Is global warming falsifiable?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

It doesn’t get much simpler or direct than the following.

“Does the global warming theory predict anything?”

What does it predict?

Several predictions and confirmations in post #4

@FXMastermind

Is there any prediction that will confirm confidence in the theory?

Like the confidence that cigarettes and tobacco products caused cancer the confidence grew after many experiments confirmed how bad the problem is. The several experiments that confirmed the cites in post #4 increased the confidence.

@FXMastermind

The most obvious thing when it comes to warmer or colder, is cold, and snow. It’s one of those “in your face” things, that can be measured, that can be seen, felt, that effects our lives.

And Australia and the South West broiling never happened, as it is the other three seasons of the year.

@FXMastermind

What does the theory predict about snow and cold? If you claim it makes no predictions about this matter, or that such a climate indicator does not matter, you are beyond even being wrong.

Actually one prediction was that the chances of hot weather and other events would increase, normally one could expect record lows and record highs to be about even, instead we are seeing 3 record highs for every 1 record low.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/steroids-baseball-and-climate-change

IIRC in one very recent year the situation was like 10 hot records vs 1 cold one, but in the following year the situation did go to about even, as any honest statistician can tell you, the huge disparity of the previous year is not used in favor of more global warming and neither is a single year where the records where even as evidence for a cooling trend, the scientific thing to do is to look at the average and long term trends. And taking the huge year for warming events and the even-year in context with many past decades it is clear that the record warming events have increased as predicted.

[FXMastermind]

As I stated clearly before, if you get anything other than a direct clear answer, when you ask direct scientific questions, you are dealing with woo woo, not science.

“Does the global warming theory predict anything?”

If there is no answer, just unrelated nonsense, you should suspect something.

“What does it predict?”

If you can’t just link to simple explanation of basic global warming theory, then why not?

“Is there any prediction that will confirm confidence in the theory when it happens?”

I linked to this several times, but probably not in this topic. Of course there is. Any theory that is scientific has some way to be able to say if it is true or not.

The most obvious thing when it comes to warmer or colder, is cold, and snow. It’s one of those “in your face” things, that can be measured, that can be seen, felt, that effects our lives.

When the period of milder winters was occurring, it was used over and over as “evidence” of drastic global warming happening, and happening now. People remember that sort of thing, especially when predictions about skiing or winter wheat are involved, or tropical pests moving north, or how all the arctic will soon be ice free, or how the oceans will rapidly rise, it’s no secret, it was one of the biggest “threats”. The 1990 IPCC report actually starts off discussing this issue, how can we know global warming is happening?

What does the theory predict about snow and cold? If you claim it makes no predictions about this matter, or that such a climate indicator does not matter, you are beyond even being wrong.

It doesn’t take a Nobel prize winning genius to be able to see the obvious. But it sure helps when actual climate researchers say direct things.

Dynamics that conflict with climate models

The scientists focused on winter weather extremes, as that season has “not always followed the warming script,” Cohen said. “While global warming theory is consistent with record warm temperatures and more intense precipitation events, it does not directly explain cold extremes,” the paper says. For example, the number of days continuously below freezing has increased in midlatitudes, a dynamic that is not consistent with the projections of climate models.

POLITICO Pro

“While global warming theory is consistent with record warm temperatures and more intense precipitation events, it does not directly explain cold extremes,”

This isn’t saying all physics is wrong (red herring), nor does it mean much, other than what it says.

Watching people try to spin it otherwise, better than watching TV

[FXMastermind]

For those that just can’t be bothered with reading anything, the link POLITICO Pro

contains discussion of four different theories, all of them trying to explain why global warming theory has turned out to be so wrong, about the NH winters

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

As I stated clearly before, if you get anything other than a direct clear answer, when you ask direct scientific questions, you are dealing with woo woo, not science.

“Does the global warming theory predict anything?”

If there is no answer, just unrelated nonsense, you should suspect something.

I do think that many will not ignore that you acknowledged that those cites from post #4 did point to the science, what is clear is that you will ignore the implications of the confirmations, and that does tell us a lot indeed.

Having issues with cold weather events is only one piece of the puzzle that is not a deal breaker when one takes into account the many other predictions and their confirmations made about several other events and implications.

[Kimstu]

@FXMastermind

“Does the global warming theory predict anything?”

