Is global warming falsifiable?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Wrong. The greenhouse theory predicts that the arctic, as well as high latitudes in winter, will warm the most.

[snip]

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.

And per his own words the warming in the inland parts of the Antarctic should become warming later, the prediction and observation was that the warming what going to do that and more.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/covers/

A new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957–2006, reported this week by Steig et al., suggests that overall the continent is warming by about 0.1 °C per decade. The cover illustrates the geographic extent of warming, with the ‘hotspot’ peninsula and West Antarctica shown red against the white ice-covered ocean.

RealClimate: The heat is on in West Antarctica

The latest reports of the acceleration of the ice loss in that region just points to the prediction being fulfilled, I’m not expecting to make an impression on FX but it is important to learn how off base he remains.

As pointed before this is what to be expected of FX after he called someone that became the director at GISS a “nobody”.

[GIGObuster]

@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.
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.

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

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

This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

As usual the intention of the ones seeding FUD is to ignore the conclusions and the real predictions of the scientists. At the same time that is going the prediction that it was going to get dryer in the Western states continues to be more accurate too.

[watchwolf49]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

No, I ask you to back up your claim that friction is a limiting factor on hurricanes in the manner you suggest.

No, I asked you to back up your claim that hurricanes are more severe today because of man’s CO[sub]2[/sub].

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

No, I asked you to back up your claim that hurricanes are more severe today because of man’s CO[sub]2[/sub].

UCAR has a good overview of the evidence and the cited publications.

http://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/research/cgd-climate-highlights/hurricanes

Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, have caused carbon dioxide (CO²) levels in the atmosphere to become significantly higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years, and probably much longer. CO2; and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere, warming land and ocean, and therefore raise temperatures and/or dry out the surface. Observations show that the world’s oceans are warming down to at least 1500 feet depth. In particular, the SSTs in the critical region for hurricanes are increasing largely because of global warming. As this warming occurs the oceans expand and raise sea level. Melting land ice also raises sea level, currently at a rate of 1.5 inches over the past 12 years. Rising seas means that storm surges ride on a higher base level, turning even relatively minor storms into more flood events thereby increasing storm damage along coasts.

Many factors influence tropical cyclone behavior, and three factors can cause them to intensify:

[ul]
[li]warm ocean temperatures,[/li][li] relatively unstable atmosphere with little wind shear, and[/li][li] high water vapor content.[/li][/ul]

Changes in tropical cyclones are difficult to track prior to the satellite era (about 1970) except over the Atlantic, where aircraft surveillance produces reliable reports back to about 1944. Recent studies of the post-1970 period show clearly that the destructive power of tropical cyclones has increased by 70% in the Atlantic and Pacific, owing to increases in intensity and duration. The changes in the power destructive index are very highly correlated with SSTs in the critical region where tropical cyclones form, adding confidence that the result is real. Another study revealed that the global percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased over the past 30 years, again correlating with the rise in sea surface temperatures in the tropical cyclone generation regions. Researchers have also suggested that some category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones may have been underestimated previously, but results are large enough and so strongly related to the SST changes that they are thought to be robust to the data uncertainties. Another recent study determined factors for the bonanza 2005 North Atlantic record breaking season and found that North Atlantic SSTs were 0.92°C above normal: less than 0.1°C arose from the regional Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, while 0.2°C came from the earlier 2004-2005 El Nino, and 0.45°C from global warming. The remainder arose from normal weather variations.

The record breaking numbers of named storms in 2005, the record number of hurricanes, and the unprecedented 4 category 5 storms along with record damage, most notably from Katrina, is part of the upward trend toward much more active hurricane seasons in the North Atlantic since 1995. Given the loss of life and the huge costs of rebuilding from the cleanup hurricanes, it is essential to do whatever we can to avoid dangerous warming and preserve healthy and prosperous coastal communities for ourselves and our children. It is crucial that we combine aggressive emission reduction efforts with improved measures to protect coastal communities. These measures-including building codes, storm drainage plans, and preservation and restoration of wetlands, dunes, and barrier islands-must be designed to cope with both increasing sea level rise and greater storm intensity due to global warming.

Mind you, most of the ones dealing with this have some disagreements, a big one in the north Atlantic area is that it is possible that wind shear and other factors will mean that there will be slightly less hurricanes in the future; but ocean rise and more water vapor in the regions where hurricanes form lead many to tell us that even though less hurricanes are coming more of those hurricane will be harsher.

This BTW is only one issue that could break bad for humans in the future in a warming world, the point here is that we should not listen any more to the ones that attempt to minimize the issue because if this does break bad then this extreme weather item will be added to the costs of humans dealing now with dryer conditions in areas that had water before and the costs of saving coastal cities thanks to ocean rise. Items that are much more likely and predicted to get worse if no concerted effort is made.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@GIGObuster

UCAR has a good overview of the evidence and the cited publications.

Which, I might add, is not unreasonable to find on your own. Seriously, here’s the first results when I google “hurricanes global warming”.

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B.

