Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[abu afak]

We see in SunsetTommy's Signature two ideas/'truths' meant to show it isn't falsifiable and is therefore Not a Valid theory/truism.

“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper​

​

"The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" --- IPCC​

But Of course, it is Falsifiable, and the two statements above do Not necessitate any conclusion.
Saying so is a non sequitur.

If ie, we hugely cut our emissions as a planet, and GHGs returned to what they were before man drove them up: (ie, CO2 50%/280-420; or Methane 3x,) and the warming didN'T gradually stop and even reverse, that would discredit the theory, BARRING other factors as the many Solar Cycles (Milankovich etc).

Because no one is claiming that it can't get cooler IF Weakening of Solar Forcing (earth tilt changed, or distance increased cyclically) (or a La Nina, etc) overrode it due to any event - foreseen or unforeseen - just that Man IS causing it to warm with these Aptly name Greenhouse gases. And if a weakening of the sun cooled it, it would still be warmer than it would otherwise have been due to our thicker GHG blanket.

In fact, the theory continues to be Validated (which is how science works). Theories, like Evo, Atomic, etc do not get Proven. (A 'God' could always pop up and say he is the cause of anything.)
Scientists have already tested this by directly measuring Solar energy hitting earth, and shown that is has NOT Changed in 50+ years... UNLIKE what has caused ALL the other warming/cooling cycles.

They have also measure solar energy being Reflected back out into space, and it is being Blocked/Trapped at the exact spectral wavelengths of - again - (the aptly named) Greenhouse Gases.

That/those two is one of the biggest reason we know.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If ie, we hugely cut our emissions as a planet, and GHGs returned to what they were before man drove them up: (ie, CO2 50%/280-420; or Methane 3x,) and the warming didN'T gradually stop and even reverse, that would discredit the theory,

What if we don't hugely cut our emissions and warming slows or stops?

 

[abu afak]

What if we don't hugely cut our emissions and warming slows or stops?

Asked and answered a$$hole.
""Because no one is claiming that it can't get cooler IF Weakening of Solar Forcing (earth tilt changed, or distance increased cyclically) (or a La Nina, etc) overrode it due to any event - foreseen or unforeseen - just that Man IS causing it to warm with these Aptly name Greenhouse gases. And if a weakening of the sun cooled it, it would still be warmer than it would otherwise have been due to our thicker GHG blanket."

That now said (again) I choose Not to reply to any more of your TROLLING One line Question marks/Baits, (and trashy "sandy vag"/"sandy" name calling of several other posters)
You need to be Removed along with other harassing NON Factual, NON contributing, Trolls like jc-456 and Wetwall.
Goodbye/Fini. (was good for a bump up anyway)
`

 

[Oddball]

No.

Is there any weather/climate phenomenon and/or irregularity that cannot be blamed on "climate change"?

 

[Oddball]

If ie, we hugely cut our emissions as a planet, and GHGs returned to what they were before man drove them up: (ie, CO2 50%/280-420; or Methane 3x,) and the warming didN'T gradually stop and even reverse, that would discredit the theory, BARRING other factors as the many Solar Cycles (Milankovich etc).

Oh, you warmers would be certain to pull some "other factors" out of your asses right on cue.

I'd give huge odds on it.

 

[abu afak]

No.

Is there any weather/climate phenomenon and/or irregularity that cannot be blamed on "climate change"?

I'm talking specifically/Very Specifically/Could not have been more Specific - about "AGW" - Not whatever you think 'Climate change' is or isn't.
Wrong thread. There is one on the difference.
Now go the F*** away Moron/Low IQ Troll #6759.
`

 

[Oddball]

I'm talking specifically/Very Specifically/Could not have been more specific... about AGW, not whatever you think 'Climate change' is.
Wrong thread. There is one on the diffrence.
Now go the F*** away Moron/Low IQ Troll #6759.
`

Pound sand up your ass, warmer.

Drought?..."Climate change".
Deluge?..."Climate change".
Heat wave?..."Climate change".
Cold snap?..."Climate change".
A lot of hurricanes?..."Climate change".
Few hurricanes?..."Climate change".
Earthquake?..."Climate change".
Ring-around-the-collar?..."Climate change".

There's nothing at all that you warmers and your media toadies can't blame on "climate change".....The very definition of "unfalsifiable".

 

[Crick]

Pound sand up your ass, warmer.

Drought?..."Climate change".
Deluge?..."Climate change".
Heat wave?..."Climate change".
Cold snap?..."Climate change".
A lot of hurricanes?..."Climate change".
Few hurricanes?..."Climate change".
Earthquake?..."Climate change".
Ring-around-the-collar?..."Climate change".

There's nothing at all that you warmers and your media toadies can't blame on "climate change".....The very definition of "unfalsifiable".

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. That none of you have been able to do so is your problem.

 

[jc456]

We see in SunsetTommy's Signature two ideas/'truths' meant to show it isn't falsifiable and is therefore Not a Valid theory/truism.

“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper​

​

"The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" --- IPCC​

But Of course, it is Falsifiable, and the two statements above do Not necessitate any conclusion.
Saying so is a non sequitur.

If ie, we hugely cut our emissions as a planet, and GHGs returned to what they were before man drove them up: (ie, CO2 50%/280-420; or Methane 3x,) and the warming didN'T gradually stop and even reverse, that would discredit the theory, BARRING other factors as the many Solar Cycles (Milankovich etc).

Because no one is claiming that it can't get cooler IF Weakening of Solar Forcing (earth tilt changed, or distance increased cyclically) (or a La Nina, etc) overrode it due to any event - foreseen or unforeseen - just that Man IS causing it to warm with these Aptly name Greenhouse gases. And if a weakening of the sun cooled it, it would still be warmer than it would otherwise have been due to our thicker GHG blanket.

