Is global warming falsifiable?

[FXMastermind]

@Kimstu

You’re deliberately conflating “refining the theory” with “just changing the predictions”.

Utter tripe. A theory depends on the ability to predict. If a theory is wrong, then it is wrong. The next version is a different theory, even when it’s still called the same thing.

@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.

No, if the predictions are wrong, the theory is wrong. That’s the scientific method. And changing the predictions is exactly what happens, because the theory is changed. But, and this is important, if you haven’t got something that can make accurate predictions, it’s a hypothesis, not theory. Theory in science means something different than what the common useage of the world means.

@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. But that’s just superficial public-relations “negging”, not a genuine critique of the science.

Nope, I am stating flat out the theory, in this case, the enhanced greenhouse effect theory of climate change has already been shown to be flawed, and predictions made by that theory did not happen. It doesn’t matter “why” the theory was flawed, in regards to falsification.

@Kimstu

If we do find serious flaws in the mainstream hypotheses of climate science, it will be done by critically evaluating the actual research. Not by sitting around ignorantly sniggering “Hur hur hur, don’t all this here flip-flopping on climate predictions sure make the whole thing look like pseudoscience bullshit?” Which is basically all that you’re doing.

Bullshit. My statement is based on mainstream science, it has nothing to do with belief, opinion or my goals. I actually support most of the changes the alarmists want, as well as even more draconian measures to deal with all the other factors, not just CO2 emissions. I just don’t delude myself that bad science is the way to achieve this.

@Kimstu

Once again: The validity of a scientific theory is not determined by whether or not con artists can make some kind of an argument that it superficially doesn’t look valid.

Nobody but you claimed that.

My clear statements in other topics are all based on scientific principles, data and facts. Nothing I’ve ever stated goes against scientific realities.

It’s the theoretical parts of the CO2 theory (global warming) that have been falsified, by observation and measurements. These are the assumptions about what will happen because of the slight warming effect from increasing CO2. The greenhouse effect is a scientific principle. The changes from an artificial raising of CO2 (all the others are considered minor) is what the AGW theory is about, and the predictions made are based on theory, which is exactly where a theory can be considered wrong.

The annoying thing is how those supporting the theoretical predictions can and will change these predictions, after it becomes undeniable that the early predictions were wrong. The most glaring in your face example is, of course, how colder winters are now “predicted” from the increase in CO2 (global warming). This is, in essence saying that global warming will make winters milder, with less snow, and make winters colder with more snow. It might actually be true, but that means it isn’t a theory. If the predictions are “it might get warmer, or it might get colder, or both”, that’s not a theory.

It’s why the claim of “more extreme weather” is unscientific. If you are unaware of the claims of “colder winters might be due to global warming”, then you are out of the loop.

There are dozens of “explanations” currently for why global surface anomalies are not going up. Because that’s a key prediction of the theory.

Warming winters are another.

So is a decrease in NH snowfall.

If NH winter snow was going down, it would be claimed as evidence that the theory is correct. Since it’s not decreasing, and in fact is increasing, now that it being attributed to warming. (more heat. more moisture more snow)

At which point it’s not a theory.

It’s why those claiming AGW is happening are so cagey, so evasive when asked about predictions of the theory.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

If by “short-term” you mean tens of thousands of years and “long-term” as hundreds of thousands of years, then I think the OP is asking the wrong question. It would have to be “Can global warming be proved?” where global warming is the continuous rising of average global temperatures over the next hundred thousand years instead of what should be a period of global cooling.

If we consider the ice core data as “ordinary” evidence, then the “ordinary” claim would be that we’ve reached the maxima and we’ll see falling average global temperatures over the next 20,000 years.

However, if we consider the current levels of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations as “extraordinary” evidence, then that leads to the “extraordinary” claim of continued global warming over the same time period.

Can the cyclic nature of global temperatures be falsified? Of course it can, or it’s not science. 20,000 years from now we’ll know for sure.

