Science is falsifiable

[SSDD]

You've been demonstrated wrong in your idiotic claim regarding the nature of water vapor.

Care to point out the demonstration? My bet is that what you call demonstration is just another of your bullshit, unsupportable claims..

You've been demonstrated wrong in your idiotic claim regarding the effect of dropping dry ice into water.

I provided you with a slow motion video of dry ice in water that clearly shows that the vapor is present in the bubbles coming up from the ice...all your "evidence" clearly states that the vapor is water vapor...the visual evidence proves me right...

You've been demonstrated wrong in your idiotic claim regarding venting the containers in these comparisons.

And since the containers weren't vented, I pointed out the other way to get one bottle warmer than the other....different water vapor contents...try the experiment with two bottles at the same humidity....watch the temperatures track...

You've been demonstrated wrong in every single one of the idiotic pseudo-science contentions you've ever made here.

Never happened...your unsupportable claims are hardly demonstrations of anything other than how abysmally stupid you are... Lets see some actual evidence...And get someone to help you find something that isn't just good enough to fool you..that bar is so low it has become boring...

Yet you continue. That would make you the epitome of a

TROLL

Turns out that you are the troll doesn't it skidmark....I see you have put away your crayons...and are being careful to add something that might pass for content along with your name calling...your trollish behavior seems to have attracted the attention of the troll police...you think no one has noticed that? Think no one has noticed threads being shut down due to your behavior?

 

[Wuwei]

Hilarious that you two are so easily fooled...it is because you believe in your interpretations of the laws of physics...you want to believe and therefore are more than willing to be fooled....in fact, you go about on the internet looking for bullshit pseudoscience to be fooled with...

You disagree with well established science and call it bullshit! You and the rest of us know that you are fooling yourself. Calling proven science bullshit is the action that trolls take.

 

[Crick]

You've been demonstrated wrong in your idiotic claim regarding the nature of water vapor.

Care to point out the demonstration? My bet is that what you call demonstration is just another of your bullshit, unsupportable claims..

What I provided were multiple authoritative sources explaining that water vapor is a gaseous component of the atmosphere, not a mist of liquid droplets. Like:

Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimationof ice. Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.[4] Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. It is less dense than air and triggers convection currents that can lead to clouds.
Water vapor - Wikipedia

AND

What is water vapor?
Water vapor is water in its gaseous state-instead of liquid or solid (ice). Water vapor is totally invisible. If you see a cloud, fog, or mist, these are all liquid water, not water vapor.
Weather Questions & Answers

You've been demonstrated wrong in your idiotic claim regarding the effect of dropping dry ice into water.

I provided you with a slow motion video of dry ice in water that clearly shows that the vapor is present in the bubbles coming up from the ice...all your "evidence" clearly states that the vapor is water vapor...the visual evidence proves me right...

What I provided were multiple authoritative sources explaining that the fog produced by placing dry ice in water was the condensation of the water vapor already in the air above the warm water, by the cold CO2 gas sublimating from the dry ice. That this should occur within bubbles of cold CO2 in the warm water isn't the least bit surprising and does nothing to support your claim that the dry ice was forcing water vapor (ie gaseous water) into the air above the liquid. You've presented no mechanism whereby the sublimation of cold CO2 from dry ice would cause excess evaporation or create a mist.

You've been demonstrated wrong in your idiotic claim regarding venting the containers in these comparisons.

And since the containers weren't vented, I pointed out the other way to get one bottle warmer than the other....different water vapor contents...try the experiment with two bottles at the same humidity....watch the temperatures track...

When you find someone doing the experiment your way, show us the results. Till then, Wuwei and I presented other experimenters whose containers were vented and whose results showed CO2 absorbing IR and warming more than air without.

You've been demonstrated wrong in every single one of the idiotic pseudo-science contentions you've ever made here.

Never happened.

Liar.

..your unsupportable claims are hardly demonstrations of anything other than how abysmally stupid you are... Lets see some actual evidence...And get someone to help you find something that isn't just good enough to fool you..that bar is so low it has become boring...

