<< As clear/specific of a definition of AGW as you feel adequately confident making.>>
The gradual and sustained increase in the long-term average temperature of the terrestrial sphere consequent to an anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect.
<< Please indicate in some fashion the probable magnitude of change you expect over the next century or so (possibly divided by various emissions scenarios) >>
? Scenario A = Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and half the targets that have been put in place are met.
? Scenario B = Business as usual
? Scenario C = Greenhouse gas emissions increase by 2.5% each year
All figures are based on the climatic averages in the preceding 30 years and as such the observed temperatures in each year will be higher, as will shorter-term calculations.
2014……….A = 14.55°C………. B = 14.55°C……….C = 14.55°C
2024……….A = 14.50°C………. B = 14.57°C……….C = 14.62°C
2034……….A = 14.61°C………. B = 14.66°C……….C = 14.77°C
2044……….A = 14.68°C………. B = 14.81°C……….C = 15.01°C
2054……….A = 14.78°C………. B = 15.00°C……….C = 15.39°C
2064……….A = 14.91°C………. B = 15.24°C……….C = 15.87°C
2074……….A = 15.06°C………. B = 15.53°C……….C = 16.45°C
2084……….A = 15.23°C………. B = 15.87°C……….C = 17.03°C
2094……….A = 15.43°C………. B = 16.26°C……….C = 17.71°C
2104……….A = 15.66°C………. B = 16.70°C……….C = 18.37°C
2114……….A = 15.91°C………. B = 17.12°C……….C = 19.21°C
<< 2. At least 2 or 3 pieces of evidence that would falsify AGW, if present (eg the AGW equivalent of pre-Cambrian bunny fossils for evolution) >>
? Clear and demonstrable evidence that our comprehension of the mechanics of global warming had somehow been misunderstood, namely that particles at the quantum level do not behave as we have observed them to behave.
? Clear and demonstrable evidence that we have somehow grossly over-estimated the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere and that some other, as yet unidentified, factor is involved. Perhaps in some way consequential to the influences of the presence of dark energy or some other little understood and theorised phenomenon.
The idea that human activity is driving the climate has been falsified by physical evidence.
As there has been no warming for the last 15 years, then obviously natural factors can exceed AGW for a period of 15 years. If in 10 years time, there still hasn't been any warming, then natural factors can exceed AGW over a 25 year period. Of course if this happens AGW believers will get even more excited about the oceans eating up the warming and conveniently forget that there was a time when the IPCC asserted that human activity was driving the climate.
No one can predict the future. Even IPCC offers only a very wide range of possible scenarios.
AGW is based on millions of pieces of evidence over more than a century of observation and study, it would take much MUCH more than two pieces to now falsify it...
UNLESS...
God were to appear in the sky, on, say, Earth Day 2014, to boom his mighty voice out across the land and the waters, saying "Sinners repent!"
And then,
a) instantly dispatch most of the world's 2014 population, including all climate scientists, to a fiery everlasting hell, forcing those spared, including all card-carrying members of the so-called U.S. Tea Party, to watch the spectacle on U-toob, and then
b) instantly transform the earth back to 1850, except that (i) all bibles are replaced by historically resituated transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's most popular speeches, and that (ii) the minds of the 1850 populace are replaced with those of the latter-day damnation survivors, after said survivors watch another Youtube video of the
11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not create universities, they are the fruit of Satan's forbidden knowledge."
12th Commandment: "Let he who is without firearms be the first to be stoned to death."
13th Commandment: "Never forget that Jesus hates gays and lesbians."
And this final message: "You have been warned, just as Adam and Noah were. We will now rerun 1850 to 2014, and you had better pay better attention THIS TIME to the words of Saint Rush."
Ian
I think that you are talking about me, for both, although I consider it to be ironic that you would call me an "alarmist." It seems to me that the people who acted like the world had come to an end when the stolen emails were released, who think that switching to clean energy could be bad or that we should release plant food into our pants when the toilets back up at nuclear power plants would be the alarmists.
You are missing one more that I told you about. Find something else that could be causing the warming, which including carbon dioxide would actually cause a poorer fit with temperatures once you include the new forcing.
The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided.
"Certain parties" can and do claim whatever they wish to claim about AGW being too vague to be falsified. Quite the opposite is true. The AGWT is quite specific in what the science tells us and this is what is so upsetting to these "certain parties" and the reason why they have always failed in any of their attempts to falsify it. These "certain parties" somehow believe that AGW can be voted or talked out of existence. As long as we they are willing to work along these lines then I believe we should vote out the inability of two objects to occupy the same space at the same time. That way I would not have to waste any time looking for the exit when the conversations turn into something too fantasy based to be believed, such as walking through solid walls without displacing the walls.
1. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a warming of the planet by means of human activity. This could be through the activities of our destroying some of the natural carbon sinks to our emitting tons/day of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Deforestation, destruction of wetlands and covering landmasses with concrete and asphalt are examples of destroying the natural carbon sinks. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary way we emit tons/day of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, this is exactly what the IPCC Assessment Reports do.
2. The AGWT is not falsifiable unless you can show the specific flaws in The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics that support the AGWT. The AGWT is wholly born from The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics and is not in violation of any of these scientific Laws. The AGWT does not modify these Laws and does not operate outside of these Laws. Past and current observations fully support the AGWT and there is no supporting scientific evidence to invalidate the AGWT. There are also no competing scientific theories that would better explain the observations than does the AGWT. This is the hallmark to being the dominant scientific theory in the field of climate change. These "certain parties" wish they avoid these realities, but they cannot.
Obviously global cooling would falsify AGW. That's not happening.
If you want a specific prediction of warming, just look at the IPCC findings. I'm not sure why you're asking random people on Yahoo! to replicate what thousands of scientists have already done. I'll include a link here that you can look at.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bunny fossils. Supposedly we could also come up with reasons why existing warming is happening, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, changes in our orbit that would have a larger effect than CO2 levels that have suddenly shot up higher than any level in the last 650,000 years (or, the entire period that we can generate reliable records for). In fact, in 2011 a well-known AGW skeptic tried to do just that, funded in part by the conservative Koch brothers. He spent two years combing through the data, and came up with the conclusion that the scientists were right, the world is warming and it is man-made. Here's the NY Times article on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinio...
So it's looking pretty doubtful on that front as well.
I don't understand. Skeptical Science has already explained that AGW being non falsifiable is a myth.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
Apparently you can falsify it by...uh...errrr...hmmmmm... well... you just can so that should be good enough for the deniers.
I also know from one alarmist that the AGW theory is completely falsifiable and I just have to guess how and he'll tell me when I'm right. One alarmist told me that if I can prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that would falsify the AGW theory. Another alarmist told me that I'd have to wait until all the fossil fuels are burned up and then we could tell.
Actually it would be nice if skeptics were told of a way that we could falsify AGW/Climate Change. Of course the you guys would just change the goalposts after the theory was falsified but it would be fun to laugh at you.
"Ahhhh... sure we said if there was no warming for 30 years the theory would be proven false but we didn't take into account the missing heat hiding... uh....under... the ... uhhhhh.... Sahara desert. Yeah, that's it. The missing heat is hiding deep in the Sahara where...ah...unfortunately you can't measure it. So this doesn't falsify the theory at all. In fact, it actually increases our confidence level that man is the primary driver of Climate Change. Yeah, it actually increase our confidence level. That's it. That's the ticket."
First lets separate AGW from CAGW. I do believe pouring gigatons of CO2 into the the atmosphere will have an effect. I just don't think the effect will be serious enough to require drastic action on our part.
What would disprove the hypothesis of CAGW? Simple. When the actual temperature diverges from the models, we know the model is wrong. Here is a good example:
It pretty difficult, only time will tell, some things are hard to debunk, like the evolution argument of why rocks and fossils are so old, because god made them to look like that.
Certain Parties here keep claiming that AGW is so "vague" that it can't be falsified.
So, what I'd like are 2 things.
1. As clear/specific of a definition of AGW as you feel adequately confident making. Please indicate in some fashion the probable magnitude of change you expect over the next century or so (possibly divided by various emissions scenarios)
2. At least 2 or 3 pieces of evidence that would falsify AGW, if present (eg the AGW equivalent of pre-Cambrian bunny fossils for evolution)
You can falsify AGW by demonstrating that our understanding of the chemical and atomic properties of CO2 has been wrong; that our knowledge of atmospheric physics and the Greenhouse effect has been wrong; or you can discover some new variable or mechanism that explains the empirical evidence without needing to include anthropogenic CO2.
I don’t know how to gauge “a magnitude of change” because I’m not sure that I even know what that means. I think that we’ll have a better idea after the deep ocean temperatures recharge and we cycle through another pulse of that energy migrating to the surface.
Nothing in the foreseeable future can falsify AGW. AGW is a theory just like the big bang theory.
Prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that mankind has not increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Kano that is easy to debunk, simply replace the god for the FSM.
18 years of flat global mean temperatures and record global ice extent?
Just joking. How could THAT ever happen?
If the Earth's temperature went down and the CO2 level went up. Hey! Guess what? That happened.