What does it predict?

Various answers to “what does it predict” have been discussed in detail throughout this thread, and you keep either ignoring them or dismissing them with no valid refutation. Such answers also appear in great number in the IPCC documentation that you keep being referred to for information and keep refusing to read, perhaps because you apparently have it mixed up with the Bible.

In short: The theory of anthropogenic climate change predicts probabilistically a large number of specific changes in climate: that is, it estimates both the likely outcomes and the current uncertainty of each outcome. You have shown in the previous discussion that you have a really hard time grasping the distinction between probabilistic and deterministic prediction, and you keep demanding that climate science should do the latter when the very nature of climate systems requires it to do the former.

So I don’t have much hope that you’re going to be able to understand the details of the predictions any better than you have done up to now. Nevertheless, since you asked, here are a few more of them for you.

TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-term Changes in Temperature

In the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant future long-term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the GMST anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence). This is based on multiple lines of evidence. This range is consistent with the range obtained by using CMIP5 5 to 95% model trends for 2012–2035. It is also consistent with the CMIP5 5 to 95% range for all four RCP scenarios of 0.36°C to 0.79°C, using the 2006–2012 reference period, after the upper and lower bounds are reduced by 10% to take into account the evidence that some models may be too sensitive to anthropogenic forcing […]

The projected warming of global mean temperatures implies high confidence that new levels of warming relative to 1850-1900 mean climate will be crossed, particularly under higher GHG emissions scenarios. Relative to a reference period of 1850–1900, under RCP4.5 or RCP6.0, it is more likely than not that the mean GMST for the period 2016–2035 will be more than 1°C above the mean for 1850–1900, and very unlikely that it will be more than 1.5°C above the 1850–1900 mean (medium confidence). […]

The spatial patterns of near-term warming projected by the CMIP5 models following the RCP scenarios (Figure TS.15) are broadly consistent with the AR4. It is very likely that anthropogenic warming of surface air temperature over the next few decades will proceed more rapidly over land areas than over oceans, and it is very likely that the anthropogenic warming over the Arctic in winter will be greater than the global mean warming, consistent with the AR4. Relative to background levels of internally generated variability there is high confidence that the anthropogenic warming relative to the reference period is expected to be larger in the tropics and subtropics than in mid-latitudes.

It is likely that in the next decades the frequency of warm days and warm nights will increase in most land regions, while the frequency of cold days and cold nights will decrease. Models also project increases in the duration, intensity and spatial extent of heat waves and warm spells for the near term. These changes may proceed at a different rate than the mean warming. […]

TS.5.4.3 Projected Near-term Changes in the Water Cycle

Zonal mean precipitation will very likely increase in high and some of the mid latitudes, and will more likely than not decrease in the subtropics. At more regional scales precipitation changes may be dominated by a combination of natural internal variability, volcanic forcing and anthropogenic aerosol effects.

Over the next few decades increases in near-surface specific humidity are very likely. It is likely that there will be increases in evaporation in many regions. There is low confidence in projected changes in soil moisture and surface runoff.

In the near term, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events will increase over land. These changes are primarily driven by increases in atmospheric water vapour content, but also affected by changes in atmospheric circulation. The impact of anthropogenic forcing at regional scales is less obvious, as regional-scale changes are strongly affected by natural variability and also depend on the course of future aerosol emissions, volcanic forcing and land use changes (see also TFE.9). […]

TS.5.4.4 Projected Near-term Changes in Atmospheric Circulation

Internally generated climate variability and multiple RF agents (e.g., volcanoes, GHGs, ozone and anthropogenic aerosols) will all contribute to near-term changes in the atmospheric circulation. For example, it is likely that the annual mean Hadley Circulation and the SH mid-lat- itude westerlies will shift poleward, while it is likely that the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone and increases in GHG concentrations will have counteracting impacts on the width of the Hadley Circulation and the meridional position of the SH storm track. Therefore it is unlikely that they will continue to expand poleward as rapidly as in recent decades. […]

TS.5.4.5 Projected Near-term Changes in the Ocean

It is very likely that globally averaged surface and vertically averaged ocean temperatures will increase in the near-term. In the absence of multiple major volcanic eruptions, it is very likely that globally averaged surface and depth-averaged temperatures averaged for 2016–2035 will be warmer than those averaged over 1986–2005. […]

