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

[ding]

That's not how science works. You don't just make up some crazy stories and declare you win. You've been failing at the basics here for ten years now.

We've pointed out many times that many things can falsify global warming, since it's real science. I've posted a list multiple times.

In contrast, I've asked deniers many times what hard data would falsify their theory. They never answer. That's because deniers don't have a theory, they have a religion, and a religion can't be falsified.

Manabe and Strickler (1964)

 

[mamooth]

Manabe and Strickler (1964)

A fine mystery response, but what does that have to do with your side being unable to say how their theory could be falsified?

Heck, we'd settle for you just stating what your theory is.

 

[ding]

A fine mystery response, but what does that have to do with your side being unable to say how their theory could be falsified?

Heck, we'd settle for you just stating what your theory is.

You can't recognize a citation when you see one?

It's not my theory, dummy. Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures and calculated that the surface of the Earth should average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect.

 

[mamooth]

Do you have laboratory measurements of emissivity through the various media we're discussing? ... do you have the calculated values we can compare to? ...

... or do you mean the "one photon, one molecule" theory? ...

I have no idea what you're referring to here, or what point you're trying to make.

 

[mamooth]

It's not my theory, dummy. Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures and calculated that the surface of the Earth should average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect.

No, that's just you claim. As we've seen, the stuff you claim is almost never true. I looked at the paper again, and I don't see any such claim.

So, first, prove your claim.

And second, explain how your claim is related to falsifying AGW theory.

 

[Dagosa]

How global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts | Science News

Temperatures at the end of the 20th century were hotter almost everywhere on the planet than in the previous two millennia.

www.sciencenews.org

Those are all normal fluctuations represented as periodic functions and indeed, the small increases just before the industrial revolution is an upward trend. That it’s happening at a faster rate is what is more important., Your models are all periodic functions in an overall increase and there is no proof it would have continued down if the industrial revolution had not occurred. That the rate of increase far exceeds any increases in fluctuations makes your observation mute.

During the past

10k
20k
50k
1 million years


Greenland froze while North America thawed


So while there was a "cold snap" on Greenland, at the same time there was a "warm snap" on North America???

Such is the idiotic BULLSHIT of the Co2 FRAUd.

Fraud…….you and ChemEngineer deserve each other.

 

[ding]

No, that's just you claim. As we've seen, the stuff you claim is almost never true. I looked at the paper again, and I don't see any such claim.

So, first, prove your claim.

And second, explain how your claim is related to falsifying AGW theory.

That's because you were too stupid to understand the paper.

 

[Dagosa]

There is truth and you cannot refute it.

Fraud man, you wouldn’t know the truth if it appeared on your bed stand next to your copy mein kampf

 

[ding]

I looked at the paper again, and I don't see any such claim.

I don't believe you. What's the paper about?

 

[EMH]

Fraud man, you wouldn’t know the truth if it appeared on your bed stand next to your copy mein kampf

Really, found any land inside of 600 miles to an Earth pole not in ice age yet???

LOL!!


If they could refute any of what EMH has posted, they would do so, instead of these pathetic drive bys...

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland. Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska? Co2 and sun do not explain this. The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence...

www.usmessageboard.com

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

They cannot refute any of that, not one word...

 

[Dagosa]

Really, found any land inside of 600 miles to an Earth pole not in ice age yet???

LOL!!


If they could refute any of what EMH has posted, they would do so, instead of these pathetic drive bys...

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland. Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska? Co2 and sun do not explain this. The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence...

www.usmessageboard.com

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

They cannot refute any of that, not one word...

Wow, more “ evidence”:from your science illiterate anti Semitic friends of Himmler.

 

[mamooth]

I don't believe you. What's the paper about?

No, you don't get to shift of the burden of proof. You made the positive claim, so it's up to you to support it. If you can't, you admit the claim is BS.

And yes, everyone does see you running now because you were challenged to back up your claims. It is that obvious.

 

[ding]

No, you don't get to shift of the burden of proof. You made the positive claim, so it's up to you to support it. If you can't, you admit the claim is BS.

And yes, everyone does see you running now because you were challenged to back up your claims. It is that obvious.

The paper is the proof, dummy. I can't help it if you can't understand one single thing about it.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures and calculated that the surface of the Earth should average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect.

Don't feel too bad, crick couldn't figure out that paper either. So funny.

 

[mamooth]

The paper is the proof, dummy.

The paper that doesn't say what you claim?

Your bluff was called, so you're flailing badly now.

Come on. 'Fess up. Some crank website fed you a load of bull about the paper, so your BELIEVED without question. You have zero idea of what the paper actually says.

What do you hope to accomplish by pretending otherwise? Do you think anyone here is fooled by your act? They're not.

 

[ding]

The paper that doesn't say what you claim?

Your bluff was called, so you're flailing badly now.

Come on. 'Fess up. Some crank website fed you a load of bull about the paper, so your BELIEVED without question. You have zero idea of what the paper actually says.

What do you hope to accomplish by pretending otherwise? Do you think anyone here is fooled by your act? They're not.

If you knew what the purpose of the paper was you'd then be able to figure out which plot showed the theoretical temperature profile at different elevations.

But you can't even figure out what the purpose of the paper is so I get to play with you like a cat plays with a mouse. I've got you by the tail right now and I'm pawing you.

 

[ding]

The paper that doesn't say what you claim?

How do you know? You don't even know what the paper says. What does the paper say, dummy?

 

[mamooth]

If you knew what the purpose of the paper was you'd then be able to figure out which plot showed the theoretical temperature profile at different elevations.

Since you claim to know, explain it to us.

If you're not just making it all up, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

Or just keep running, as everyone laughs hard at you.

Also, you still haven't explained step two, why your claim about the paper supposedly falsifies AGW theory. So, you're faceplanting in two different ways.

 

[ding]

The paper that doesn't say what you claim?

Your bluff was called, so you're flailing badly now.

Come on. 'Fess up. Some crank website fed you a load of bull about the paper, so your BELIEVED without question. You have zero idea of what the paper actually says.

What do you hope to accomplish by pretending otherwise? Do you think anyone here is fooled by your act? They're not.

What's the paper about?

 

[ReinyDays]

I have no idea what you're referring to here, or what point you're trying to make.

Theories being falsifiable ... okay, you have no idea ... sorry to be talking over your head ...

 

[ding]

Since you claim to know, explain it to us.

If you're not just making it all up, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

Or just keep running, as everyone laughs hard at you.

What's the paper about? You said you read it, right? So what's the paper about?