Again, as Berkeley Earth, GISS and many others tell you, we do not need to wait that long, there are many other things one can do to falsify this, or to find out that it will not be a problem. One big test did took place back in the 70’s, amid the cooling then that convinced popular media to talk about ice ages coming most scientists continued to tell us that it was going to get warmer.

If that had not taken place right now there should had been a lot of changes or we should had stopped worrying about the issue.

Turns out popular media was wrong. (And many deniers just blamed and continue to blame the scientists when a super majority of then predicted the opposite) So that is another reason why the consensus is what it. Because most of the scientists got what was going to happen right.

[FXMastermind]

Those skeptical of the theory, because of science, base their scientific objections on sound principles, and the scientific method.

Certainly there are those who already decided and just want ammo for a political fight. I consider them even more deluded than the alarmists who make obscene predictions about disaster, with out real evidence, only theory.

The case of Antarctica is quite an example. For a long time the alarmists denied that it was getting colder there, and that sea ice was increasing. Both seemed a direct challenge to the enhanced greenhouse theory, which depends on polar amplification for drastic warming. After it was undeniable what was happening, the ozone loss theory came about, and destruction of ozone was now used to explain why the antarctic region was not doing what the theory predicted.

This allows the AGW theory to be considered true, even when a key prediction didn’t happen. If the arctic region starts increasing sea ice, and we see a trend towards colder temperature there, the same thing will happen. The theory will still be correct, it’s just that something else happened.

This goes against the claims, based on the theory, that the CO2 increase will dominate all other forcings, and warming will happen no matter what. The warming can simply be put off into the distant future. This is exactly what happened with Antarctica, where the warming is now predicted to “resume” in 2060 or so. This is directly from a scientific paper on the matter.

You can’t falsify a theory that has that kind of power.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Those skeptical of the theory, because of science, base their scientific objections on sound principles, and the scientific method.

Certainly there are those who already decided and just want ammo for a political fight. I consider them even more deluded than the alarmists who make obscene predictions about disaster, with out real evidence, only theory.

The case of Antarctica is quite an example. For a long time the alarmists denied that it was getting colder there, and that sea ice was increasing. Both seemed a direct challenge to the enhanced greenhouse theory, which depends on polar amplification for drastic warming. After it was undeniable what was happening, the ozone loss theory came about, and destruction of ozone was now used to explain why the antarctic region was not doing what the theory predicted.

This allows the AGW theory to be considered true, even when a key prediction didn’t happen. If the arctic region starts increasing sea ice, and we see a trend towards colder temperature there, the same thing will happen. The theory will still be correct, it’s just that something else happened.

This goes against the claims, based on the theory, that the CO2 increase will dominate all other forcings, and warming will happen no matter what. The warming can simply be put off into the distant future. This is exactly what happened with Antarctica, where the warming is now predicted to “resume” in 2060 or so. This is directly from a scientific paper on the matter.

You can’t falsify a theory that has that kind of power.

You can not deny what the ice is doing anyhow.

NASA West Antarctic Ice Sheet Findings: Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable

The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is a marine-based ice sheet below sea level that is bounded by the Ronne and Ross Ice Shelf and contains glaciers that drain into the Amundsen Sea. The study announced today incorporates 40 years of data citing multiple lines of observational evidence measuring movement and thickness of Antarctic ice sheets. A key factor to this loss is a thinning along the grounding line of the glaciers from underneath. The grounding line for an ice sheet is the crucial boundary where ice becomes detached from ground underneath and stretches out to become free floating. A slow degradation of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has been observed, one that can be attributed to increased stratospheric circulation along with the advection of ocean heat coupled with anthropogenic global warming.

BTW the colder and ice increase were explained before, it applies mostly to the inland areas of the continent. It does not change what the warming conditions that are doing around Antarctica and if indeed the warming does come for the inside of Antarctica on 2060… I rather do not hear what this guy is telling us, I will listen to NASA, all the scientific organizations involved with this and the related scientists.