In fact, the theory continues to be Validated (which is how science works). Theories, like Evo, Atomic, etc do not get Proven. (A 'God' could always pop up and say he is the cause of anything.)
Scientists have already tested this by directly measuring Solar energy hitting earth, and shown that is has NOT Changed in 50+ years... UNLIKE what has caused ALL the other warming/cooling cycles.

They have also measure solar energy being Reflected back out into space, and it is being Blocked/Trapped at the exact spectral wavelengths of - again - (the aptly named) Greenhouse Gases.

That/those two is one of the biggest reason we know.

`

"Treberth said "...can't account for the lack of warming...". This was a pre-Tom-Karl statement made in reference to the 'Hiatus'. Remember that? Remember Tom Karl? I guess not."

 

[Oddball]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. That none of you have been able to do so is your problem.

OK....Name them.

Or, to put it another way; what unusual weather phenomenon ISN'T blamed on globalclimatecoolerwarmering?

 

[abu afak]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. That none of you have been able to do so is your problem.

OK....Name them.

Or, to put it another way; what unusual weather phenomenon ISN'T blamed on globalclimatecoolerwarmering?

`
DISHONESTLY and Stoopidly Conflating the terms AGW and Climate Change again.
You already failed once+ above and admitted it.
Again, there is a thread on the topic/difference you Knowing TROLL.

I already laid out how AGW could be falsified in my OP.

Note SunsetMommy who I named and refuted with that OP had nothing to say.
`
`

 

[Crick]

OK....Name them.

Or, to put it another way; what unusual weather phenomenon ISN'T blamed on globalclimatecoolerwarmering?

Disprove the Stefan Boltzman Law
Disprove the greenhouse effect.
Disprove the anthropogenicity of the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution
Disprove the Keeling curve.
Disprove temperature datasets showing global warming
Disprove solar observations showing no significant change to TSI
Disprove measurements of IR backscatter
Disprove mean free path for an IR photon in our atmosphere (you know, it IS just a trace gas)
Disprove satellite measurements of outgoing IR
Disprove rising sea level
Disprove disappearing Arctic sea ice
Disprove accelerating ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica

 

[Anomalism]

Most of this forum lacks the intelligence to comprehend what you said OP.

Good post though, as usual.

 

[Oddball]

Disprove the Stefan Boltzman Law
Disprove the greenhouse effect.
Disprove the anthropogenicity of the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution
Disprove the Keeling curve.
Disprove temperature datasets showing global warming
Disprove solar observations showing no significant change to TSI
Disprove measurements of IR backscatter
Disprove mean free path for an IR photon in our atmosphere (you know, it IS just a trace gas)
Disprove satellite measurements of outgoing IR
Disprove rising sea level
Disprove disappearing Arctic sea ice
Disprove accelerating ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica

1) Didn't answer the question....What unusual weather phenomenon ISN'T blamed on globalclimatecoolerwarmering?

2) Disprove the Vostok ice cores....You can't.

3) Why are uber-weathy (many of whom buy into your pseudo-scientific cult) still buying seaside real estate at exorbitant prices?

4) One of your archbishops said it all.....

 

[Oddball]

`
DISHONESTLY and Stoopidly Conflating the terms AGW and Climate Change again.
You already failed once+ above and admitted it.
Again, there is a thread on the topic/difference you Knowing TROLL.

I already laid out how AGW could be falsified in my OP.

Note SunsetMommy who I named and refuted with that OP had nothing to say.
`
`

I'm not the one who keeps moving the semantic goalposts, cultist.

Orwell had you twirps nailed.

 

[Oddball]

The science is settled!!!!!


“It’s amazing that we were so spectacularly wrong about something we should understand really well: the sun,” said Brian Fields, a particle astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.

getpocket.com

 

[Oddball]

Right....A PhD in physics admits that there's a shitload that science doesn't know about the sun, which they've been studying for centuries, but you warmer cultists know everything about the climate, to the point that you can account for every unknowable aspect of that which comprises 99% of the mass of the solar system.



Fucking loons.

 

[abu afak]

Right....A PhD in physics admits that there's a shitload that science doesn't know about the sun, which they've been studying for centuries, but you warmer cultists know everything about the climate, to the point that you can account for every unknowable aspect of that which comprises 99% of the mass of the solar system.



Fucking loons.

He's talking about the Sun and Gamma Rays.
It has nothing to do with the Topic at hand. Human caused or not.

Does he say that they increased since the Industrial Revolution that would otherwise explain the current warming?
NO.

You are WAY TO F***** STUPID to discuss any topic/stay ON topic, and keep conflating it with irrelevant shlt.

`

 

[Oddball]

He's talking about the Sun and Gamma Rays.
It has nothing to do with the Topic at hand. Human caused or not.

Does he say that they increased since the Industrial Revolution that would otherwise explain the current warming?
NO.

You are WAY TO F***** STUPID to discuss any topic/stay ON topic, and keep conflating it with irrelevant shlt.

`

He's talking about discovering things science never knew before....How many other aspects of the sun are unknown?

It clearly demonstrates that you warmer loons can't possibly take into account every potential natural variable in your pseudo-scientific doomsday hypothesis.

Got-dammit are you fucking dense.

 

[abu afak]

He's talking about discovering things he never knew before....How many other aspects of the sun are unknown?

It clearly dmeonstrates that you warmer loons can't possibly take into account every potential natural variable in your pseudo-scientific doomsday hypothesis.

Got-dammit are you fucking dense.

That's nice but OFF TOPIC.
What does that have to with with AGW PRECISELY.
Because there's no claim of any effect that would mock AGW.

`