a record low number, is that not extreme? Exactly the point. “Extreme” can mean anything. Lots of storms, almost no storms, it’s all extreme. The only thing not blamed on global warming, is all the normal, or wonderful weather each year. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The new research is based on data and the theories related to the weirding of the weather Once more, some term, undefined. Now you can blame anything weird on global warming. The pseudoscience never ends. ---
**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 25, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/528 "2014-10-25T02:53:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Exactly the point. “Extreme” can mean anything. Lots of storms, almost no storms, it’s all extreme. > > The only thing not blamed on global warming, is all the normal, or wonderful weather each year. Now that is undefined. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once more, some term, undefined. Now you can blame anything weird on global warming. Nope, your term about global cooling for some areas, based on short trends and ignoring all the other areas of the world is what is not defined at all. Unless you publish it in a science journal, but we all know that will never happen. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The pseudoscience never ends. Piffle, how is your search going for any scientist at NASA and other scientific organizations agreeing with your idea that your cherry pick about global cooling for some areas, based on short trends and ignoring all other seasons and all the other areas of the world does discredit the findings of all other issues that continue to gain support? BTW the scientists reporting on the weather in the video from the Yale Climate media group are dealing with the piece of the puzzle that you continue to abuse. ---
**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 25, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/529 "2014-10-25T03:09:35Z")
One more note, I do choose my sources carefully, and that was a test for you, it is clear that you do not want to learn from the science and evidence that they are talking about. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HTAZue6ylZ8/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AHUBoAC3AOKAgwIABABGH8gWSgUMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBbRghBRAkxJp5vgP51RS8D7wiNoQ "Weird Winter - Mad March - Part 2") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6ylZ8) Cites: > [@](#): > > tornado counts, noaa > [http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/2010/annual/2010annual\_torncount.png](http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/2010/annual/2010annual_torncount.png) > > Arctic Warming altering weather > [Arctic Warming is Altering Weather Patterns, Study Shows | Climate Central](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weather-patterns-study-shows/) > > Arctic changes and Weather Extremes: NYTimes > [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/science/earth/arctic-sea-ice-eyed-for-clues-to-weather-extremes.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/G/Gillis,%20Justin?ref=justingillis&\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/science/earth/arctic-sea-ice-eyed-for-clues-to-weather-extremes.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/G/Gillis,%20Justin?ref=justingillis&_r=0) > > Jennifer Francis: Linking Weird Weather to Arctic changes > [Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic - Yale E360](http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/) > > The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather. > [http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/loss\_of\_arctic\_sea\_ice\_already\_influencing\_weather/74/3/](http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/loss_of_arctic_sea_ice_already_influencing_weather/74/3/) > > Munich Re:Statement of Prof. Peter Hoppe/2010 Press release on climate related [Insurance Giant Study Warns “Extreme Events a Game Changer” – This is Not Cool](http://climatecrocks.com/2012/10/25/insurance-giant-study-warns-extreme-events-a-game-changer/) > current tornado stats - US > [Storm Prediction Center Maps, Graphics, and Data Page](http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/) > > shrinking western snowpack > [Warming takes toll on Utah snow, and it looks to get worse - The Salt Lake Tribune](http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53909597-78/snow-utah-climate-rain.html.csp) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/530 "2014-10-25T03:39:03Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > . . . AGW theory DOES NOT PREDICT COLDER WINTERS WITH MUCH GREATER SNOW. Even if this were true…so what? You demand a theory that predicts everything? Suppose that there were unanticipated effects. “Okay, we didn’t see that coming.” How does that disprove the theory? Also…winters and snow are local effects. Overall, the world is warmer, even during winter. Do you remember that little place called the southern half of the planet? Hey, funny thing, they have their summers while we’re having our winters, and the overall global temperature is rising. For the dozenth time or more, what part of “average” don’t you understand? Ooh, New Hampshire had a heavy snowfall! Gosh, that proves that the whole damn planet is having a cold winter with heavy snow? Far from it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/531 "2014-10-25T11:37:39Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > This basic point gets handwaved away, for some reason, when it comes to the CO2 theory (AGW). Well, since you have chosen to arbitrarily assert one short term phenomenon to play your falsifiability games regarding AGW, it is only fair to ask you to defend similar predictions regarding evolution. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/532 "2014-10-25T12:08:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6ylZ8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6ylZ8) Thanks for the link, **GIGObuster**. I’ve heard about Jet stream “meandering” before, but am not ashamed to try to learn more. Those scientists do seem to know what they’re talking about! Do the deniers think it’s all mumbo-jumbo? I’m sure they don’t think the scientists are stupid, since it would take huge creativity to come up with these explanations if they were false! 🆒 ---