Double-down on your falsehoods and unsupported and unsupportable claims. You could teach our liar-in-chief a thing or two.

Yet you continue. That would make you the epitome of a

TROLL

Turns out that you are the troll doesn't it skidmark....

By what measure? I provide evidence supporting my contentions. I admit when I have made a mistake. I readily acknowledge those who know more than do I. I get no entertainment by upsetting you. You, on the other hand, fit EVERY characteristic every attributed to an internet troll.

your trollish behavior seems to have attracted the attention of the troll police...you think no one has noticed that? Think no one has noticed threads being shut down due to your behavior?

You seem to be discussing moderator actions in violation of the USMB rules. I hope no one reports you for such behavior.

 

[SSDD]

Hilarious that you two are so easily fooled...it is because you believe in your interpretations of the laws of physics...you want to believe and therefore are more than willing to be fooled....in fact, you go about on the internet looking for bullshit pseudoscience to be fooled with...

You disagree with well established science and call it bullshit! You and the rest of us know that you are fooling yourself. Calling proven science bullshit is the action that trolls take.

Two kids with soda bottles = well established science? More evidence of the fact that you are very easily fooled...and more than willing to be fooled...

 

[SSDD]

What I provided were multiple authoritative sources explaining that water vapor is a gaseous component of the atmosphere, not a mist of liquid droplets. Like:[/quote]

And the video I provided proved them wrong with observable evidence...the bubbles below the surface clearly contained water vapor...

Once more, the actual evidence proves you wrong.. Sorry skidmark..reality is what it is...and it proves you wrong...

 

[Wuwei]

Two kids with soda bottles = well established science? More evidence of the fact that you are very easily fooled...and more than willing to be fooled...

The science is so well established that kids can do a science fair project on it. On the other hand, you don't believe in the conservation of energy since you think that the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 disappears after it collides with air. Not only that but there is not much well established physics that you do believe.


.

 

[Wuwei]

What I provided were multiple authoritative sources explaining that water vapor is a gaseous component of the atmosphere, not a mist of liquid droplets. Like:

And the video I provided proved them wrong with observable evidence...the bubbles below the surface clearly contained water vapor...

Once more, the actual evidence proves you wrong.. Sorry skidmark..reality is what it is...and it proves you wrong...[/QUOTE]

It's quite obvious you didn't understand the nature of the experiment. The final conclusion that comes from the experiment occurs at equilibrium, long after the bubbles have dissipated. The water vapor and heat transfer in the experiment are at equilibrium a half hour later.


.

 

[SSDD]

Two kids with soda bottles = well established science? More evidence of the fact that you are very easily fooled...and more than willing to be fooled...

The science is so well established that kids can do a science fair project on it. On the other hand, you don't believe in the conservation of energy since you think that the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 disappears after it collides with air. Not only that but there is not much well established physics that you do believe.


.

The consensus demands that you believe whatever bullshit is presented that claims to demonstrate "something" that might support "some sort" of argument in favor of the AGW hypotheis...you are willing to believe...tragic, and unfortunate, but true..

 

[SSDD]

It's quite obvious you didn't understand the nature of the experiment. The final conclusion that comes from the experiment occurs at equilibrium, long after the bubbles have dissipated. The water vapor and heat transfer in the experiment are at equilibrium a half hour later.


.

Really? Just more made up "facts" in an attempt to support your unsupportable position... I didn't see any sort of discussion, or measurments of relative humidity in the bottles...can you list the time stamp where that discussion happened?

 

[Crick]

AGW is falsifiable. That is hasn't been does not bode well for those who want to reject it out of hand.

The contention that despite evidence, most of the world's climate scientists are perfectly conspiring to manufacture AGW to enrich themselves through research grants and that those not involved are just too stupid to see what is happening is not strictly falsifiable

 

[Wuwei]

The consensus demands that you believe whatever bullshit is presented that claims to demonstrate "something" that might support "some sort" of argument in favor of the AGW hypotheis...you are willing to believe...tragic, and unfortunate, but true..