TS.5.5.1 Projected Long-term Changes in Global Temperature

Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st century under all of the RCPs. From around the mid-21st century, the rate of global warming begins to be more strongly dependent on the scenario […]

With respect to 1850–1900 mean conditions, global temperatures averaged in the period 2081–2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850–1900 values for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence) and are likely to exceed 2°C above 1850–1900 values for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Temperature change above 2°C relative to 1850–1900 under RCP2.6 is unlikely (medium confidence). Warming above 4°C by 2081–2100 is unlikely in all RCPs (high confidence) except for RCP8.5, where it is about as likely as not (medium confidence). […]

TS.5.5.2 Projected Long-term Changes in Regional Temperature

There is very high confidence that globally averaged changes over land will exceed changes over the ocean at the end of the 21st century by a factor that is likely in the range 1.4 to 1.7. […]

It is virtually certain that, in most places, there will be more hot and fewer cold temperature extremes as global mean temperatures increase. These changes are expected for events defined as extremes on both daily and seasonal time scales. Increases in the frequency, duration and magnitude of hot extremes along with heat stress are expected; however, occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur. Twenty-year return values of low-temperature events are pro- jected to increase at a rate greater than winter mean temperatures in most regions, with the largest changes in the return values of low temperatures at high latitudes. Twenty-year return values for high- temperature events are projected to increase at a rate similar to or greater than the rate of increase of summer mean temperatures in most regions. Under RCP8.5 it is likely that, in most land regions, a cur- rent 20-year high-temperature event will occur more frequently by the end of the 21st century (at least doubling its frequency, but in many regions becoming an annual or 2-year event) and a current 20-year low-temperature event will become exceedingly rare […]

TS.5.5.6 Projected Long-term Changes in the Ocean

Over the course of the 21st century, the global ocean will warm in all RCP scenarios. The strongest ocean warming is projected for the surface in subtropical and tropical regions. At greater depth the warming is projected to be most pronounced in the Southern Ocean. Best estimates of ocean warming in the top one hundred metres are about 0.6°C (RCP2.6) to 2.0°C (RCP8.5), and 0.3°C (RCP2.6) to 0.6°C (RCP8.5) at a depth of about 1 km by the end of the 21st century. For RCP4.5 by the end of the 21st century, half of the energy taken up by the ocean is in the uppermost 700 m, and 85% is in the uppermost 2000 m. Due to the long time scales of this heat transfer from the surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries, even if GHG emissions are decreased or concentrations kept constant, and will result in a continued contribution to sea level rise […]

[GIGObuster]

Or IOW, what FX is doing is to just use an apparent dubious piece of the puzzle to declare that the solution is still a duck.

Religious logic

A leap of faith in cute form.

PZ Myers pointed to that one in his blog, he is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota that has to deal with a lot of pseudo scientists from the biology side of things, it is indeed the same problem observed with proponents of simple answers getting stuck with what a box says and ignoring all the other pieces, experiments and confirmations made that show us the big picture.

[Kimstu]

@FXMastermind

the link POLITICO Pro

contains discussion of four different theories, all of them trying to explain why global warming theory has turned out to be so wrong, about the NH winters

As I’ve noted before, a big part of your inability to comprehend these issues is your focus on popular science journalism such as the above link. That sort of oversimplified summary is just exacerbating your confusion about probabilistic vs. deterministic prediction.

No, global warming theory has not “turned out to be so wrong” about recent winter trends in parts of the northern hemisphere. But you will never understand that until you actually buckle down and read some of the science that explains the calculation of uncertainty in projections, and why that is different from a simple deterministic prediction.

@FXMastermind

As I stated clearly before, if you get anything other than a direct clear answer, when you ask direct scientific questions, you are dealing with woo woo, not science.

[Emphasis added.]

FXMastermind thinks that probabilistic predictions about complex non-deterministic physical systems are just “woo woo” and “not science” and avoidance of “a direct clear answer”.

That’s really all you need to know about why he keeps mistakenly insisting that the lack of simple deterministic predictions in climate science constitutes some kind of a “gotcha” discrediting “global warming theory”.

Expect him now to start complaining that the detailed extensive projections I quoted from the IPCC WG1AR5 TS in my most recent post are “no answer, just unrelated nonsense”.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@GIGObuster

So, no, what we do have is evidence that the one that really does not know is heathergirl1234 and FXMastermind.