**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 28, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/533 "2014-10-28T19:36:58Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … and others are wasting their time arguing with **FX** as if he’s making some kind of rational argument. Let’s review the argument, it’s not hard to do. The theory of **the enhanced greenhouse effect** predicted the most warming in winter, in the NH hemisphere, over land. That is one key prediction from the theory, based on physics and the characteristics of warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect. Like the prediction of night time lows warming more than daytime highs, it’s due to the greenhouse effect always happening. (If it were more sunlight the warming would be a different kind of change) [This is explained, with graphics even](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/27/207246/eight-great-figures-summarizing-the-evidence-for-a-human-fingerprint-on-recent-climate-change/), several places online. I picked Cook, since it’s a source even GIGO can’t just handwave away. Here is what I will call [the Cook graphic](http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif) in this post later on. Note what he claims about the faster warming of winters. When this predicted warming from CO2 was thought to be observed, (there was a large increase in the very areas that were predicted to warm rapidly) it was considered proof that the warming was from **the enhanced greenhouse effect**. [1975-1995 winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1975&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Note the obvious warming trend for NH winters Now that there is twenty years of a cooling trend for NH winters (longer in some areas) the opposite of the predictions is now being claimed as due to global warming, or rather **the enhanced greenhouse effect** , which is the theory behind global warming. [1995-2014 winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Compare with the previous two decade trend to simply see the difference The simple fact is, if the last two decades actually had continued to show greenhouse warming for winters, that would be considered evidence, leading to very high confidence in the CO2 theory. It would also have made the annual mean continue to climb, another strong evidence for the theory. If a theory predicts one thing, and the opposite happens, the theory is incorrect. So the **the enhanced greenhouse effect** theory has already been shown to be wrong. Now that statement angers, or confuses some, or is completely misunderstood. It does not mean what some think it does. If the theory is changed to say **the enhanced greenhouse effect** is causing the colder winters, the entire thing falls apart, which is why caution is needed when making huge claims like that. If you simply change the theory, then you can not falsify **the enhanced greenhouse effect** theory. No matter what happens, the theory predicts it. Which is viewed, and quite rightly so, as bad science. [Looking at the 1960-1998 period](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1960&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shown in the Cook graphic, which shows winters warming very fast, you can see why this would be the case, and why it would be considered human fingerprints. [Now look at the 1998-2014 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1998&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), (which isn’t on [the Cook graphic](http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif)), and compare the two trends. It’s so obvious a child can see it. (you can check the Hemisphere trends, land and ocean, using the NCDC software, if you have any doubts) Once again, at the same time, you have both claims that it is actually the CO2 causing the cooling trend, or you have the obvious avoidance of reality, [those who insist there has been no cooling of the winters](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/10/286691/global-warming-graphic/). Or those who claim this doesn’t even matter. (the “so what?” defense). Or those who claim AGW didn’t predict warmer winters. Or those who claim the theory can simply be changed, and it is still right. Note that the sources are GISS, the NCDC, and skepticalscience for the above points. Hard to dismiss them as biased, liars or just wrong or something. The same can be said about ocean cooling, which is not a prediction of the CO2 theory. The same thing can be said about the land to ocean warming ratio, which also has shown the theory to be wrong. If the land mean is cooling, while the oceans warm, the theory is wrong. (because the theory predicts warming will be greater over land, once again, basic global warming theory) Same for the upper troposphere in the tropics changes, they have not happened as predicted. If you hypothesize the energy went into causing stronger winds, and the theory is changed to predict an increase in winds from heating instead, you have pulled a fast one, in the mind of your ordinary person. Antarctica was predicted to warm very fast. Now that it is impossible to keep claiming that, the theory is changed again. Greenhouse gases (water vapor and CfCs in this case) destroyed the ozone, leading to warming of the stratosphere, which increased the southern circumpolar vortex, causing cooling of Antarctica. So a greenhouse gas increase resulted in cooling. But this doesn’t falsify anything. The theory is adjusted. When you can simply adjust a theory (and the models based on it) after the fact, the theory can never be wrong. While this is actually how actual science proceeds, sometimes in fits and lurches, with old theory being found to be wrong, in the case of AGW, it seems to matter a bit more, than [semiconductor theory](http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/videos/49.html) or Phlogiston, or the Martian canals. