|
Post by socold on Jun 26, 2010 20:12:06 GMT
-Demonstration that the earth hasn't warmed since 1950. -Demonstration that human activity isn't increasing greenhouse gas levels -Demonstration that rising greenhouse gases cause less warming than human aerosol emissons cause cooling -We reach doubled atmospheric co2 and temperatures are no higher Your 1st point is a mute point as the warming is nothing remarkable for the late 20th century. In fact, it is a repeat of the warming of the early 20th century. My point is that if such warming hadn't happened, AGW would be falsified. AGW expects that warming. If co2 hadn't risen since say 1950, AGW would be falsified. The anthropogenic warming in AGW is based on greenhouse gas increase caused by human activity. If human activity hasn't increased greenhouse gases, AGW would be falsified. If human activity has a net cooling effect, AGW the hypothesis that human activity has a net warming effect would be falsified. Therefore if aerosol forcing from human activity was shown to dominate human forgings AGW would be falsified. AGW expects the globe to be warmer with doubled co2. If it isn't, AGW would be falsified. All four points are things which could be demonstrated if they were true and which would also falsify AGW.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 26, 2010 21:22:08 GMT
AGW expects the globe to be warmer with doubled co2. If it isn't, AGW would be falsified. So you are saying if the temperature is .01 deg higher with doubled CO2 . . . .AGW is not falsified?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 27, 2010 3:31:38 GMT
The request was for ways AGW could be falsified, not all possible ways it could be. 0.01C higher would falsify it too.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 4:23:25 GMT
The request was for ways AGW could be falsified, not all possible ways it could be. 0.01C higher would falsify it too. You are being evasive. Its fine to me to wait until CO2 doubles and then assess the risk, if you are good with that. But it might be nice if you relaxed a bit until then, or set a lower bar as even a degree or two isn't going to pose much risk.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 27, 2010 5:02:21 GMT
Icefisher it is you who are being evasive. I did what was asked and provided ways that AGW could be potentially falsified. Your response to that was to erect a strawman for some unfathomable purpose.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 27, 2010 5:06:34 GMT
socold, your list, if sincere, reveals you conflate CO2 with catastrophe. Otherwise, it is a total strawman.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 5:12:48 GMT
Icefisher it is you who are being evasive. I did what was asked and provided ways that AGW could be potentially falsified. Your response to that was to erect a strawman for some unfathomable purpose. The point is if it is true that AGW cannot be falsified until CO2 is doubled you have to wait at least until it is doubled before you can say the theory has even had a single opportunity to have been tested.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 27, 2010 5:23:42 GMT
socold, your list, if sincere, reveals you conflate CO2 with catastrophe. Otherwise, it is a total strawman. No idea what you mean. My list is objective, it isn't something subjective which can even be classified as sincere or insincere. What I've done is taken Anthropogenic Global Warming as literally human induced warming of the globe. The potential falsifications of that logically follow.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 27, 2010 5:25:26 GMT
Icefisher it is you who are being evasive. I did what was asked and provided ways that AGW could be potentially falsified. Your response to that was to erect a strawman for some unfathomable purpose. The point is if it is true that AGW cannot be falsified until CO2 is doubled you have to wait at least until it is doubled before you can say the theory has even had a single opportunity to have been tested. I also said AGW could be potentially falsified if it was shown co2 and/or temperature hasn't risen since 1950. So waiting for a doubling of co2 to potentially falsify AGW is not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 6:42:14 GMT
The point is if it is true that AGW cannot be falsified until CO2 is doubled you have to wait at least until it is doubled before you can say the theory has even had a single opportunity to have been tested. I also said AGW could be potentially falsified if it was shown co2 and/or temperature hasn't risen since 1950. So waiting for a doubling of co2 to potentially falsify AGW is not necessary. I look at Akasofu and see a temperature record that can be explained by natural variation. If indeed CO2 is going to override natural variation one would expect it to do so soon. Visually the warming of the past century appeared at one point quite linear at about .5C/century. We have been entertained with so-called value-added adjustments by the TEAM that has put a little more curve to it. But still when one looks at the past 60 years you only have about .4 C warming. So the fact is there needs to be some acceleration soon to approach the .3C per decade average necessary to get to the 3 degC by 2100. Certainly the .07degC/decade over the past 60 years is not going to cut it, assuming the TEAM did not pad that number itself. The last 30 years even with the benefit of a warm PDO whose signature is very apparent over the past 100 years in the temperature record still only hits .13C/decade. All that is needed to retreat below .1C/decade is a continued relatively flat spell driven by the cold PDO for the next decade or so and CAGW prognostications go down the toilet almost certainly beyond hope of recovery. So as you and Hansen and others continue to ring the bell for a sudden warming spell that will regain the lost ground and it continues to not come falsification is increasing its odds every day. I am just wondering how bad it will have to get for you to admit that CAGW was oversold? Will the failure of your prediction of a step up in the next couple of years be sufficient? What is the minimum it will take?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 27, 2010 10:26:47 GMT
I look at Akasofu and see a temperature record that can be explained by natural variation.
What "temperature record" would that be? Please be precise here and provide references.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 15:16:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 27, 2010 17:10:38 GMT
You appear to misunderstand what I was asking. I wanted a reference to the data that Akasofu used to create his "reconstruction". I don't believe there is any evidence that there was a significant temperature trend between 1800 and 1900.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 27, 2010 17:33:41 GMT
I also said AGW could be potentially falsified if it was shown co2 and/or temperature hasn't risen since 1950. So waiting for a doubling of co2 to potentially falsify AGW is not necessary. I look at Akasofu and see a temperature record that can be explained by natural variation. The only problem is he could explain any temperature record as "natural variation". If temperature had fallen since 1950 Akasofu could claim it is explained by natural variation. If it went flat, again he could claim natural variation. It's a non-explaination. By explaining everything it explains nothing. I think it already has over the past few decades. If not for co2 and other greenhouse gases rising I would have expected the Earth's temperature to have gone flat or even fallen since the 60s. That's what I think the impact of natural variation would have done. In which case the sunspots would have kept correlating with global temperature. The funny thing is that skeptics can't make their minds up. One day they will argue that the "team" have bumped up the warming in the data sparse early 20th century to make it look like more warming has happened. But another day they argue the "team" have suppressed early 20th century warming to exagerate warming in the late 20th century and make the graph more curve like. It's heads the team lose, tails they can't win. By your own figures the rate of warming has doubled from the past 60 years to the past 30. UAH also shows closer to 0.14C/decade, not 0.13C you've rounded the wrong way. More importantly RSS shows 0.16C/decade. Seems like you've coincidentally gone for the lowest value possible. PDO has trended negative in the past 30 years. Ie the "warm PDO" has been reducing. That implies the PDO has had a cooling influence in the past 30 years. That is assuming the PDO has much influence on global temperature at all and isn't just primarily a change in the distribution of temperatures per region. On the otherhand if the so-far cooling trend PDO stops declining and even then starts increasing, we'd expect a faster rate of warming. Even by your own argument about PDO dominance (which I do not buy) you should be predicting warming trends to increase in coming decades, not decrease because PDO cannot keep declining forever. We are only just through a deep solar minimum and ENSO trend has been declining since 2002. So we are just through a cool biased period. So every reason I expect a step change in upwards in global temperature through to 2015.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2010 17:45:29 GMT
Socold: I think you are a bit off in your timing of a step change in temp. I see it as 2028-2035 that we will see the actual step up in temp.
|
|