Are you seriously impugning the scientific bonafides of heathergirl1234? You know that you lose all credibility when you try and dismiss her groundbreaking climate research out of hand like that.

It’s obvious that FXMastermind has read all of her peer-reviewed papers and you just don’t have a leg to stand on, you dirty warmist.

[Trinopus]

@Kimstu

Various answers to “what does it predict” have been discussed in detail throughout this thread . . .

Also, prediction isn’t the only measure of a scientific model’s success. The global warming idea has much greater explanatory power than any of the alternatives. Darwinian Evolution doesn’t predict a whole lot, but it is vastly superior at explaining the observed facts than any other theory regarding the origin of species.

Meanwhile, the simplest prediction made by the global warming model is that the globe will continue to get warmer – and that’s what is happening. Its predictions are coming true.

[FXMastermind]

Before moving forward, as quick recap of how we got to this point. Sam Stone made some good points.

@Sam_Stone

Gavin Schmidt may say that a lower 20 year mean from 2050 to 2070 than from 1950 to 1970 would falsify global warming, but he adds a bunch of caveats about volcanic eruptions, comets, etc. But in a complex system, you can always find something to blame so I have no doubt that should we see such a lower mean, climate scientists will just go on a hunt for the ‘missing warming’ - and probably manage to come up with an explanation.

Clear and easy to follow.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Well yes, because given our understanding of the model, if CO2 continued to rise and solar output remained the same, it would be extremely bizarre for warming to stop or reverse without some external effect.

Clear, easy to understand.

@Sam_Stone

Or an unforeseen negative feedback… Or many of them… Or a secondary effect causing a tertiary change that no one could predict.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Okay, so how likely is this? We’re talking about an effect which would have major impacts on climate both past and present. One that we apparently missed completely. How much are we willing to bet that this unforeseen effect exists?

At which point I interjected.

@FXMastermind

Already happening. The irony is deep.

Remember, I claimed what was being discussed has already been found.

@FXMastermind

Long story short, 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.

When it was happening (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. 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.

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.

This will not matter, as the theory will simply be changed to say the enhanced greenhouse effect is causing the colder winters.

Question answered. No, you can not falsify the enhanced greenhouse effect theory. No matter what happens, the theory predicts it.

And of course, like clockwork.

@GIGObuster

Not really, winters are not the only season happening in the planet and not all regions have the same. where it counts.

Which is complete bullshit, as the theory predicts the most warming in winters, at high latitudes, in the NH winters. (boreal winter)

@FXMastermind

I just explained that, with examples of how it’s already happened.

It’s why “the enhanced greenhouse effect” theory can’t be falsified. They just change the predictions after the former predictions failed. Since this is, as you said, " that’s what science is supposed to do.", then the theory can’t ever be falsified.

It’s simple.

If we see 30 years of global cooling, extreme and colder winters, then that is what global warming predicted. It’s science.

@Kimstu

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

Nope. That IS the theory, Tyndall predicted this, and it has been used over and over as evidence of global warming, of both the theory being confirmed, as well as a clear sign of global warming is happening.

@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

Nope, I’m clearly stating that the theory says one thing, and we are observing something different. You can’t change the theory, and still claim it was correct. Which was my point. That is exactly what some people are trying to do, they now claim glob al warming predicted colder winters.

@Kimstu

What you’re doing here is what Princhester described as substituting “meta-analysis”, based on certain “signs” in the popular presentation of research, for engaging with the actual science.

Nope. the actual science is what predicts the most warming winter, as well as nights warming faster than days, and the land warming faster than the oceans. That’s all basic global warming theory.

@Kimstu

That is, you point to the fact that some earlier climate models predicted warmer winters in certain regions, while more recent models incorporating additional data about increased open water in Arctic regions predict colder winters more in keeping with recent observed trends

There are no “recent models” predicting that, you made it up. In fact, no model can predict such events. Hell, most climate modelers still think NH winters are warming up. Just because *Cohen et al *and others theorized something, that does not mean everybody jumped on board.

Far from it.

Of course there were all kinds of red herrings and sidetracks, but no matter. The original point stands.

[FXMastermind]

Now of course there will be yet another attempt to sidetrack, obscure or spin things, but no matter.