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Maybe somebody else can figure out what **FX** is all about – all I see is someone incredibly tenacious about conveying bad information. Really bad information. Despite the ironic tone, the information, sources and reasoning presented are not that hard to follow, though it certainly seems some have trouble with it. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Among your evasions, misrepresentations of your opponents’ positions, and general refusal to post anything without being snide, (and, usually, wrong) Just saying something isn’t persuasive, scientific or even logical, in a debate. You need to either argue, or present evidence, just claiming something won’t work. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, since you have chosen to arbitrarily assert one short term phenomenon to play your falsifiability games regarding AGW Again, just because you make something up, it doesn’t make it true. In this case, since I presented several different lines of evidence right away, and provided scientific sources for all of it, your claim is absurd. ---
**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 28, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/534 "2014-10-28T19:43:29Z")
Here are five different lines of reasoning for the theory, to support what I just said in the previous post. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > … the theory of **the enhanced greenhouse effect** predicted the most warming in winter, in the NH hemisphere, over land. That is one key prediction from the theory, based on physics and the characteristics of warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The same can be said about ocean cooling, which is happening as well. And the same thing can be said about the land to ocean warming ratio, which also has shown the theory to be wrong. > > Same for the upper troposphere in the tropics changes, they have not happened as predicted. No problem, the theory is changed to predict an increase in winds from heating instead. So the theory is still correct. > > Antarctica was predicted to warm very fast. Now that it is impossible to keep claiming that, the theory is changed again. Of course I left out the obvious one, which is the slight cooling trend, with no obvious cause to explain what has defeated the ever increasing amounts of CO2, which theory predicts should have caused even greater warming, not cooling of the global mean. But I think we all know how that sixth line of evidence would end up. ---
**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 28, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/535 "2014-10-28T20:02:51Z")
Now because a lot of the above is going to be swept away as cherry picking, and climate is about long term trends, here is my refutation of it all, since just saying “that’s all nonsense” isn’t very convincing. Using Illinois as an example, here is how we know, or don’t know, it’s greenhouse forcing causing the long term warming, in Illinois. All trends are 100 year trends, using [the NCDC database](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/). summer maximum temps -1.4 F summer minimum temps + 1.6 F summer mean temps +0.1 F winter maximum temps 0.0 F winter minimum temps + 0.9 F winter average temps + 0.5 If Illinois is an example of NH land temps, we can say it’s greenhouse warming. Since the most warming is at night, (the lows), and the most warming is in winter. So I just refuted that there is any evidence that the CO2 theory is wrong. Using the annual mean shows the same thing. Annual min +1.5 F Annual max + 0.3 F So lows are warming more than daytime highs, theory confirmed. (as long as you accept using Illinois as a global proxy is OK) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/536 "2014-10-28T22:26:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Let’s review the argument, it’s not hard to do. > > The theory of **the enhanced greenhouse effect** predicted the most warming in winter, in the NH hemisphere, over land. No, it didn’t. The theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect predicted that a continued rise in CO2 and similar gases produced through the rise of the Industrial Revolution would result in an increasing average world temperature. From that basic point numerous subsidiary hypotheses have been put forth to explain what that would mean in terms of climate change. Focusing on one hypothesis and pretending that it is actually an integral part of the original theory is nothing more than you playing games. ---
