Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your post has Nothing to do with the Topic as I pointed out in my last.There is no "human caused AGW", loon.
Wow, are you ever fucking obtuse.
Those real scientists can look at all the information and admit that they don't know it all, which is the exact opposite of what you deranged doomsday cultists refuse to ever do.
It's a meta thing, which is obviously totally over your head
Your post has Nothing to do with the Topic as I pointed out in my last.
It is in fact OFF TOPIC.
Go ahead post more IRRELEVANT but amazing Science stuff... in the Science section with your own OP.
You 12 IQ DOPE!
`
Please post ON TOPIC.There, there....I know....It's tough being confronted with the fact that you don't know it all, when you've invested as much of your life into believing that you do as you have....I feel for ya.
How’s he off topic pointing out no agw exists? That implies false narrative. You still don’t get pointing out agw is false is on topicPlease post ON TOPIC.
This is NOT "Amazing facts I learned about science" thread.
Gamma Rays from the sun, NOT Climate related, would go in the Science section, Unless you were a Stupid Troll trying to intentionally cloud the issue we WERE discussing because you had no Relevant Info/Were Stumped on it.
Note the title:
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT 'AGW Falsifiability.'
You have NOT made ANY ON TOPIC POSTS.
`
`
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.
`
I gave an example in my OP!Really? Show us how the theory is falsifiable.
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.
How’s he off topic pointing out no agw exists? That implies false narrative. You still don’t get pointing out agw is false is on topic
You weren't looking for an answer. AR6 is quite clear on weather effects. Do you need a link?1) Didn't answer the question....What unusual weather phenomenon ISN'T blamed on globalclimatecoolerwarmering?
Why would I want to invalidate them? And to "disprove" them makes no sense at all.2) Disprove the Vostok ice cores....You can't.
Because it's pleasant now and they will get rid of it before they can't.3) Why are uber-weathy (many of whom buy into your pseudo-scientific cult) still buying seaside real estate at exorbitant prices?
I just reminded jc456 of the context of this quote. Are you equally confused about what he's saying here?
IOW, there's nothing that you clowns can't blame onYou weren't looking for an answer. AR6 is quite clear on weather effects. Do you need a link?
IOW, you can't...They clearly show the CO2 concentrations follow warming periods, thereby debunking your silly hypothesis in one fell swoop.Why would I want to invalidate them? And to "disprove" them makes no sense at all.
Bullshit...They know they're peddling a hoax.Because it's pleasant now and they will get rid of it before they can't.
You were wrong....I read the e-mails when they were released.....Trenberth couldn't account for a lack of warming, despite all their dire predictions and janky data...In fact, the cult's data has NEVER been accurately predictive.I just reminded jc456 of the context of this quote. Are you equally confused about what he's saying here?
There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. That none of you have been able to do so is your problem.
https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/What if we don't hugely cut our emissions and warming slows or stops?
Does anyone out there think we’re at the dawn of a new ice age?
If we had asked that question just 40 years ago, an astonishing number of people — including some climatologists — would have answered yes. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published a provocative article, “The Cooling World,” in which writer and science editor Peter Gwynne described a significant chilling of the world’s climate, with evidence accumulating “so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” He raised the possibility of shorter growing seasons and poor crop yields, famine, and shipping lanes blocked by ice, perhaps to begin as soon as the mid-1980s. Meteorologists, he wrote, were “almost unanimous” in the opinion that our planet was getting colder. Over the years that followed, Gwynne’s article became one of the most-cited stories in Newsweek’s history.
Actually, your problem is free thinking people questioning your dogma and refusing to modify their behaviors as you'd like.There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. That none of you have been able to do so is your problem.
It has been falsified as the AGW conjecture was never confirmed,
FACT: NO Hot Spot exist.
FACT: NO Positive Feedback Loop exist.
FACT: NO Climate Crisis exist.
AGW is a dead idea with many failures.
I don't care what you believe in, or why you believe it.Seems you, jc456, and SunsetTommy do NOT know what 'Appeal to Authority Fallacy' is!!! DOH!
appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
It's important to note that this fallacy should Not be used to Dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus.
Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but Nor is it reasonable to Disregard the Claims of Experts who have a demonstrated Depth of Knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
[/CENTER]Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Like if I cite Einstein on relativity that is hardly a 'Fallacy' but an excellent Citation! Duh!
But if I cite Joe Biden or Kobe Bryant on it, THAT would be a Fallacious use.
`
Seems you, jc456, and SunsetTommy do NOT know what 'Appeal to Authority Fallacy' is!!! DOH!
appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.It's important to note that this fallacy should Not be used to Dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but Nor is it reasonable to Disregard the Claims of Experts who have a demonstrated Depth of Knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Like if I cite Einstein on relativity that is hardly a 'Fallacy' but an excellent Citation! Duh!
But if I cite Joe Biden or Kobe Bryant on it, THAT would be a Fallacious use.
Another loss for Sunsettommy too. that's at least 4 in 3 days.
`
