The Science of Global Warming : Explained

[wellwisher]

Global warming is a physical theory on what happens when greenhouse gas concentrations rise. Almost all scientific theories in physics and chemistry are basically complex mathematical functions which, when given a certain input(initial conditions) generates a certain set of output (predictions). And anything but the simplest of theory functions need to be coded into computer programs to be solved with any sort of accuracy. These global warming models are doing just that, coding the heat budget and fluid flow functions provided by the global warming theory and given certain inputs (like concentration of GHGs) provide output (predicted temperature change in future). If the predictions match with future observations, then the theory is validated. Otherwise either the theory has to be discarded or changed. That is falsifiability.
This is true for every scientific theory out there. How do you think we get predictions from a theory. By doing hand calculations in pen and paper???

If you think there is some other idea of falsifiability then you are plain wrong. The onus is on you to define your idea of falsifiability and find examples from actual science practice where it is used.

The initial science problem, with the earliest theory of manmade global warming, was all the computer models, that had been designed to model manmade global warming, over predicted the temperature rise, year after year. These models have been falsified, for years, by their own data outputs, confronting hard reality. But they they do not go away to be update all the way to accuracy. Why the exception to the rules of falsification? Why so much money backing falsified science?

Say a theory was falsified, but the status quo does not want to change or go away, is that normal in science? Or it that due to corruption, the inertia of bureaucracy or some form of external agenda? For example, according to the early models, the north Polar ice cap should be melted by now. This is still falsified, since we can still see polar ice in the summer. We also have not seen the predicted rise of the oceans. This is also falsification of the model predictions. Why is this model still pushed, after it was falsified by hard data. ? There is more than science at work.

Science does not have its own resources, but is beholden to others for funding; Government, Business and Private Donations. My guess is those who had invested heavily into the early global warming science, did not want something, trivial, like falsification, to stand in the way of their investment. They doubled down to buy a consensus of mercenary scientists, while targeting anyone who did not go along; censorship in Lefty dominated colleges. Each year, when the computer models again over predict; hurricanes for example, falsification was again ignored. The science smells like bad fish. The fix for the falsification year after year, by the realty data, was to rebrand Global warming, into the nebulas; qualitative term, called climate change, so whether the bad data is too up or too down, both mean a good climate change model; bogeyman is fickle.

The trick I have noticed from the Political Left is they always seem to come across as the adult in the room; Falsification is key to science. However, if you look deeper into the global warming models in science, they are the very ones, since 2000, who violate what they accuse others of. This adult in the room approach makes this violation less obvious. Why would someone who is accused of falsification, preach falsification as the standard. They must be innocent.

The way this game works is you accuse another of what you did; or what belongs to you, and thereby place them on the defensive. This makes them have to back peddle and become off balance, unable, to mount an affective offense. This back peddling, due to the surprise attack, makes them look guilty, which then hides the real criminals in plain sight.

The analogy is like two brothers playing in the formal parlor and one brother breaks his mother's prize, vase. The brother who did the damage, to get ahead of his crime, blames his brother, to his mother ands father, behind his back. The innocent brother, does not expect to be accused of something he did not do, since he is innocent. He is not prepared to defend, that which is not real. He is both unprepared and off balance, to the barrage of accusations, which then make him seem fishy, with the con artist brother looking better, since he planned this scam and is better prepared to answer.

The Russian Collision Coup used this tactic against Trump. The accusers of the Russian Collusion Coup; who bought the fake Russian dossier, accused Trump of Russian Collusion; bad brother accusing the innocent brother. This was eventually proven wrong, but Trumped looked guilty for two years, due to his more defensive position in the game. This was due to constant law suits and constant media lying, required Trump defend himself, and not be able to mount an offense.

In 2020, Trump was finally ready to mount his offensive against the criminals in the Coup. The same scammers again took the offensive, to force Trump back onto defense; all the shady behavior was blamed on Trump, with the evil brother acting innocent, until Twitter opened its files.

How about we do it this way. We will set a very public week where the latest Climate Change models have to make predictions. This is opening night and all will watch. We need to make this very public, so any bad brother con job is harder to do. We will then see just how accurate the science is, against the future hard data we all can see and compare. If the models are falsified, again, is has be banished for update. It cannot continue to lead and also be falsified. That would be corrupt. If it can get the bugs out and do better, it can come back.

We then can investigate, why it was previously allow to lead, after earlier falsifications. I would require all the tax money spent, be paid back by those who conspired to push falsified science. All those in the science consensus, would then need to be demoted, to the bottom of their science hierarchy, since you cannot have corruptible or bonehead leading science. Fresh ideas and approaches, once banished, may be needed to get the correct updates.

 

[metis]

The initial science problem, with the earliest theory of manmade global warming, was all the computer models, that had been designed to model manmade global warming, over predicted the temperature rise, year after year. These models have been falsified, for years, by their own data outputs, confronting hard reality. But they they do not go away to be update all the way to accuracy. Why the exception to the rules of falsification? Why so much money backing falsified science?