Cut the crap. I'm talking about a simple basic experiment that was done correctly, and the results indisputable. It demonstrated that radiation warms air more strongly with a higher concentration of CO2. That is a fact under any GW hypothesis.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Really? Just more made up "facts" in an attempt to support your unsupportable position... I didn't see any sort of discussion, or measurments of relative humidity in the bottles...can you list the time stamp where that discussion happened?

Equilibrium in the relative humidity was demonstrated for both bottles. Notice both temperatures become flat after the mid point of the experiment. If humidity equilibrium was not reached, what do you think would happen to the temperature plots beyond a half hour? See the 2:00 mark in the video I provided.


.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is falsifiable. That is hasn't been does not bode well for those who want to reject it out of hand.

The contention that despite evidence, most of the world's climate scientists are perfectly conspiring to manufacture AGW to enrich themselves through research grants and that those not involved are just too stupid to see what is happening is not strictly falsifiable

AGW has already been falsified...the past 3 decades are littered with failed predictions the hypothesis has made...if we were talking about real science, the hypothesis would have been tossed out long ago and work begun on a new one...since we are talking about pseudoscience, any number of failed predictions is acceptable so long as the funding continues.

 

[SSDD]

Really? Just more made up "facts" in an attempt to support your unsupportable position... I didn't see any sort of discussion, or measurments of relative humidity in the bottles...can you list the time stamp where that discussion happened?

Equilibrium in the relative humidity was demonstrated for both bottles. Notice both temperatures become flat after the mid point of the experiment. If humidity equilibrium was not reached, what do you think would happen to the temperature plots beyond a half hour? See the 2:00 mark in the video I provided.


.

What's that? No time stamp? No such discussion or measurement? Just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in an attempt to give the appearance of rationality to your arguments....they all fail and that in and of itself is tedious...

 

[Wuwei]

What's that? No time stamp? No such discussion or measurement? Just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in an attempt to give the appearance of rationality to your arguments....they all fail and that in and of itself is tedious...

I can't help it if you have such a low understanding of science and experiments that you can't figure out what is happening. Even if the exact humidity was given, you would find something else to complain about - barometric pressure, date and time, longitude, latitude. That is just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in a vain and tedious attempt to give rationality to your arguments.


.

 

[deanrd]

Anti-education Republicans believe in Bible fairytales over science.
Don’t give me wrong, I love mythology, but I don’t believe it.
And all around us are the fruits of science and scientific discovery.
Republicans don’t believe in what you can actually feel and hold in your hands and look and smell and touch and operate and program.
Everything all around them all day long every day of their lives and they deny it because it comes from sicience.

 

[gfm7175]

The world's average temperature has been getting hotter unnaturally since the industrial revolution.

How was the global average temperature measured in the 18th Century?

How is it measured even TODAY?? We don't have NEAR enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis of a 'global temperature'...

 

[gfm7175]

What are the falsification criterion for anthropic climate change? How do we test it?

Here, I'll make it easy for you with a simple fill in the blanks:

"If ______ were to happen within the next _____, anthropic climate change would be proven false."

It is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. Science has no theories about buzzwords, nor any theories about the unquantifiable...

 

[gfm7175]

Manners, manners young strigiform.

It is an old argument that AGW is not falsifiable. Let me put up a few things that might undo it:

Okay, let's see if we can undo 'climate change'...

1) Show that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas

Attempted shift of the burden of proof. YOU are the one making the claim that it DOES act as a greenhouse gas. YOU need to show that it DOES act as one.

2) Show that CO2 levels are not increasing

See above. YOU are claiming that they are increasing. YOU need to show that they ARE increasing...

3) Show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not of human origin

See above. YOU are claiming that it IS of human origin. YOU need to show that it actually IS...

4) Repeat 1-3 concerning methane

See above. You seem to want to shift the burden of proof... It is YOU making the positive claims. YOU need to show that your claims are true.