[GIGObuster]

@Trinopus

Grin! Beautiful! GIGObuster, you’re invited to read poetry at my wedding!

(Well, y’know, if I ever get married…)

Well, thanks for that Trinopus!

[FXMastermind]

An example of the insanity that is a daily occurrence, when it comes to AGW, is illustrated in the articles about Antarctica.

Ozone hole causes mixed Antarctic message

Recent conflicting reports about whether Antarctica is warming or cooling can now at least be explained - it is all the fault of the ozone hole.

Ozone hole causes mixed Antarctic message

How much the ozone hole may be warming the planet is unknown, but Grise and his colleagues estimate an increase of less than 0.09 watts per square foot (1 watt per square meter) of energy could be reaching the ground. This type of warming is still a much smaller effect than the global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Is the Antarctic Ozone Hole Causing Warming?

Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period.

Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

The story of Antarctic sea ice is also complicated because the observed sea ice expansion during the satellite era is inconsistent with expectations based on the positive trend in the SAM. While it has been suggested that the sea ice response to ozone depletion may not be mediated entirely through the SAM (Turner et al., 2009), thus offering the possibility of reconciling the observational data, more recent modeling evidence indicates that ozone depletion acts to decrease Antarctic SIE rather than increase it. It has been argued that the observed sea ice expansion might not be a response to external forcing, but instead could be a reflection of internal variability within the climate system. However, alternative hypotheses to explain the observed sea ice changes have also been proposed. For example, Bintanja et al. (2013) have suggested that increased meltwater from Antarctic ice shelves has led to a cooling and freshening of the ocean surface layer in recent decades. This could have effectively shielded Antarctic sea ice from the upwelling of warmer water from depth, contributing to the observed increase in SIE. This proposed mechanism has recently been called into question, however (Swart and Fyfe, 2013). Clearly, there is no simple answer when it comes to explaining the observed sea ice changes. Whatever the answer may be, though, it almost certainly involves ozone depletion at some level.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/antarctic-ice-loss-at-odds-with-ozone-depletion.html

It is important to recognize that the widely-cited “Antarctic cooling” appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming (e.g. Bertler et al. 2004. At present, it is not possible to say what the long term change over the entire last century or more has been. The lesson here is that changes observed over very short time intervals do not provide a reliable picture of how the climate is changing.

Furthermore, there are actually good reasons to expect the overall rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere to be small. It has been recognized for some time that model simulations result in much greater warming in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere than in the South, due to ocean heat uptake by the Southern Ocean. Additionally, there is some observational evidence that atmospheric dynamical changes may explain the recent cooling over parts of Antarctica. .
RealClimate: Antarctic cooling, global warming?

As you can clearly see, the science is settled, and their is no debate. And the AGW theory is right.

[GIGObuster]

Of course, as RealClimate also mentioned (and was used by FX in his tirade there) this is not settled, but it is clear that they are less wrong that before.

RealClimate: Unsettled Science

The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts.

The reason why no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.

In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence.

But no scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out. Think of the science as a large building, with foundations reaching back to the 19th Century and a whole edifice of knowledge built upon them. The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction. The idea that the ‘science is settled’ is equivalent to stating that the building is complete and that nothing further can be added. Obviously that is false – new bricks (and windows and decoration and interior designs) are being added and argued about all the time. However, while the science may not be settled, we can still tell what kind of building we have and what the overall picture looks like. Arguments over whether a single brick should be blue or yellow don’t change the building from a skyscraper to a mud hut.

As for the FUD from FX the first article FX cites tell us that:

The ozone hole and global warming are different phenomenon, caused by largely different pollutants. Massive reductions in emissions of the chemicals that eat the ozone layer are predicted to heal the hole after about 2020. But global warming is far from under control and it seems likely that in the long run, all of Antarctica can expect to get hotter.