**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 29, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/537 "2014-10-29T01:47:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Focusing on one hypothesis and pretending that it is actually an integral part of the original theory is nothing more than you playing games. It seems you didn’t actually read the links, or follow the argument at all. Your constant accusation of “playing games” is a personal insult, in case you are completely lacking in social skills, and don’t realize what you are doing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/538 "2014-10-29T03:40:36Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It seems you didn’t actually read the links, or follow the argument at all. > > Your constant accusation of “playing games” is a personal insult, in case you are completely lacking in social skills, and don’t realize what you are doing. I read the cherry-picked links and my assertion stands. My accusation of “playing games” is my assessment of the way that you have ignored posts, cherry-picked statements to support while ignoring others from the same sources, and generally made snide comments about others’ posts. If you feel insulted by my observations about your posting, change your manner of posting. It is not a personal insult and your attempt to pretend that it is would seem to be one more example of you playing games, (in this case word games), to keep the thread alive. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/539 "2014-10-29T06:25:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Your constant accusation of “playing games” is a personal insult **tomndebb** doesn’t need my help but this is definitely not the case. Pointing out that you are debating in bad faith is not a personal insult. Now, if he said you were playing games and should stick to Yahtzee because you’re an idiot, that would be a personal insult, Hope that clears things up. > [@](#): > > in case you are completely lacking in social skills This is a lot closer to a personal insult than his comment. It must be like rain on your wedding day, huh. ---
**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 29, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/540 "2014-10-29T19:17:30Z")
The problem with answering every last illogical claim is simple. An ignorant person can ask more stupid questions, make more stupid assertions than there is time to respond to. Ignoring such nonsense is essential in an actual debate, > [@tomndebb](#): > > So, you agree that the greenhouse effect is falsifiable. That is good to know. That is an example of an almost constant stream of wrong, answering each instance would be absurd. Nobody claimed “the greenhouse effect is falsifiable”, and saying “FX did” is insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Global warming is no the greenhouse effect, which nobody should have to point out. It’s ironic, since at the same time you are constantly insulting and claiming things, with no evidence. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Sorry. You declaring that the oceans are failing to heat up is only valid for your own idiosphere. The rest is you simply waving your hands, once again, to keep yourself at the center of the thread. That you made a Mod note, in this thread previously, not to make personal insults, and then you say something like that, it’s baffling,. You are not debating the points, just making personal comments about a person. In essence you are by example, saying your commentary is OK, and that speaking in great debates as you do, is OK to do. I don’t think you realize this. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Looking at the changes, in a scientific manner, using the GISS temperature analysis, is viewed by “global warmers” as denial, or something. It isn’t sure what they think, since they refuse to even look at evidence. > > [1965-1995, greenhouse warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1965&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes. > > [1995-2014 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters. > > If this completely unexpected trend is actually a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming theory), it means one thing. If it’s not due to increased greenhouse gases, it means something else altogether. It’s most likely a combination of multiple things (see Sam Stones commentary about this). Rather than respond to specific points, like the actual data, and the actual theory, you make blanket assertions, with no evidence, or even reasoning to explain your point. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Among your evasions, misrepresentations of your opponents’ positions, and general refusal to post anything without being snide, (and, usually, wrong) your ability to actually convey irony is seriously lacking. The problem with your claim, is the evidence shows you are dead wrong. In fact, the sheer volume and detail in my posts is much more obvious, they are far too long and detailed, which would be a valid criticism. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Another failed attempt, given the way that you have been utter ly ineffective in making an actual point, relying on simplistic caricatures to identify what you claim are examples of “falsifiability” while ignoring or dismissing those posts that disprove your claims. Once, rather than show any evidence, you just claim something. That’s not a debate. You keep talking about the person, while avoiding the topic. > [@tomndebb](#): > > In fact, while you might possibly believe yourself to have a point, your reversals and dances around the topic are beginning to lead me to believe that your “point” has more to do with keeping this thread active than actually engaging in honest debate. While an ordinary insulting person will easily be ignored, saying that, your position as a Mod makes that a threat, not just bad commentary. > [@tomndebb](#): > > It is not a personal insult and your attempt to pretend that it is would seem to be one more example of you playing games, (in this case word games), to keep the thread alive. Again, if you were just some ill informed person, you would be ignored. But your position makes your accusation a threat, since clearly if you are correct, it’s violation of some rule. In fact, it would be a violation for you to say that, if you were just a regular member here. