|
Posted on 02/26/2008 12:55:03 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Some time ago many in the Church of Global Warming abandoned the exclusive use of the term "global warming" to describe current climate trends. "Climate change" is the preferred term now, since many weather events in recent years do not appear to fit the perception of what we would see on an unnaturally warming planet.
I will continue to use "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) to describe this ideology. Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase, global temperatures have more or less plateaued in the past decade. Since the plateau occurred at a warm average temperature, we've been treated to innumerable accounts of the fact that recent years have been among the warmest in recent history. So, despite the use of the term "climate change", it's clear that proponents are invested in creating the public perception that the earth is continuing to warm (and that such warming will soon accelerate out of control).
Climate change really is a term of art, because it allows CoGW adherents to insist that all weather -- wet or dry, hot or cold -- validates the AGW orthodoxy.
Floods in China: check. Drought in China: check. More hurricanes: check. Fewer hurricanes: check. Summer ice melt in the Arctic: check. Winter refreezing of Arctic ice that exceeds that which originally melted: check. Collapse of the West Antarctica Ice Shelf: check. Net increase in Antarctic ice: check. Record warm winter in 2006-2007: check. Record cold winter in 2007-2008: check.
And so on.
This leads me to ask a question of those of you who believe that human activity is negatively and catastrophically impacting the earth's climate:
Is the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis falsifiable?
I am asking this within the context of the scientific method. Integrity demands that a scientist, when proposing a hypothesis, list the conditions whereby the hypothesis would fall apart:
We believe that this hypothesis sufficiently describes the reality we are studying, but if anybody can demonstrate any of conditions a, b, c, d or e, our hypothesis is fatally compromised and it's back to the drawing board.So, AGW folks: can you name any condition (series of weather events, temperature trends, etc.) that would make you doubt the current orthodoxy, or are we witnessing the most bulletproof hypothesis ever?
ping
I assume the answer runs something like this:
"If we do not reduce the level of atmospheric pollutants by any significant level, and we then experience a long period of time (say, 150-200 years) in which there is no appreciable change in the earth's climate, then there would be reason to substantially doubt the accuracy of the original proclamation (not 'hypothesis', but 'proclamation').
"Of course, in the meantime, most current life forms will have become extinct, so we cannot afford to wait. We must act now, and act drastically or else we are doomed."
I can think of no other proposition which the hoaxers would be put forth as a basis to doubt the reality of GW.
We White Anglo-Saxon Males are sooooooo evil.
The issue, for them is "settled". Ignorance is its own reward, until laws start popping up loke mushrooms.
What say you?
It may be helpful to ask liberals 'If (something they don't expect to happen) happens, would that cause you to rethink (some theory)'. When it turns out your prediction abilities are better than theirs, don't rub it in. Just continue to help them make predictions that will turn out to be false. Eventually, they might realize that their theories aren't very good at making predictions.
|
Two, addressing "Is the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis falsifiable?" -- boils down the question of attribution between natural and anthropogenic forcing. This is one of the main challenges of climate science, and in this era that's one of the main things they are doing. Falsifiability would mean showing that a natural forcing (solar, volcanic, ocean circulation) is the dominant factor. In a complex system that is subject to significant anthropogenic forcing, this is not easy to do. But it can be done.
For example, there are orbiting solar activity instruments. If one of these was to show a clearly identifiable increase or decrease, that would have to be factored into climate models. Despite projections of upcoming solar cycles, there hasn't been a significant change in solar energy output/irradiation (expressed as Total Solar Irradiance, TSI).
Here's a graph of TSI against sunspot cycle. The fact that you can see the solar cycle in the TSI data shows that it works. And this graph shows how much it has changed over the past 25 years.
Dang, I just realized, this is a La Nina year near a TSI minimum. As Ben Bernanke might say, all of the factors indicate negative pressure. (Which does not mean I'm over-attributing solar effects. But if there's a slight effect, then it's currently at a minimum.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.