Falsifiable Climate Predictions?

[BenBurch]

How a CO2 molecule knows which way is up escapes me...

Spherical geometry. From altitude the sky takes up very slightly more than half of the sphere.

 

[mhaze]

How a CO2 molecule knows which way is up escapes me, but that aside, you're trying to argue from the equilibrium case, which does not currently apply. With AGW we're still in the accumulation of energy phase, as represented by the missing bands in the IR.

How a CO2 molecule knows what is DOWN escapes me, but according to Warmers, all of them do.

No, I do not argue from any Warmer ridiculous and absurd presumptions, I only note that there are separate falsifiable hypotheses involved here.

You have brought into the discussion the presumption of radiataive balance and or of trends in such, which is separately falsifiable from the issue of greenhouse theory.

Thirdly, any given presumed relation between some presumed greenhouse theory and some presumed radiative balance relationship is also capable of being stated as a falsifiable hypothesis.

Thanks for showing us the lack of scientific thought processes rampant in the Warmer community, though.

Cheers!

 

[CapelDodger]

Spherical geometry. From altitude the sky takes up very slightly more than half of the sphere.

I take your point. From any altitude above a sphere "outward" is more than "inward".

 

[CapelDodger]

How a CO2 molecule knows what is DOWN escapes me, but according to Warmers, all of them do.

You must introduce me to one of these Warmers one day. I'll make mincemeat of them.

No, I do not argue from any Warmer ridiculous and absurd presumptions, I only note that there are separate falsifiable hypotheses involved here.

Which is your favourite out of hyptheses that aren't of your own imagining?

You have brought into the discussion the presumption of radiataive balance and or of trends in such, which is separately falsifiable from the issue of greenhouse theory.

I didn't bring the subject up. It's not all about me, you know.

Thirdly, any given presumed relation between some presumed greenhouse theory and some presumed radiative balance relationship is also capable of being stated as a falsifiable hypothesis.

The IR outgoing can be observed, and hypotheses are only required to explain observations. When observations accord with predictions hypotheses are promoted to theory.

Thanks for showing us the lack of scientific thought processes rampant in the Warmer community, though.

Cheers!

I'm a stranger to any Warmer, let alone a community of them. Deniers I'm all too familiar with, in many contexts.

You deny observations when they don't comply with your belief constuct. That's a common theme of denial.

 

[macdoc]

Common to the anti-evo crowd as well. Deny theory AND in their face observation to keep the dogma intact.
Increasingly fringe dwellers now that the likes of Exxon, BP and Shell are openly admitting the issue

It's getting warmer
It's primarily due to fossil fuel emissions
It presents a risk in need of active management.

The denier crowd is getting more ragged and ridiculous by the minute.

 

[a_unique_person]

How a CO2 molecule knows what is DOWN escapes me, but according to Warmers, all of them do.

No, you are just showing your ignorance of what people do claim. The radiation is emmitted in a random direction, which includes down.

 

[lomiller]

Some of the predictions of climate change

Large energy increases in the oceans
Warming trend of ~0.2 deg/decade
Polar amplification
Stratospheric cooling
More nighttime warming then daytime warming
Migration of eco-systems/biota to higher latitudes
Warming of ~1.5-4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2 (in the absence of any other forcing)
Increased glacier flow rates

Now for the wtf…

C. The combined effect of cosmic rays and solar magnetic effects does not affect climate.

That’s not a prediction that is ignoring an hypothesis that can’t be properly supported by it’s proponents.

B. Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere may be considered to be cases of "well mixed" gases.

Also not a prediction. It’s an assumption and one that is largely correct for cases where it breaks down a more accurate model could easily be used but so far no one has demonstrated the need.

A. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase cloud cover.

I guess that could be called a prediction, but it certainly isn’t the prediction that is actually being made. Current models and observations have a lot of uncertainty surrounding loud formation. This range of uncertainty allows for either increased or decreased cloud formation.

Paleo-climate data however does constrain cloud formation, or any other negative feedback effect that would counteract warming. If such negative feedbacks existed they would have prevented the warming that occurred 15000 years ago to end the last ice age.

 

[mhaze]

....The IR outgoing can be observed, and hypotheses are only required to explain observations. When observations accord with predictions hypotheses are promoted to theory....

And the OP is falsifiable hypotheses.

See? Even you can grasp the subject.

Common to the anti-evo crowd as well. Deny theory AND in their face observation to keep the dogma intact.
Increasingly fringe dwellers now that the likes of Exxon, BP and Shell are openly admitting the issue

It's getting warmer
It's primarily due to fossil fuel emissions
It presents a risk in need of active management.

The denier crowd is getting more ragged and ridiculous by the minute.

Inability to formulate and discuss falsifiable hypotheses evident.

No, you are just showing your ignorance of what people do claim. The radiation is emmitted in a random direction, which includes down.

It's called a joekeeh. Got it?