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, since you have chosen to arbitrarily assert one short term phenomenon to play your falsifiability games regarding AGW, it is only fair to ask you to defend similar predictions regarding evolution. Again, just because you claim something, that doesn’t make it automatically true. I showed you half a dozen previous points in the the thread, and you ignore that. Instead repeating a false claim. That’s not a debate. You accused, I showed you were wrong, you don’t respond to anything I posted. You just repeat your accusation. You claim I avoid responding, but when I did, to your evolution point, you just ignore it. I explained what and why evoultion theory makes predictions, and you ingored the point. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s about the predictions that can be made, and if you can know if the prediction was accurate or not. If a theory does not predict, and you can’t say if the prediction is true or not, it’s not a scientific theory. In fact, you changed the point completly, now claiming there is only one prediction from global warming. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect predicted that a continued rise in CO2 and similar gases produced through the rise of the Industrial Revolution would result in an increasing average world temperature. You must not be reading the links. Climate change always happens, just warming alone isn’t enough to determine if CO2 is the dominant forcing. This has been made clear, multiple times. It’s an important point, and an example might help you understand why. When a [stratovolcano cools the planet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter), theory says the lower intensity sunlight will cause reduced plant growth, and this will result in less CO2 uptake at first, until the cooler oceans absorb more CO2. This is based on science(!), and some would insist it is more like an effect, rather than theory. It’s just what we know will happen. Less sunlight, less plant growth. Cooler oceans, more CO2 absorption. The only problem with such simplistic thinking, is that it is wrong. That isn’t what happens at all. Does that mean “the theory” is wrong? If you change the theory, to explain what actually is observed, can you still claim the theory was right all along? > [@tomndebb](#): > > From that basic point numerous subsidiary hypotheses have been put forth to explain what that would mean in terms of climate change You just changed the “theory of global warming” to “that basic point”, so now the debate is no longer about the theory, but all the other hypothesis that come from “that basic point”. It’s a clever language trick. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Focusing on one hypothesis and pretending that it is actually an integral part of the original theory is nothing more than you playing games. There you go again. Claiming something (it’s just “that basic point”, not actually a theory at all) and then proceeding to reason as if your point isn’t up for debate. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Focusing on one hypothesis and pretending that it is actually an integral part of the original theory is nothing more than you playing games. Except, as I pointed out, with evidence, you are wrong, and it is at least six different expected results from the theory I mentioned. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Pointing out that you are debating in bad faith is not a personal insult. Of course it is, especially when that is your tactic, rather than debating the scientific points, and the evidence. Accusing others of bad faith, game playing and refusing to respond isn’t debating, it’s personal commentary. ---
**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 29, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/541 "2014-10-29T19:27:32Z")
After two very long posts, chock full of science, I summed it up with this. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Tyndall (and everyone else) predict winters will warm faster than summers, due to the greenhouse effect. Observing winter cooling, while summers warm, with out any other forcing to explain it, falsifies a main assumption of the greenhouse theory. Your response was in essence, “No that’s not true”. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Another failed attempt, given the way that you have been utter ly ineffective in making an actual point, This is a common tactic, especially when you also accuse at the same time. You simply ignore everything, or worse, claim Tyndall and others never said any of that. > [@tomndebb](#): > > From that basic point numerous subsidiary hypotheses have been put forth to explain what that would mean in terms of climate change. No, and if that was all Arrhenius ever claimed, it wouldn’t be a theory. Your handwaving about the new theory not making any difference, was incorrect. You ignored my response about it. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, it’s not considered a forcing, and it certainly has not been “discovered”, in the sense that the consensus has adopted this new theory, nor have the models all been changed. First, once you realize it’s not a forcing, the rest makes no sense. See? Instead you accuse me of not responding. Imagine how that looks. Same for this point. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > If this new theory is validated, and we are sure there is indeed an unexpected feedback from CO2 forcing, that is a very large change in the theory, and it means all the models are wrong. It also means a lot more than that. > > But it is by no means certain this is what is happening. 27 years isn’t long enough to say. You seriously don’t understand that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=28)