If the Earth were to cool or pause its rise in temperature and yet the CO2 level increased at the same time, the AGW theory would be debunked, falsified, proven untrue, disproved, rendered bogus, negated, or proven wrong.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein
THE EARTH IS THAT SINGLE EXPERIMENT!
Bacc'
"Measure changes over time in the infrared escaping to the outer atmosphere is decreasing. That is, test directly whether the greenhouse effect is increasing. Hypothesis is supported."
This is an extremely important measurement. Inbound and outbound radiation changes at TOA are where we can directly measure changes to the earths energy budget. IR loss to space is not decreasing. See that in the data below the outgoing LW radiation has had a positive anomaly since 2003. Heat loss to space is currently above 'normal' (the anomaly period in this chart is set to the full length of the record.) There is no indication of a decreasing trend.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inoaa_olr_0-...
The hypothesis is NOT supported by observations.
Added. I just re-read what I've put above, and I don't want to mislead. I have no doubt that adding co2 to the atmosphere will have an effect. But I see no evidence of a linear relationship in the measurements. Other climate factors move to moderate the change in the forcing, otherwise we would not have a stable climate, it would have 'runaway' millennia ago. An example of the climate moderating the forcing is that the North Pole is losing ice, and as it does so it exposes more, warmer ocean for heat loss to space. Losing (north) polar ice cools the earth. See this. OLR FOR 60n to 90n.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inoaa_olr_0-...
Measure global temperatures over time. Hypothisis is supported.
In the laboratory, test that CO2 redirects infrared. Hypothesis is supported.
Test that the carbon isotopes most increasing in the air are those from fuels rather than from the ocean. Hypothesis is supported.
Test that night time minimums are increasing more than daytime highs. That would be a signal that the warming is from the greenhouse effect and not from the sun. Hypothesis is supported.
Test whether the stratosphere is cooling, as would be the case if the warming was from the greenhouse effect. Hypothesis is supported.
Measure changes over time in the infrared escaping to the outer atmosphere is decreasing. That is, test directly whether the greenhouse effect is increasing. Hypothesis is supported.
Measure changes over time in the infrared a the earth's surface. That, is test directly whether the greenhouse effect is increasing. Hypothesis is supported.
There have been many tests of the Global Warming theory. Every one of them supports the theory. That is precisely how the theory has been developed; all other possibilities have been disproved. Any one of these test would have falsified AGW were it not true. The WOULD have falsified it, but they didn't. Your ignorance of climate research means only that you are ignorant, it does not mean that research has not been conducted. My suggestion to you would be to read more true science information sources so that you can better understand the research that has been conducted and how it educates the theory.
Global warming is, in principle, falsifiable, in that various aspects of it can be tested, or observations made as it progresses. If it is wrong, or only partly correct, then in time evidence will contradict it and it will have to be either modified or abandoned.
Clearly we don't want to test it by allowing it to run its course and seeing what happens; that would take hundreds of years and would be too late for mitigation, but it would be a valid test scientifically speaking.
If you want an example of something that is outside of science, how about:
God created the universe 6000 years ago, but in such a way as to look as though it took billions!
Now that is untestable, therefore cannot be falseified; that is something that cannot be considered science.
A theory is just what it is. Never proven and never falsified. As long as the theory can withhold its status as being unproven and not falsified, it still remains a theory. That's how science works. You hear about the law of gravity, but you never hear about the law of "Global Warming". When it constitutes reasoning to make it a law, then there will be no doubt in the scientific community. Climate scientists will just have to "slop-in-the-mud" until there's something more specific in their proof. Otherwise it still can only be proven with the "preponderance of whatever evidence" they can produce.
One way would be to produce graphs that look like these.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
Find a new forcing; a new factor which influences climate. Produce some graphs that look like those in my link above. If you can show that you get a better match to the instrumental record by including the new forcing and excluding carbon dioxide, you will have disproven AGW. Book a glight to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize.
(You may have a low opinion of the Nobel Prize right now, but they would not be able to ignore such a finding.)
If the graph which includes both carbon dioxide and the new forcing has the best match to the instrumental record, that would mean that both carbon dioxide and the new forcing influence climate, as both carbon dioxide and the Sun do.
this has been asked several times before and answered several times before. there are many ways -
- finding that further increases in atmospheric CO2 dont change the C12:C13:C14 isotope ratio or increase the C13 & C14 ratio
- launch the ******* DSCOVR and observe that the earth is in thermal equilibrium
- find that atmospheric CO2 levels drop (why are the levels increasing - the denier industry tells us that CO2 is "plant food" why why do plants refuse to eat it and stop the increase)
"You hear about the law of gravity, but you never hear about the law of "Global Warming"."
Ohhhhhh FFS.........look who does not what the word "theory" means in science
Fixing graphs to show warming when its not there . Running a computer model numbers
till you get the worst possible outcome.
Run around saying the sky is falling . Have true believer scientist get money .
Change the experiment's to come out with right result , cook the books .
and lie.
Climate realist, do you mean a graph that looks like this http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassen4.gif
or this http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassen7.gif
maybe this one http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassen8.gif
perhaps this one http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassen11.gi...
It's the Sun stupid.
Or with Co2 plotted.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a0105...
By scientists falsifying data...as simple as that. This happened not so long ago...remember "climate gate"....?...of course not.....the truth hurts;-)
-----------------------
Good question. From what I've read from alarmists EVERYTHING proves CAGW and nothing disproves it.