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/global-warming-hurricanes.htm

They are already on their way, as Katrina, Rita, and all too many others have illustrated. The intensity of storms has been found to have increased significantly since the 1970s, while the frequency has increased from an annual average of 10 tropical storms (including 5 hurricanes) between 1850 and 1990, up to 15 (with 8 hurricanes) on average between 1998 and 2007. That pattern corresponds to the increase in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and unless we act now to curb global warming, it will just become worse. (As unproductive as complaining about the failure of Copenhagen is, there’s a reason people are so disappointed.) When it comes to tropical storms, it’s not the rising sea levels that are to blame so much as the increasing ocean temperatures, but the root cause is the same. Over the last 50 years, oceans have absorbed about 20 times more heat than the atmosphere, meaning the oceans are expanding (both because water expands as it warms as well as because of the melting glaciers and other land ice) and temperatures are rising from the surface down to 1,500 feet below.

While I couldn’t find anything on the proposed thing you were talking about when I googled it. Funny, that.

[ralfy]

@watchwolf49

… and ditch the air conditioner too …

Likely much of middle class lifestyles cannot be sustained given a combination of global warming, environmental damage, and peak oil.

[wolfpup]

@ralfy

… and ditch the air conditioner too …

Likely much of middle class lifestyles cannot be sustained given a combination of global warming, environmental damage, and peak oil.

That myth is a major reason that global warming denial is a thriving industry. If the fossil fuel companies tell you that if we stop burning coal and oil you’ll end up living in a cave trying to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together, and then tell you that climate science is full of holes and big uncertainties, it’s tempting to believe it.

But my air conditioner is just fine, thank you, and I have no guilt about running it because where I live the majority of electric power is clean: more than half comes from nuclear, almost a third from hydroelectric, there is a growing base of wind and solar energy sources, and coal has been almost completely phased out. If this is possible today, one can only imagine what will be possible in the future with technological developments like improved nuclear technology and electric vehicles.

[FXMastermind]

@wolfpup

If the fossil fuel companies tell you that if we stop burning coal and oil you’ll end up living in a cave trying to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together,

If the evil fossil fuel men stop delivering heating oil, natural gas and coal to Ontario, that’s pretty much what millions of freezing people will actually be doing this winter. Except the caves will be brightly lit by clean nuclear power while you burn wood to keep warm.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

If the evil fossil fuel men stop delivering heating oil, natural gas and coal to Ontario, that’s pretty much what millions of freezing people will actually be doing this winter. Except the caves will be brightly lit by clean nuclear power while you burn wood to keep warm.

:rolleyes:

Never mind that wolfpup linked to the fact that Ontario only depends on about a fifth of the total electricity coming from fossil fuels, it is even less when one takes into account that natural gas is a big chuck of that 5th, natural gas is still less of an emitter of CO2 than other fossil fuels.

And it seems that this does not exist in the FX universe.

[Magiver]

@watchwolf49

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.

There’s an historic relationship between the tectonic rise of the Himalayan mountains and the growth of the Sahara Desert. It extends well beyond the last 20,000 years.

[FXMastermind]

There is a lot of evidence that during the last climatic optimum, more rain fell, and not just in Africa.

The cold times are when it is really dry.

[FXMastermind]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/full/ngeo1627.html

In essence, all consensus climate science revolves around one issue. Is the global warming theory true? Actually, it is really about “since this happened and it goes against the theory, how can we explain it away, since the theory has to be true”.

You will find this is every consensus paper, even the ones that obviously and directly challenge, or show key predictions to be wrong. This is illustrated quite well by the following.

@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. .

Yes, because unlike a real theory, global warming theory is PHYSICS! and nothing can show it to be wrong. It’s as simple as turning up the heat on the stove. It will make the water boil faster. If the water doesn’t boil faster, there must be a reason to explain why, or we have to " throw out quite a bit of proven physics".

That’s how science works.

Like with tropical cyclones. They have to get either more numerous, bigger, or more destructive. Or something.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

… and that’s the big issue here - that on average, hurricanes are getting stronger.

See? If they don’t, we have to throw out physics. Or change the predictions.

If since 2005 (Katrina, global warming, you know the drill) predictions were “this is the new normal”, and we were told more frequent hurricanes, larger more deadly storms. When storms pretty much just stopped, it became “well fewer, but bigger, more dangerous”.

Of course if every year there had been a half dozen normal storms slamming into the US, that would also be called global warming. Which is why the “theory”, as it currently is presented, can never be refuted. Nothing can disprove global warming, because it is happening.

@FXMastermind

No matter what happens, global warming is the cause.

This does pose, of course, another interesting situation. If it’s all global warming, then every wonderful season, every beautiful day, and all the good things happening weather wise, are all because of global warming.

[GIGObuster]

Of course FXmastermind is just talking nonsense.

Notice how he does not refer to the many items already mentioned that can falsify this, instead he concentrates on issues that even the climate scientists have reported for years already that there is still a lot do check if they will go into the bad column, like the number of the hurricanes; the evidence is there however to report that the intensity of the hurricanes that manage to form is increasing.

And of course no climate scientist is reporting that all can be explained by global warming, straw manning is part of the effort here.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

Of course FXmastermind is just talking nonsense.