As per what took place in the 70’s and taking into account the better tools that are available now I go for what the scientists are telling us.

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

My clear statements in other topics are all based on scientific principles, data and facts. Nothing I’ve ever stated goes against scientific realities.

I just have to say this.

Your “clear statements in other topics” have been exquisitely clear evidence that on the topic of climate science you do not have the remotest fucking clue of what you are talking about. Period.

I’m frankly amazed that you still have the audacity to be pontificating on this after the smack-downs and embarrassments you’ve justifiably received from people who actually understand climate science.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

This allows the AGW theory to be considered true, even when a key prediction didn’t happen. If the arctic region starts increasing sea ice, and we see a trend towards colder temperature there, the same thing will happen. The theory will still be correct, it’s just that something else happened.

Yes, this is sort of what happens when the basic tenets of your theory are grounded in incredibly solid basic science. We know full well what should happen. If it doesn’t happen, we need to find a reason why it didn’t happen, or we need to throw out quite a bit of proven physics. According to physics, with an increase in CO2, we should see warming. If we’re not seeing it, we need to figure out why we’re not seeing it. And in that discussion, “The physics backing this is wrong” is not one of the more likely answers. And the fact is that so far, every time we’ve hit a “stumbling block”, there’s been a good explanation. This is sort of what we’d expect from applying basic science to a highly complex system - the science holds up, but there are some interactions we did not predict. So far, none of these interactions have given us any reason to think that the consequential predictions (things like an increase in hurricane severity, or more droughts) are wrong.

Oh, and as for what wolfpup said: +1. FXMastermind seems to know what he’s talking about… But he really, really doesn’t.

[watchwolf49]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So far, none of these interactions have given us any reason to think that the consequential predictions (things like an increase in hurricane severity, or more droughts) are wrong.

Has this claim been demonstrated? Which hurricane’s increased severity is tied directly to man’s CO[sub]2[/sub]? Which drought wouldn’t have happened except for man’s CO[sub]2[/sub]? How do we conduct an experiment to show how man’s CO[sub]2[/sub] is directly changing weather or climate?

How does “solid basic science” allow for reducing boundary layer friction in the atmosphere? As hurricanes increase in intensity, friction becomes the overwhelming limiting factory to it’s severity. How does global warming of any kind reduce this effect? Do we have evidence that hurricanes were stronger, faster or more frequent during the Middle Cretaceous when global temperatures were 15 to 20ºC higher?

I’ve been searching around for information about the claim of increasing droughts. I was shocked … shocked I say … that Skeptical Scientist has nothing about the Sahel. Of all the places in the world where we can point our finger and say “See, man is directly changing the climate”, the one most vivid example is completely ignored. The only reason I can see is that this humanitarian crisis has nothing to do with the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, rather all the other impacts man has on our environment. Maybe it’s because white people don’t live in the Sahel.

If you predict something will happen in the future, but can’t show how this has happened in the past … then the burden of proof become much much higher. Looks to me the biggest impact of AGW is that we have to add three feet to our coastal communities’ sea walls over the next 100 years. Yet, we put a man on the moon and returned him safely home within 10 years, so this really looks like a minor problem at best.

[FXMastermind]

This allows the AGW theory to be considered true, even when a key prediction didn’t happen. If the arctic region starts increasing sea ice, and we see a trend towards colder temperature there, the same thing will happen. The theory will still be correct, it’s just that something else happened.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Yes, this is sort of what happens when the basic tenets of your theory are grounded in incredibly solid basic science.

Wrong. The greenhouse theory predicts that the arctic, as well as high latitudes in winter, will warm the most. That feedbacks from less ice, less sea ice, and less snow will result in even more warming. Open water absorbs more heat, bare ground and rock absorbs more heat, and the loss of snow and ice will result in more warming. Along with an increase in water vapor from the warming, which will also cause more warming. These are basic predictions, a basic part of the theory. They are key, fundamental assumptions about what the theory predicts will happen when CO2 (and deforestation) increase the amount of heat in the troposphere, and at the surface, and in the oceans.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

We know full well what should happen.