@GIGObuster

More examples of items that support the theory (and there are several lines of research that show this) that can be debunked

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change[/url

7
If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

Braganza 2004 found models that used GhGs as the forcing did not match observations.

Alexander 2006 found a decraese in DTR but it didn’t match the models.

But clearly we have a falsifiable point at last. If days warm more than nights, it’s not greenhouse forcing. If nights cool, while days warm, it’s not greenhouse forcing. (except of course, just as in both papers, they use “outs” to explain why the models can’t predict what is observed)

What this means, is even if we observe the opposite of what the theory predicts, there can still be a reason, so the theory is valid, even if the observations don’t match.

But, in essence this is at least a concrete step towards defining what the theory predicts. (this is a no brainer, because it was predicted in the 1800s)

What else was predicted in the 1800s? And is used as evidence that the global warming theory is correct? And is a key point for stating global warming is happening?

What else was predicted, was confirmed, and is used as solid evidence for not only the theory, but that global warming is happening now? But doesn’t appear in the SS blog, or in GIGOs post #4?

What really important prediction did Tyndall make? That has been confirmed? What is a another key prediction of the theory, that has to be observed, or the theory is wrong?

I bet you can guess. Hell, if you are still reading this far down into the post, you are either a masochist, a scientists, or angry about something.

If you are at all scientific, and you already know why nights are supposed to warm faster than days, you could even figure this one out by yourself. The reasoning is simple. The greenhouse effect is always happening, unlike solar heating, which stops at night. So the extra greenhouse effect means night time temperatures won’t fall as fat, with an increased greenhouse effect.

This is the basic theory. So where else on the planet is it dark for a long time?

And when is it nightime much longer than daytime?

OMG it’s basic theory. The polar regions are dark all winter! And winter time it’s dark much longer. So we should see the greenhouse effect at work. Which is exactly why the polar regions are expected to warm the most, and why winters are supposed to show the most warming. (in addition to this, winter and the cold polar regions are also much drier, so water vapor isn’t abundant, which means the CO2 greenhouse effect shows up much stronger)

This is basic global warming theory, and it’s incomprehensible why the SS page doesn’t state this, or why GIGO/wolfpup hasn’t stated it clearly when asked.

I mean, usually the two main points are actually in the same statement, for example. “Over 150 years ago, John Tyndall predicted the specific patterns of greenhouse warming - nights warming faster than days and winters warming faster than summers. Both these patterns have been observed.” See?

“Tyndall made another prediction of what greenhouse warming should look like. Just as greenhouse gases slow down nighttime cooling, they also slow down winter cooling. So Tyndall anticipated winters warming faster than summers. Again, recent analysis of temperature trends over the last few decades bear this out (Braganza et al 2003, Braganza et al 2004). Both thermometers and satellites find winters warming faster than summers.” See? It’s simple, and easy, and it doesn’t require reading a 200 page document either.

It’s basic global warming theory, and it can be explained in less than a minute, if you don’t have to also prove that the CO2 is from human sources. (it is)

So all this misdirection over winters is a good distraction, but it won’t change anything.

If it turns out that CO2 induced warming is actually the CAUSE of colder NH winters, then Tyndall (and a lot of other people) were very very wrong.

[FXMastermind]

tl;dr

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.

[tomndebb]

@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.

So, you agree that the greenhouse effect is falsifiable. That is good to know. Of course, since there has, indeed, been another forcing discovered, that particular method of falsification requires a better understanding of the impact that the forcing has on the theory. That is simply standard, self-corrective science.

(Of course, if you try to dodge around the forcing effect by playing games regarding which levels of the ocean have warmed, equivocating over the word “deep” that has been used in the research, I will have to conclude that you are doing nothing but posting nonsense in order to keep this thread going forever.)

Lord Kelvin did not actually disprove the Theory of Evolution by demonstrating that the Earth could not have been old enough to support the myriad changes that Darwin’s theory predicted to have happened. He did, however, demonstrate that aspects of the Theory of Evolution would be subjected to unknown factors before being demonstrated to have been correct. While the discovery of radiant nuclear solar energy did not occur until 1907, (Lord Kelvin first published his attempts to disprove Darwin’s 1859 publication in 1864), Darwin’s theory was not invalid from 1864 through 1907. Nor did it fail to be “falsifiable,” although the claims of Kelvin did not, ultimately, prove evolution false.

