What is the testable AGW Hypothesis?

[CrusaderFrank]

How did they settled the "settled science"? What was the AGW Hypothesis? Where is the lab work?

Challenge: What is the AGW Hypothesis?

I predict we will get nothing but evasions and insults

 

[Old Rocks]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

 

[Old Rocks]

The experiment is in progress, and we cannot go back or change the results, except for the worse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

So, no testable hypothesis?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The experiment is in progress, and we cannot go back or change the results, except for the worse.

What's the testable hypothesis?

 

[mamooth]

The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.

Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?

It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.

I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.

 

[Billy_Bob]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

Correlation can not prove causation, especially when the alarmists take snippets of time (where there is correlation) and throw the rest of the record that does not..

Has Tyndall learned how to read Tijander proxies yet? From your link, he is still using them upside down and thus they do not correlate..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.

Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?

It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.

I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.

So is your hypothesis that the portion of the 120PPM increase in CO2 over the last 150 years attributable to mankind will cause a discernible increase in temperature?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The experiment is in progress, and we cannot go back or change the results, except for the worse.

What's the testable hypothesis?

That the mid-troposphere will warm faster than the surface due to the "back radiation" properties of CO2 . This warming, (heat loss retardation) will then cause the surface to warm and "runaway" in temperature rise.

This can be found in the IPCC working group summaries of AR2, AR3, AR4, and AR5.

The earth has shown this hypothesis to be wrong and falsified!. Convection and water vapor among other IR escape routes lay the whole premise waste.

 

[Old Rocks]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

Correlation can not prove causation, especially when the alarmists take snippets of time (where there is correlation) and throw the rest of the record that does not..

Has Tyndall learned how to read Tijander proxies yet? From your link, he is still using them upside down and thus they do not correlate..

By God, ol' John is quite the guy, just keeps going and going and going. LOL. Sure, a degree in atmospheric physics. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

Correlation can not prove causation, especially when the alarmists take snippets of time (where there is correlation) and throw the rest of the record that does not..

Has Tyndall learned how to read Tijander proxies yet? From your link, he is still using them upside down and thus they do not correlate..

By God, ol' John is quite the guy, just keeps going and going and going. LOL. Sure, a degree in atmospheric physics. LOL

Good O'l John cant read a dam graph, coincidentally, just like Crick..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Looking at the global outgoing Long Wave InfraRed there is no hot spot in the mid troposphere. IF there was a hot spot it would be seen in outgoing LWIR. Only normal seasonal differences are seen globally.

Empirical evidence shows the Mid-Tropospheric hot spot a no-show.

With their primary theroy laid waste and the whole house of cards built on this, they have explored ways to obfuscate and cloud the simple hypothesis failure. The deep oceans ate my warming is just one of their excuses that fail even basic physical laws which they somehow ignore..

It is no longer about science, it is pure political control agenda and fear mongering to get people to buy their crap and give up their freedoms and economies for the lie.

I am with Frank on this one... Show me the empirical evidence, show me the real science (open and repeatable), or STFU!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.

Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?

It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.

I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.

Satellite observations along with the balloon radiosonde measurements which verify them, show all of the HCN rise to be spurious. You have no warming for over 36 years...

What are you going to do now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I forgot.....

It's now a "PROJECTION" not a 'prediction', so anything they say is no longer falsifiable..

It's amazing how the ANTI-SCIENCE warmers are now working around inconvenient facts..

 

[Billy_Bob]

here is a bit of lab work for ya..

The 1 dimensional no feedback calculations for the expected warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 were done with a dry atmosphere and ignored the increased convection caused by the CO2 increase. Redoing the 1 dimensional calculations with using a conservative estimate of water vapor in the atmosphere and reducing the lapse rate due to increased convection reduces the surface warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2, no feedbacks by roughly a factor of 16 from 1.2C to 0.075C.

As the CO2 forcing in logarithmic half of the warming 0.075/2 or 0.037C can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore 95% of the 0.8C warming observed in the last 150 years is due to the solar cycle increase.

As there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate to solar cycle changes, the logical suspect for the cause of the warming in the last 150 years should have been solar cycle changes.

source

Old Dana Nuttercellie over at the SKS crayon kids stepped in it this week libeling Dr Christy. British liable laws are going to bite him in the arse. He is being skewered over at WUWT.

 

[mamooth]

Satellite observations along with the balloon radiosonde measurements which verify them, show all of the HCN rise to be spurious. You have no warming for over 36 years...

What are you going to do now?

Point out that you're just lying again, like you do every time you post. Faking data and lying are pretty much what defines you. If all the science didn't say you're a kook, you wouldn't have to fake everything. But it does, so you do.

Now, you can shriek that you're not a fraud, but the whole planet disagrees with you, leaving you as just a bitter raging kook having meltdowns on a message board.

Enjoy your life of loserdom, kook. We'll be around to keep laughing at you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Satellite observations along with the balloon radiosonde measurements which verify them, show all of the HCN rise to be spurious. You have no warming for over 36 years...

What are you going to do now?

Point out that you're just lying again, like you do every time you post. Faking data and lying are pretty much what defines you. If all the science didn't say you're a kook, you wouldn't have to fake everything. But it does, so you do.

Now, you can shriek that you're not a fraud, but the whole planet disagrees with you, leaving you as just a bitter raging kook having meltdowns on a message board.

Enjoy your life of loserdom, kook. We'll be around to keep laughing at you.

And no surprise.... No facts and a whole lot of bull shit..

Hell you didn't even address the math in post 15 that simply shows what percentage of warming is actually attributable to man.. Nor the empirical evidence in post 12 which shows the mid-tropospeheric hot spot does not exist.

You came in screaming 'liar' at the top of your lungs and ran away like the little ***** you are. The smell of desperation and fear is awesome...

 

[jc456]

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The present warming and decline of the cryosphere is ample proof that AGW is very real.

What about the eighteen year pause in the IPCC AR5 report. Explain?

 

[jc456]

The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.

Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?

It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.

I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.

Then, how hot is 120PPM?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm.

Frank, why do you keep playing so dumb?

It's clearly falsifiable, being that if the earth failed to warm, the hypothesis would be proven to be false.

Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing, backradiation increasing, and stratospheric cooling. All of those have been directly measured, and there is no other theory that explains those direct observations.

I suggest not squealing out the standard denier "But ... but ... you haven't absolutely proven it's not some mysterious magic that nobody understands!", as that would just get everyone laughing at you even harder. The "But you have to prove it's not magic!" rule is invoked only by cults, not in science. In science, the theory that best describes the observed data is accepted, and currently the only theory that describes the observed data is the greenhouse gas global warming theory.

Then, how hot is 120PPM?

No testable hypothesis, no experiments, but the "Science" is settled