No, that’s why it’s a theory, because we don’t already know what will happen. If something besides the expected results occurs, the theory is wrong. Of course it will be changed, but the theory was wrong about the assumptions that were made. If there are no predictions, nothing to observe to cause confidence in the theory, then it was wrong. A theory that can’t be shown to be wrong is not a theory. That would be called a hypothesis.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

If it doesn’t happen, we need to find a reason why it didn’t happen, or we need to throw out quite a bit of proven physics.

No, that isn’t how it works at all. Physics, known laws, principles and axioms are what a theory is based on, they are the platform that a theory rests on, but it is the unknown that is predicted, or it’s not a theory.

This is not some minor point, but a basic tenant of the scientific method. If a theory doesn’t predict something, then it isn’t a theory.

[FXMastermind]

@watchwolf49

I’ve been searching around for information about the claim of increasing droughts. I was shocked … shocked I say … that Skeptical Scientist has nothing about the Sahel. Of all the places in the world where we can point our finger and say “See, man is directly changing the climate”, the one most vivid example is completely ignored. The only reason I can see is that this humanitarian crisis has nothing to do with the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, rather all the other impacts man has on our environment. Maybe it’s because white people don’t live in the Sahel.

If the Sahel was getting worse, you would hear about it constantly. More extreme dryness in Africa was a claim made about Global Warming.

Desertification, drought, and despair—that’s what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

National Geographic

Scientists were shocked to see the greening on Satellite images. Rainfall in the Sahel is something that can be measured. You can plot out the monthly and yearly data, and show trends. If the trend was drier, you would see it on the front page.

Rather than learning about it just now in this topic. That rainfall is increasing.

[FXMastermind]

Ready for the fun part? After a twenty year trend was undeniable, and published, showing increasing rainfall in the Sahel, 1982-2002, a 2005 study says:

An explosion in plant growth has been predicted by some climate models.

For instance, in 2005 a team led by Reindert Haarsma of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the Netherlands, forecast significantly more future rainfall in the Sahel.

The study in Geophysical Research Letters predicted that rainfall in the July to September wet season would rise by up to two millimeters a day by 2080.

National Geographic

See? The theory is impossible to falsify. Predict drought and if there is drought, it’s proof of the theory.

If rain increases, that is also proof of the theory. Even if it is predicted 25 years after it happens.

[watchwolf49]

@FXMastermind

If the Sahel was getting worse, you would hear about it constantly. More extreme dryness in Africa was a claim made about Global Warming.

There is evidence that the Sahara was a futile grassland ecozone back during the last glacial maxima. Global warming is generally considered the reason it’s been drying out these past 20,000 years. The same is found in the Great Basin region of the USA. It’s also generally considered the reason agriculture was developed, the hunter-gatherer systems failed with this drying.

It’s not talked about because it has nothing to do with man’s activities.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@watchwolf49

Has this claim been demonstrated? Which hurricane’s increased severity is tied directly to man’s CO[sub]2[/sub]? Which drought wouldn’t have happened except for man’s CO[sub]2[/sub]?

As with most climate phenomena, it’s a matter of probabilities. I know for a fact that I have already shown you the James Hansen article (“Loading The Climate Dice”) explaining the concept. Here it is again. Either acknowledge it and stop making such phenomenally misguided statements, or just let me know that you have no interest in debating this rationally. Thanks.

How do we conduct an experiment to show how man’s CO[sub]2[/sub] is directly changing weather or climate?

Really? The basic effect at play here, dealing with the absorption spectrum of CO2, was demonstrated more than a hundred years ago by Svante Arrhenius. This is not cutting-edge, complex science, this is the very basics of the field. If you do not understand it, you need to stop talking.

