# Is global warming falsifiable?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 442

<div class="post-metadata">

**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")

</div>

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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786)._