Say a theory was falsified, but the status quo does not want to change or go away, is that normal in science? Or it that due to corruption, the inertia of bureaucracy or some form of external agenda? For example, according to the early models, the north Polar ice cap should be melted by now. This is still falsified, since we can still see polar ice in the summer. We also have not seen the predicted rise of the oceans. This is also falsification of the model predictions. Why is this model still pushed, after it was falsified by hard data. ? There is more than science at work.

Science does not have its own resources, but is beholden to others for funding; Government, Business and Private Donations. My guess is those who had invested heavily into the early global warming science, did not want something, trivial, like falsification, to stand in the way of their investment. They doubled down to buy a consensus of mercenary scientists, while targeting anyone who did not go along; censorship in Lefty dominated colleges. Each year, when the computer models again over predict; hurricanes for example, falsification was again ignored. The science smells like bad fish. The fix for the falsification year after year, by the realty data, was to rebrand Global warming, into the nebulas; qualitative term, called climate change, so whether the bad data is too up or too down, both mean a good climate change model; bogeyman is fickle.

The trick I have noticed from the Political Left is they always seem to come across as the adult in the room; Falsification is key to science. However, if you look deeper into the global warming models in science, they are the very ones, since 2000, who violate what they accuse others of. This adult in the room approach makes this violation less obvious. Why would someone who is accused of falsification, preach falsification as the standard. They must be innocent.

The way this game works is you accuse another of what you did; or what belongs to you, and thereby place them on the defensive. This makes them have to back peddle and become off balance, unable, to mount an affective offense. This back peddling, due to the surprise attack, makes them look guilty, which then hides the real criminals in plain sight.

The analogy is like two brothers playing in the formal parlor and one brother breaks his mother's prize, vase. The brother who did the damage, to get ahead of his crime, blames his brother, to his mother ands father, behind his back. The innocent brother, does not expect to be accused of something he did not do, since he is innocent. He is not prepared to defend, that which is not real. He is both unprepared and off balance, to the barrage of accusations, which then make him seem fishy, with the con artist brother looking better, since he planned this scam and is better prepared to answer.

The Russian Collision Coup used this tactic against Trump. The accusers of the Russian Collusion Coup; who bought the fake Russian dossier, accused Trump of Russian Collusion; bad brother accusing the innocent brother. This was eventually proven wrong, but Trumped looked guilty for two years, due to his more defensive position in the game. This was due to constant law suits and constant media lying, required Trump defend himself, and not be able to mount an offense.

In 2020, Trump was finally ready to mount his offensive against the criminals in the Coup. The same scammers again took the offensive, to force Trump back onto defense; all the shady behavior was blamed on Trump, with the evil brother acting innocent, until Twitter opened its files.

How about we do it this way. We will set a very public week where the latest Climate Change models have to make predictions. This is opening night and all will watch. We need to make this very public, so any bad brother con job is harder to do. We will then see just how accurate the science is, against the future hard data we all can see and compare. If the models are falsified, again, is has be banished for update. It cannot continue to lead and also be falsified. That would be corrupt. If it can get the bugs out and do better, it can come back.

We then can investigate, why it was previously allow to lead, after earlier falsifications. I would require all the tax money spent, be paid back by those who conspired to push falsified science. All those in the science consensus, would then need to be demoted, to the bottom of their science hierarchy, since you cannot have corruptible or bonehead leading science. Fresh ideas and approaches, once banished, may be needed to get the correct updates.

You repeatedly make assertions without links to show that you are supposedly right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sabine takes a deeper dive. She explains it at several levels. The more advanced levels has a prediction that a certain layer of the upper atmosphere would cool due to global warming. This was predicted before it was observed:

I think if more people explained it in layman's terms, keeps it interesting, it might bring more people on board if they understand global warming better.

I , like others, are put off with theoretical modeling and predictions. I think its much better to go a route on teaching the actual process rather than predictions as opposed saying it's what the experts say and leaving it at that alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think if more people explained it in layman's terms, keeps it interesting, it might bring more people on board if they understand global warming better.

I , like others, are put off with theoretical modeling and predictions. I think its much better to go a route on teaching the actual process rather than predictions as opposed saying it's what the experts say and leaving it at that alone.

Beliefs on the layman level can often be abused as she showed when she showed the "refutation" of her simpler explanations and jokingly said Bring Back Coal. It was not until the graduate level where she showed a counterintuitive and confirmed prediction to that the case got solid.

 

[sayak83]

The initial science problem, with the earliest theory of manmade global warming, was all the computer models, that had been designed to model manmade global warming, over predicted the temperature rise, year after year. These models have been falsified, for years, by their own data outputs, confronting hard reality. But they they do not go away to be update all the way to accuracy. Why the exception to the rules of falsification? Why so much money backing falsified science?

Say a theory was falsified, but the status quo does not want to change or go away, is that normal in science? Or it that due to corruption, the inertia of bureaucracy or some form of external agenda? For example, according to the early models, the north Polar ice cap should be melted by now. This is still falsified, since we can still see polar ice in the summer. We also have not seen the predicted rise of the oceans. This is also falsification of the model predictions. Why is this model still pushed, after it was falsified by hard data. ? There is more than science at work.