[FXMastermind]

@Kimstu

Various answers to “what does it predict” have been discussed in detail throughout this thread,

Using your source for the “predictions” made by basic global warming theory, which of the following do you consider predictions? Can any of them be falsified?

In most regions analysed, it is likely that decreasing numbers of snowfall events are occurring where increased winter temperatures have been observed.

The spatial patterns of near-term warming projected by the CMIP5 models following the RCP scenarios (Figure TS.15) are broadly consistent with the AR4. It is very likely that anthropogenic warming of surface air temperature over the next few decades will proceed more rapidly over land areas than over oceans, and it is very likely that the anthropogenic warming over the Arctic in winter will be greater than the global mean warming, consistent with the AR4.

Relative to background levels of internally generated variability there is high confidence that the anthropogenic warming relative to the reference period is expected to be larger in the tropics and subtropics than in mid-latitudes. {11.3.2}

The largest precipitation changes over northern Eurasia and North America are projected to occur during the winter. {12.4.5, Annex I}

It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic component to these observed reductions in snow cover since the 1970s.

Water that falls as snow in winter can provide soil moisture in springtime and river flow in summer and is essential to both natural and human systems.

With high confidence, decadal and multi-decadal changes in the winter NAO index observed since the 20th century are not unprecedented in the context of the past 500 years.

The magnitude of both high and low temperature extremes is expected to increase at least at the same rate as the mean, but with 20-year return values for low temperature events projected to increase at a rate greater than winter mean temperatures in most regions. {10.6.1, 11.3.2, 12.4.3}

Future boreal wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO is very likely to exhibit large natural variations as observed in the past. The NAO is likely to become slightly more positive (on average), with some, but not very well documented implications for winter conditions in the Arctic, North America and Eurasia.

@Kimstu

Such answers also appear in great number in the IPCC documentation .

Then using the above as an example, which of those are predictions? And can any of them falsify global warming theory?

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

So, you agree that the greenhouse effect is falsifiable.

Not only that, I explained where part of it may already have been falsified. If the expected winter amplification is not resulting in winter warming happening faster than summer warming, the theory is false.

@tomndebb

Of course, since there has, indeed, been another forcing discovered

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.

@tomndebb

Of course, since there has, indeed, been another forcing discovered, that particular method of falsification requires a better understanding of the impact that the forcing has on the theory. That is simply standard, self-corrective science.

First, once you realize it’s not a forcing, the rest makes no sense.

In regards to “standard, self-corrective science”, that doesn’t exist. 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.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Which is complete bullshit, as the theory predicts the most warming in winters, at high latitudes, in the NH winters. (boreal winter)

And that is bull and pushing again the flawed single piece that you are using to counter the many other pieces already assembled and confirmed as Kimstu showed already.

[tomndebb]

@FXMastermind

First, once you realize it’s not a forcing, the rest makes no sense.

In regards to “standard, self-corrective science”, that doesn’t exist. 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.

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.

And, since you agree that the theory is falsifiable–the actual question of the OP–you have now spent over 125 posts dancing around the topic, making snide remarks, cherry-picking factoids, and ignoring other posters’ actual submissions for no purpose other than to play games.

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

And, since you agree that the theory is falsifiable–the actual question of the OP–you have now spent over 125 posts dancing around the topic, making snide remarks, cherry-picking factoids, and ignoring other posters’ actual submissions for no purpose other than to play games.

Actually, I stated clearly the same thing in post 33 and 34. I should have just stopped then.

[GIGObuster]

Big wall of tap dancing text omitted.

@FXMastermind

So all this misdirection over winters is a good distraction, but it won’t change anything.

If it turns out that CO2 induced warming is actually the CAUSE of colder NH winters, then Tyndall (and a lot of other people) were very very wrong.

All that talk about Braganza 2004 and Alexander 2006 and not a single counter, just to compain about models, the point stands anyhow, there is no good mechanism to explain away the fact that nights are warming more than the days other than the effect of increasing CO2 warming the earth.

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

Sorry. You declaring that the oceans are failing to heat up is only valid for your own idiosphere.

I don’t even know what you mean by “the oceans are failing to heat up”.

The oceans are actually warming more than the land, according to the data.