Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Sorry you don't catch the drift of my point.

The AGW CO2 centric hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

 

If I can name one thing that would falsify the theory of AGW, would you agree that it is falsifiable and that your statement is therefore false?

 

Well, one way is to make doing something about it profitable. Carbon is actually a valuable resource. There is money to be made by collecting the carbon from the air. And you don't have to "get everyone on board". A single company could do this.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

See, this is the problem with GW alarmism. We keep hearing all these doomsday predictions about "the temperature will be 2 degrees warmer A CENTURY FROM NOW", as if our technology won't be absolutely buttkicking at that point. I mean, I just showed that carbon collection tech has already proven feasible TODAY. But I keep hearing alarmists talk about "we've got to stop carbon emissions NOW or the planet is doomed". Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You do know that 1 part per million is a solid block of carbon 1 meter square do you not. We have the technology...it is called green plants. Not one is saying put a stop to carbon emissions now. They are saying we need to reduce emissions now.

 

This statement makes no sense. 1 part per million of how much air? And more carbon out of a volume of air is a good thing, considering that it is a valuable resource, not garbage.

Well, the link I provided said that if we aggressively "mined" the air for carbon, we wouldn't need to reduce emissions. We can continue to use high levels of fossil fuels while returning the air to a pre-industrial state. We can make tons of carbon fibers until the oil runs out.

 

One part per million in the atmosphere. This equals one cubic kilometer of solid carbon. Apologies....I was pretty tired when I posted last and didn't even see the link. I don't think technology is the answer to carbon sequestration. Plants will do it for free.

 

You cannot falsify and unfalsifiable hypothesis.

 

Yes. alarmism always ignores the benefits of global warming and superimposes the warmer temperatures on the technology of today. Carbon sequestration is ranked at the top of options for reducing atmospheric CO2 (if needed) in the book "Smart Solutions to Climate Change" edited by Bjorn Lomborg (2010). R&D in this area should be continued.

- - - Updated - - -

Plants are doing it for free. The earth is greening.

 

So much more can be done. Green plants decompose to become soil humus. This humus perculates water, holds water, and filters the same water. It also reduces or eliminates the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Cover crop mixes can be formulated for rainfall amounts from 2 inches of rain to 200 inches of rainfall and anywhere in between. This will sequester carbon and put it in the soil where it belongs. The deserts that are greening is because man is managing the land properly.

 

You have no basis for your claim that deserts are draining because of land management. The earth is greening not just the deserts.

 

This statement is definitely true ... you cannot falsify an unfalsifiable hypothesis by definition.

So I ask again, If I can name something that would falsify the theory of AGW would you agree that it is falsifiable and that your statement is therefore false?

 

You don't understand. You can't do what you say because you cannot test it.

 

And now I am back to thinking that you either don't understand what the theory of AGW actually is (hint: it is much more than just computer modeling), or you don't understand what 'falsifiable' means, or both. You seem to be quite intent on shoehorning this idea of 'repeatability' into a discussion about 'falsifiability' and it just is simply wrong. They are two separate concepts.

Would you say, "The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable because we can't test it"?! After all we only have one planet and can't compare it to any other. Because if you did say this you would also be wrong. All it would take is one finding to totally disprove the theory of evolution (say, for example, finding mammal fossils in the Devonian period). *Poof* evolution disproved. This is the idea of falsifiability.

 

You do understand all the alarm is based on computer projections don't you, usually RCP 8.5 which is the high end of projections so yes, all of the fear mongering is based on computer models. Unfortunately observed science shows that the low end is more of a probability if not less which would get into the area of natural variability.

 

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation that you and I are having, which is about falsifiability.

 

But it is apropos to the issue. Climate science is immature and very muddy and the reason why all of these alarmist claims come out because none of them can be proven or proven wrong. What has happened is it every claim to date has failed to materialize.

 

It is not apropos. It is not germane. It is not even tangential.

It is a complete and total non-sequitur.

Is that somehow your subtle clue that you would like to be done with our conversation and start a new and totally different topic? Because if you wanted to converse with me, the current subject is 'falsifiability'. Specifically, your statement that the theory of AGW is unfalsifiable. Retract that statement and we can move on.

 

The theory of AGW could be tested (and quantified) if all conditions in the atmosphere would remain constant for 20 - 30 years as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continued to rise. That is not possible.

 

All that has to be known is that greenhouse gasses warm the planet, and man contributes greenhouses gasses to the atmosphere. Man contributes large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore man is the major contributor to global warming. The rest is deflection and feldercarb by deniers.

 

Can't retract a fact. You are entitled to your own opinion but opinion is not fact.

 

Everyone agrees including the skeptical scientists that man adds CO2 to the atmosphere and that it has warmed. The ignorance comes from not understanding how complex climate is, not understanding the known unknowns, not understanding that there are many unknown unknowns. Since there is very little study of natural variability because all of the money is being piled into trying to prove CO2 is a main driver of climate, if you do not know how much change is natural you cannot say how much change is man-made.

 

Awesome ... so I ask you yet again, very directly ... If I can name something that would falsify the theory of AGW would you agree that it is falsifiable and that your statement is therefore not a fact?

 

You can't do something that is not possible.

 

Yes we know ... you keep asserting this. So answer the question please.

 

Remember the warming hiding in the oceans? There were more than 50 new explanations for the slow down in warming until they 'adjusted' the temperature dataset to claim it never stopped warming. The AGW hypothesis is such a muddled mess that something new is invented to keep it on track and in the news.

Now, prove it can be falsified.