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.
Note I was specific about what it might mean, in regards to theory.
You introduced another thing, which has no definition, so I asked you what you mean by it.
In the context of my comment, which you insist means something, you did not clear anything up at all.
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)
Not really, as Kimstu will explain.
Here we see it being called a hypothesis, rather than theory. Since *Hansen et al 1981 *used theory, I prefer it.
Now looking at the first claim from the blog post.
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.
Is Climate Science falsifiable? | My view on climate change
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.