5) Show that humans are not responsible for deforestation
6) Show that deforestation has had no effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere
7) Show that the planet is not warming
8) Show that something other than the greenhouse effect is responsible for the observed warming
9) Show that the planet will soon cease to warm and begin cooling off
10) Show that all the world's climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to falsify all the evidence supporting AGW
11) Show that warming threatens no harm whatsoever
12) Show that warming will be a net benefit to humankind.

Let me know if you need more.

Rinse and repeat... YOU are making the positive claims... YOU need to show that they are true. YOU need to show that they adhere to logic, science, and mathematics...

 

[Crick]

GFM7175

Manners, manners young strigiform.

It is an old argument that AGW is not falsifiable. Let me put up a few things that might undo it:

Okay, let's see if we can undo 'climate change'...

No, we are undoing a misconception.

1) Show that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas

Attempted shift of the burden of proof. YOU are the one making the claim that it DOES act as a greenhouse gas. YOU need to show that it DOES act as one.

First, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Second: do you understand the concept of falsification? If I put forth a hypothesis in the natural sciences, I can only gather evidence that does or does not support my hypothesis. Without the possibility of proof, I cannot prove it is true. However, I CAN logically prove it false. For example, suppose I hypothesize that all swans are white. I can count white swans all day and the more white swans I find, the more likely is my hypothesis to be correct. But if I come across a single black swan, my hypothesis is done for because I said "ALL swans are white". Of course, I might just coincidentally count a very large number of white swans and never run into a black one and this might be enough evidence that I and my co-researchers become convinced that the hypothesis is correct.

In pseudoscience, however, you will frequently see hypotheses that are simply not falsifiable. Anything that makes use of the supernatural: claims that a certain god exists or that any god exists or claims that some event was caused by a supernatural entity is not testable because the supernatural by definition, cannot be tested by scientific methods. Hypotheses such as the existence of the Loch Ness monster, the Abominable Snow Man, Bigfoot, alien visitors cannot be falsified and so are not valid hypotheses.

There has long been an argument that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was not falsifiable. My list was simply a dozen ways in which it COULD be falsified. They are the foundations of the theory. Take any of them away and the theory collapses.

And, of course, every one of them HAS been thoroughly tested.

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in several discrete bands. That is all that is required to determine that it is a greenhouse gas. However, further testing has definitively shown that it produces increased warming from exposure to infrared radiation, another demonstration of its satisfaction of the definition of a greenhouse gas. Look up the absorption spectrum of CO2.

2) Show that CO2 levels are not increasing

See above. YOU are claiming that they are increasing. YOU need to show that they ARE increasing...

Several organizations have been collecting CO2 level data since the 1950s. They all show levels steadily increasing. Look up the Keeling Curve.

3) Show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not of human origin

See above. YOU are claiming that it IS of human origin. YOU need to show that it actually IS...

Isotopic analysis of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has repeatedly shown that 131 ppm of the current 411 ppm originates with the combustion of fossil fuels. Additionally, calculations based on accurate estimates of the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution closely match the results of isotopic analysis. Virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels and is thus of human origin.

You're new to these arguments, aren't you.

4) Repeat 1-3 concerning methane

See above. You seem to want to shift the burden of proof... It is YOU making the positive claims. YOU need to show that your claims are true.

See above for methods by which excess CO2 was identified.

5) Show that humans are not responsible for deforestation
6) Show that deforestation has had no effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere
7) Show that the planet is not warming
8) Show that something other than the greenhouse effect is responsible for the observed warming
9) Show that the planet will soon cease to warm and begin cooling off
10) Show that all the world's climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to falsify all the evidence supporting AGW
11) Show that warming threatens no harm whatsoever
12) Show that warming will be a net benefit to humankind.

Let me know if you need more.

Rinse and repeat... YOU are making the positive claims... YOU need to show that they are true. YOU need to show that they adhere to logic, science, and mathematics...

You misunderstand. I am listing methods by which the theory of AGW could be falsified. The theory is falsifiable. It is valid in that regard. That is has not BEEN falsified by anyone so far is another strong piece of evidence that it is correct
[/QUOTE]