Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

As CO2 was steadily increasing in the last decades the globe has experience periods of warming, cooling, and steady temperature. What can be concluded about the effect of increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration on global temperature ??

 

Well, in many ways you could consider the AGW theory falsified if you consider the 100% failure rate of predictions but it is unfalsifiable because you cannot duplicate it independently.

 

'Unfalsifiable' does not mean what you think it means.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proved false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. It has nothing to do with repeatability.

As I said, the theory of AGW driven by CO2 is most definitely falsifiable. I could give you examples of things which would falsify it easily. The example theory I gave you is an example of a theory that is NOT falsifiable.

 

If AGW is driven by CO2 then there would be a functional relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global average temperature. There is not. Global average temperature is most likely dependent on CO2 concentration but CO2 is not the controlling variable. QED.

 

Which is normal in that climate independently of CO2.

The predictions of AGW theory haven't, don't, and won't come true.

With more atmospheric CO2 and warmer climate, greenhouses will be less advantageous.

 

It is made piecemeal every time there is bad weather: "See what CO2 has done now?"

 

To the extent that it is falsifiable, it has been falsified. What remains has not been falsified only because it is unfalsifiable.

Yes, and some of them would be unaltered thermometer readings.

 

Global Warming is a religion to Democrats. They swear an oath to zeus it is our fault and promised the Gods to quit doing it.

 

If god is science then so be it.

 

I am amazed at supposedly smart people being so afraid they spend time on forums telling us it is our fault. When they have god as science.

I will tell you warmers again, knowing it won't matter.

Ask your government to protect you. Stop blaming my car when you need to put up protective walls around Florida. If you refuse walls, plant trees. Do something. All being done now is talking. And pretending to make promises.

 

You act like florida is the center of the universe. Its low on the priority list. LOL

 

It seems like you don't understand Florida. I have visited that state and drove around a good part of it.

Florida is the best place to start protection.

 

Nah. Swampland and rednecks. Protect NYC first

 

It is unclear from this post what you mean exactly.

Can you give an example of a hypothesis which you feel would be falsifiable and what you believe would falsify it ... also what would be an example of an existing hypothesis which you feel is unfalsifiable?

Do you agree that the position I outlined up-thread would be an example of an unfalsifiable position?

Would you agree that unfalsifiable hypotheses are not scientifically useful?

 

14 billion trees have already been planted world wide. Many other projects have been started that you seem unaware of. Is it possible you aren't as knowledgeable as you think?

 

You just refuse to see the truth. I can't help you with willful ignorance.

 

A falsifiable hypothesis is one that can or cannot be independently reproduced. We only have one Earth. The biggest clue how wrong the current hypothesis is would be it's 0% prediction success rate.

The issue with an unfalsifiable hypothesis, especially one with a system that is non-linear, chaotic and includes so many variables, many of which are still not understood is that anything can be claimed with no way to check the claim.

'Climate Change' has now become so ingrained in our lexicon that one should pay attention how often it is misused in media. It has become the blame for all weather events without any regard to actual causes.

 

I already explained this to you ... ON THIS PAGE ... post #403

What you are describing is 'repeatability' not 'falsifiability'. That you don't get this basic scientific principle says much. That you didn't read my response above says even more.

 

Almost all scientific hypothesis are tested through repeatability. Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis. The problem with AGW hypothesis is that you cannot test you cannot repeat it. If an hypothesis is unfalsifiable it is pseudoscience.

 

At least you finally acknowledge (kinda) that what you are talking about is 'repeatability' ... not 'falsifiability'. Is admitting that you were mistaken or wrong really that hard for you?

You finally decided to open a browser and google 'falsifiability' I see. That led you HERE: https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Congrats. That is a pretty good definition and explanation page of the nature of falsifiability.

And now the classic goal post shifting ... Your statement above is true but please explain how this has anything to do with 'falsifiabilty'.

And remember, this all started with your statement that

 

My previous statement was not about falsification because the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it was an analogy.

 

How is this statement ...

... not about falsification? Are you talking about a different statement?? (If so, it would be helpful to refer to it directly and not leave us guessing)

And more directly, what hypothesis do you consider to be unfalsifiable?

 

Did you get an idea I think i know everything? If you got that reading me, please, just don't think that.

Some of your posts taught me much. Thanks.

As to billions of trees planted, how many billions were cut down? Are we making up for cut down trees?

Personally i am not a bit concerned with the case called AGW. I believe Government all over the world will respond to true danger. For instance, to save Florida from rising seas, a sea protection can be built. I realize it hampers the scenery of open water, but we are talking of saving lives and property. Florida in particular gets my attention as a almost sea level state. But around the Gulf of Mexico there are other areas in need of a sea wall if the warmers really believe their own drivel.

They needed to stop CO2 in 1900 and not now if they planned to stop that so called threat.

 

I know nothing about building sea walls but I can guess they are very expensive and I don't know if one around Florida is practical. The problem with responding to global warming is the fact you have to get everyone on board. I tend to think people will be up in arms over anything that cost real money. These things have to be paid for. When people don't even think AGW is happening how are you going to get them to spend money. I tend to think deniers would rather let people starve than take any action.

 

All you need do to see where America is headed is study the Russian cars. They are tiny. A bump and parts of the car fall off. They shed doors and bumpers like they are hanging on by spaghetti. But it is far more than Russia, Europe is in the throes of those Mini Cooper sized cars.

I talked to a pal who drove a large MBZ and since he is at the end of his life trail, he sold that car and drives a Prius and he confessed the Prius has a terrible ride. People can tolerate poor ride quality for a short time but here in CA we have few short trips. The price to knock off CO2 is staggering. And the politicians want to drive our economy. This is wrong. Most of them are lawyers. Lawyers in my view are not the best deciders for the public. While we may end up in a tiny wheel car, they don't have to. They still have personal jets to use.

If I honestly could back going back on CO2, I sure would. But it is not the problem.