How does “solid basic science” allow for reducing boundary layer friction in the atmosphere? As hurricanes increase in intensity, friction becomes the overwhelming limiting factory to it’s severity. How does global warming of any kind reduce this effect? Do we have evidence that hurricanes were stronger, faster or more frequent during the Middle Cretaceous when global temperatures were 15 to 20ºC higher?

Honestly, at this point I’m just kinda done. This is… really just garbage. I’m sorry, nothing here is coherent and sensible. I have no idea what you’re talking about with friction, you make no attempt to back it up, and google gives me nothing. As for evidence of hurricanes being stronger in the Cretacious… Are you serious? Like, really? How would you even look for evidence of a hurricane at all that long ago, let alone determine its severity?

[FXMastermind]

Here are two articles about Hurricanes and AGW, both soon after.

Recent scientific evidence suggests a link between the destructive power (or intensity) of hurricanes and higher ocean temperatures, driven in large part by global warming.

Hurricanes and Climate Change

The current evidence strongly suggests that:
(a) hurricanes tend to become more destructive as ocean temperatures rise, and
(b) an unchecked rise in greenhouse gas concentrations will very likely increase ocean temperatures further, ultimately overwhelming any natural oscillations.
Scenarios for future global warming show tropical SST rising by a few degrees, not just tenths of a degree (see e.g. results from the Hadley Centre model and the implications for hurricanes shown in Fig. 1 above). That is the important message from science. What we need to discuss is not what caused Katrina, but the likelyhood that global warming will make hurricanes even worse in future.

RealClimate: Hurricanes and Global Warming – Is There a Connection?

@Budget_Player_Cadet

This is sort of what we’d expect from applying basic science to a highly complex system - the science holds up, but there are some interactions we did not predict. So far, none of these interactions have given us any reason to think that the consequential predictions (things like an increase in hurricane severity, or more droughts) are wrong.

There’t it is. That is exactly why the theory can never be falsified.

No matter what happens, global warming is the cause.

[ralfy]

The only logical reason for skepticism that we lose the opportunity to produce more using fossil fuels. The catch is that we also face peak oil. That coupled with environmental damage makes skepticism irrelevant, as we will have to resort to other sources of energy in the long term, including renewable energy.

[watchwolf49]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

As with most climate phenomena, it’s a matter of probabilities.

Probabilities are eminently falsifiable.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Honestly, at this point I’m just kinda done. This is… really just garbage. I’m sorry, nothing here is coherent and sensible. I have no idea what you’re talking about with friction, you make no attempt to back it up, and google gives me nothing.

Yeah, I think you are done. You’ve called upon “solid basic science” yet you ask me to back up friction. You can start with Viscosity.

[watchwolf49]

@ralfy

The only logical reason for skepticism that we lose the opportunity to produce more using fossil fuels. The catch is that we also face peak oil. That coupled with environmental damage makes skepticism irrelevant, as we will have to resort to other sources of energy in the long term, including renewable energy.

… and ditch the air conditioner too …

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@watchwolf49

Probabilities are eminently falsifiable.

You’d make a great lobbyist for the tobacco industry. “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff cannot prove that cigarettes caused his particular cancer. It could have been any number of factors that caused it!” :rolleyes: This really is not particularly hard to understand, and the fact that you are refusing to acknowledge it makes me think you’d be better off on the same list as FXMastermind.

Yeah, I think you are done. You’ve called upon “solid basic science” yet you ask me to back up friction. You can start with Viscosity.

No, I ask you to back up your claim that friction is a limiting factor on hurricanes in the manner you suggest. Which is, of course, bullshit - there is no such limiting factor on category 5 hurricanes, and that’s the big issue here - that on average, hurricanes are getting stronger. That a hurricane like Katrina would not have hit category 5 again were it not for global warming. Even if your completely unsupported claim that friction means that we’ll ever see a hypothetical category 6 hurricane is true, that’s still a bad thing. Friction or no friction.