Science does not have its own resources, but is beholden to others for funding; Government, Business and Private Donations. My guess is those who had invested heavily into the early global warming science, did not want something, trivial, like falsification, to stand in the way of their investment. They doubled down to buy a consensus of mercenary scientists, while targeting anyone who did not go along; censorship in Lefty dominated colleges. Each year, when the computer models again over predict; hurricanes for example, falsification was again ignored. The science smells like bad fish. The fix for the falsification year after year, by the realty data, was to rebrand Global warming, into the nebulas; qualitative term, called climate change, so whether the bad data is too up or too down, both mean a good climate change model; bogeyman is fickle.

The trick I have noticed from the Political Left is they always seem to come across as the adult in the room; Falsification is key to science. However, if you look deeper into the global warming models in science, they are the very ones, since 2000, who violate what they accuse others of. This adult in the room approach makes this violation less obvious. Why would someone who is accused of falsification, preach falsification as the standard. They must be innocent.

The way this game works is you accuse another of what you did; or what belongs to you, and thereby place them on the defensive. This makes them have to back peddle and become off balance, unable, to mount an affective offense. This back peddling, due to the surprise attack, makes them look guilty, which then hides the real criminals in plain sight.

The analogy is like two brothers playing in the formal parlor and one brother breaks his mother's prize, vase. The brother who did the damage, to get ahead of his crime, blames his brother, to his mother ands father, behind his back. The innocent brother, does not expect to be accused of something he did not do, since he is innocent. He is not prepared to defend, that which is not real. He is both unprepared and off balance, to the barrage of accusations, which then make him seem fishy, with the con artist brother looking better, since he planned this scam and is better prepared to answer.

The Russian Collision Coup used this tactic against Trump. The accusers of the Russian Collusion Coup; who bought the fake Russian dossier, accused Trump of Russian Collusion; bad brother accusing the innocent brother. This was eventually proven wrong, but Trumped looked guilty for two years, due to his more defensive position in the game. This was due to constant law suits and constant media lying, required Trump defend himself, and not be able to mount an offense.

In 2020, Trump was finally ready to mount his offensive against the criminals in the Coup. The same scammers again took the offensive, to force Trump back onto defense; all the shady behavior was blamed on Trump, with the evil brother acting innocent, until Twitter opened its files.

How about we do it this way. We will set a very public week where the latest Climate Change models have to make predictions. This is opening night and all will watch. We need to make this very public, so any bad brother con job is harder to do. We will then see just how accurate the science is, against the future hard data we all can see and compare. If the models are falsified, again, is has be banished for update. It cannot continue to lead and also be falsified. That would be corrupt. If it can get the bugs out and do better, it can come back.

We then can investigate, why it was previously allow to lead, after earlier falsifications. I would require all the tax money spent, be paid back by those who conspired to push falsified science. All those in the science consensus, would then need to be demoted, to the bottom of their science hierarchy, since you cannot have corruptible or bonehead leading science. Fresh ideas and approaches, once banished, may be needed to get the correct updates.

As shown in the post I wrote in the previous page,
The Science of Global Warming : Explained
Those early models of global warming got their predictions correct as explicitly validated by subsequent data.
So...what happens to all these assertions of yours?
I will also wait for back up of your claim that early models predicted that with 410 ppm of CO2 (current value), the polar ice caps will melt. I suspect that I will wait in vain, as no such model predictions were ever made.

 

[Yerda]

Ahem. The OP created this thread to answer questions. Mine was a legitimate question. One that is readily answerable. I'm not sure why you are answering on OP's behalf. But "go look for the answer on your own" is incongruous with the stated purpose of this thread.

Furthermore it does seem that it is you don't understand what fasifiability is. Fasifiablity is a feature of theories, not data or facts. Anthroprogenic climate change is a theory. Climate models are data or facts. The former needs a falsifiability component to be complete. The latter don't need one since innate within data and facts are probability.

The model isn't data or facts. The model is measured against data. This might be where the misunderstanding is arising.

 

[Shaul]

The model isn't data or facts. The model is measured against data. This might be where the misunderstanding is arising.

To be quite precise, anthroprogenic climate change isn't a model, it is a theory. A scientific theory is a structured explanation of facts, phenomena and observations. The validity of the theory and that of those facts, phenomena and observations are independent and separately determinable.

 

[Yerda]

To be quite precise, anthroprogenic climate change isn't a model, it is a theory. A scientific theory is a structured explanation of facts, phenomena and observations. The validity of the theory and that of those facts, phenomena and observations are independent and separately determinable

Right, and the models are instances of the theory. They are predictive tools that can be measured against the data in order to determine the validity of the theory.

 

[metis]

The validity of the theory and that of those facts, phenomena and observations are independent and separately determinable.

But a scientific theory also may include hypotheses and axioms, such as the ToE.