 

[mhaze]

Some of the predictions of climate change

Large energy increases in the oceans
Warming trend of ~0.2 deg/decade
Polar amplification
Stratospheric cooling
More nighttime warming then daytime warming
Migration of eco-systems/biota to higher latitudes
Warming of ~1.5-4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2 (in the absence of any other forcing)
Increased glacier flow rates

Now for the wtf…

The only ones of these that are specifically related to the AGW concept are stratospheric cooling and night time vs daytime warming.

But the OP was not specific about "man made climate change".

 

[lomiller]

There is no competing theory. When there is only one theory that makes a prediction, how can that prediction not be specific to that theory?

 

[DogB]

The only ones of these that are specifically related to the AGW concept are stratospheric cooling (snip)

The TIMED data is showing significant solar variablity input into this. Should interesting to watch now that cycle 24 is ramping up.

ETA: Sorry, linky here.

 

[mhaze]

There is no competing theory. When there is only one theory that makes a prediction, how can that prediction not be specific to that theory?

We're just talking about falsifiable hypotheses. Theories or competing theories don't have much to do with that.

I can't follow your argument there. Don't know what you are referring to.

The TIMED data is showing significant solar variablity input into this. Should interesting to watch now that cycle 24 is ramping up.

ETA: Sorry, linky here.

Oops, that's a good one.

One falsifiable hypothesis is that stratospheric cooling can only result from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[lomiller]

TIMED studies the atmosphere above 60 Km, well above the stratosphere.

 

[lomiller]

We're just talking about falsifiable hypotheses. Theories or competing theories don't have much to do with that.

Then why did you try to bring other theories into the discussion? One single theory predicts the things I mentioned, there are no other theories that do so. It is therefore impossible for those predictions not to be specific to that theory.

 

[mhaze]

Then why did you try to bring other theories into the discussion? One single theory predicts the things I mentioned, there are no other theories that do so. It is therefore impossible for those predictions not to be specific to that theory.

Because you made no sense and still don't.

For example you listed a number of things that result from the planet warming.

Backing up to see where the inference came from I get these sorts of falsifiable hypotheses:

"If the planet warms then glaciers melt".

"If the planet warms then the oceans get warmer".

etc.

These hardly rate as scientific hypotheses. They are ridiculous statements of self referential circuituous logic.

Try again please.

 

[mummymonkey]

The predicted increases in sea levels are surely falsifiable? Haven't they gone up as predicted (or even more so)? (Sure I read that somewhere but can't find it now)

 

[lomiller]

For example you listed a number of things that result from the planet warming.

And the hypothesis we are testing is that the planet will warm...

Even if you make that more specific and say we are testing they hypothesis that the planet will warm due to greenhouse gas emissions no warming would still falsify the hypothesis


Since you refuse to come out and say if for yourself I’ll summarize the argument you are TRYING to make for you. You think that something else could be causing the warming. There are of course two problems with this.

The fist it has no bearing on whether the prediction above is falsifiable, if no warming occurred the hypothesis would still be falsified.

The second is that your implied hypothesis is itself not testable or falsifiable.

 

[mhaze]

And the hypothesis we are testing is that the planet will warm...

Even if you make that more specific and say we are testing they hypothesis that the planet will warm due to greenhouse gas emissions no warming would still falsify the hypothesis
....

Well, since you have some trouble reading, let me re quote the OP:

I'm wondering what falsifable predictions about the climate have been made on either side of the debate.

Only non-vague predictions that will either be proven true or false in the future.
​

You see clearly, that the question is falsifiable predtions about "the climate".

Now where are we regarding your confusion that the OP hypothesis was that the planet was warming? And irregardless, "we" were not testing a hypothesis that the planet will warm. That's only in your mind. We can have a falsifiable hypothesis that the planet will cool due to AGW. That's still a falsifiable hypothesis.

Not trying to be snarky, just we won't get anywhere with this constant reframing of the subject to suit the preaching of the creed of the religion that you have.

 

[mhaze]

...Since you refuse to come out and say if for yourself I’ll summarize the argument you are TRYING to make for you. You think that something else could be causing the warming.....

Huh? I've only pointed out that a statement (such as, and repeating) ...

"If the planet warms then glaciers melt".

"If the planet warms then the oceans get warmer".

etc.

These hardly rate as scientific hypotheses. They are ridiculous statements of self referential circuituous logic.

​

It is the nature of a falsifiable hypothesis that it be ... falsifiable. There is not any need for you to "summarize the argument I am trying to make" because it is the statement of the OP.

If you state a hypothesis regarding AGW and some presumed warming, then if it is falsifiable it is falsifiable by cause or an erroneous presumption (the presumed warming).

Do you have a problem with falsifiable hypotheses regarding AGW?

 

[Trakar]

The only ones of these that are specifically related to the AGW concept are stratospheric cooling and night time vs daytime warming.

But the OP was not specific about "man made climate change".

Actually, almost all of these are intimately tied to CO2 forced climate change, which is the primary anthropogenic mechanism currently.