Of course. And just like every other time you make a claim, you have no evidence to back it up. In this case, it’s easy enough.

What is the theory of global warming? What does it predict must happen? What would falsify it?

If you answer anything other than those simple but pointed questions, you prove my case for me.

[FXMastermind]

Since I know it will never ever happen, that he will just answer, I will answer those simple questions. Right after he avoids answering them.

[FXMastermind]

While we are waiting, and it will be a very long wait, lets debunk some nonsense.

@wolfpup

The overwhelming scientific consensus – based on many lines of evidence including historical climate behavior, the incontrovertible effects of greenhouse gases, and different corroborating assessments of the amounts of CO2 and other GHGs released by human activity – is that GHGs released by human activity are the dominant driver of post-industrial planetary warming and the many aspects of climate change we’re currently seeing, including accelerated polar warming and ice melt and atmosphere-ocean circulation changes.

Here is a look at what that sort of greenhouse gas warming is theorized to look like. Drastic warming of high latitudes, during the cold season. It’s what the theory predicts. Added greenhouse gases cause warming. It’s the largest over land, in the NH, during the cold season. This is straight from the theory, and based on physics and how an enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to change things.

In this it agrees with all the above. No other cause is assumed to make the planet warm in this manner. We also have stratospheric cooling at the same time, meaning it isn’t increased solar causing the warming. This is evidence of greenhouse warming.

Here is a look at the last two decades. With no large volcanoes to explain it, that does not match what greenhouse warming would show. This is the very large problem for the theory, or rather some of the assumptions of the theory.

To really make this clear, here is a closer look at the changes.

1965-1995, greenhouse warming. Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes.

1995-2014 trend. Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters.

And why painting everyone with the same tar brush, who disagrees with you, is absurd.

@wolfpup

No one involved in climate research seriously doubts this except a few obvious quacks with a discreditable history of bad science and deceptive practices,

Actual climate researchers are most interested in why things are no longer going according to the theory. There might be some who still deny anything changed, but they are living in a fantasy world.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Of course. And just like every other time you make a claim, you have no evidence to back it up. In this case, it’s easy enough.

Of course, easy enough to show all that you did not check the thread and are not paying attention.

@FXMastermind

What is the theory of global warming?

As it was explained before (and you somehow pretend this was explained before) the one I go for was modernly proposed by Gilbert Plass. As he calls it it is the carbon dioxide theory of climate change:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/3

One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.

Thus there does not seem to be a fundamental objection to the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Further the temperature changes given by the theory for reasonable variations in the carbon dioxide amount are more than enough to cause noticeable changes in the climate. It is not usually appreciated that very small changes in the average temperature can have an appreciable influence on the climate. For example, various authorities estimate that, if the average temperature should decrease from 1.5 to 8 degrees, the glaciers would again form over an appreciable fraction of the Earth’s surface. Similarly a rise in the average temperature of perhaps only 4 degrees would bring a tropical climate to most of the Earth’s surface.

And it was pointed before that there are several lines of evidence with other theories involved, like in the case of Tobacco and cancer there are leading theories like the one Plass proposed and continues to be developed by people that you declared to be nobodies, like Gavin Schmidt that just became the director at GISS.

@FXMastermind

What does it predict must happen?

Not just predict, most are already being observed

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will continue to increase unless the billions of tons of our annual emissions decrease substantially. Increased concentrations are expected to:

Increase Earth's average temperature
Influence the patterns and amounts of precipitation
Reduce ice and snow cover, as well as permafrost
Raise sea level
Increase the acidity of the oceans

These changes will impact our food supply, water resources, infrastructure, ecosystems, and even our own health .

Those are the most likely, more research then could pile up more hurricanes and other extrenme events, increasing the costs that many economists have already identified just by taking the ocean rise into account.

@FXMastermind

What would falsify it?

Post #2 and post #4 for starters, and you only showed all that you continue to willfully ignore the big falsification effort from Muller and Berkeley Earth that was also mentioned in this thread.

@FXMastermind

If you answer anything other than those simple but pointed questions, you prove my case for me.

Too late for you, you only showed that you did not pay attention to the falsifications that are possible and already attempted.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Since I know it will never ever happen, that he will just answer, I will answer those simple questions. Right after he avoids answering them.

FX is so helpful in providing the evidence when others want to show him wrong.

[wolfpup]

@FXMastermind

In essence, all consensus climate science revolves around one issue. Is the global warming theory true? .

Have you noticed that your “climate science is all wrong” meme isn’t getting much traction these days and mostly has you arguing with yourself? Your posting history speaks for itself, containing as it does a mess of misinformation and basic factual confusion that verges on comedic parody. Every time someone wastes their time proving your wrong, you just move on to some other talking point. You might have better luck in a venue of scientific illiterates rather than a board that has actual scientists participating. l’m sure you’d be more comfortable.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Actual climate researchers are most interested in why things are no longer going according to the theory. There might be some who still deny anything changed, but they are living in a fantasy world.

The word you continue to miss is called “Asymmetric” and virtually all the scientists you continue to quote continue to support the main theories. The asymmetry observed in the northern hemisphere is not enough to counteract the average warming that is being observed.