-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Science of Global Warming : Explained
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
1) Since it was the OP that said he would explain about Global Warming[sic], he should be the one to explain the lack of fasifiability (assuming that's possible).
2) You didn't explain the fasifiability lacking.
3) You failed to supply any citations that support your unsupported assertions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What lack of falsifiability? It is never wise to make this sort of accusation unless you can support it. It automatically becomes fallacious if you cannot support your claim.
So please explain why AGW is not falsifiable? I am aware of at least one way that they can test the models. In other words they are falsifiable.
I said the difference in temperature from the long time average value (which is what the temperature anomaly is) can be known with very high precision. So, since the temperature difference from average can be measured, we can calculate the heat that has been added or removed from the system as well very accurately.
A climate model is falsifiable since it can predict something that will happen in the future and we can test that prediction in the future. One of the key predictions of climate models is how the global surface temperature anomaly will increase given a certain GHG emission amount as the decades go by. Climate models before 2000 predicted this. Now we have the data of how much GHG gas has been emitted and hence see if the corresponding prediction of these models in the 2000 - 2020 period has come true or not. It HAS
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
“The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming,” said study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. “This research could help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts.”
Pete in Panama
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you're saying "no" and it's good that you've done your calculations "very accurately" and "with very high precision".
Yes temperature differences can be measured with very high precision. Why are you putting quotes on the word?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Men of earth science taught frozen ground was a part of earths mass hardness in atmospheric body mass heavens change.
A scientific teaching ice had saved earths God body ground mass body as it's gods or earths saviour.
As basic science advice knowing hotter heavens gases pressures equated giant celled biology. As trees were giant in nature terms too.
So insects would also by body alien looking types be larger too.
Giant earth terms. Heated heavens gas status.
Volcanic mass eruptions. Huge earth implosion indentations from underground gas eruptions etc.
So ice pressure mass ground freezing he taught as a scientist said the saviour body had saved planet earth as gods saviour.
No human ...then no consciousness... no lying theisms either. Not ours to claim ownership.
Saviour body was owned by planet earths mass.
Is basic advice.
You weakened the earths mass by melt floods....next moment man is pretending a scientific thesis about earth heat leaving ground mass.
In fact conscious aware first is our life conditions life was being warned.
Earths heat was leaving its ground mass. Lots of methane escaping.
Earth is readying for a saviour return as a snap freeze incident old technology had actively caused. Already told you so.
Ice sheet glacier mass of earth as a melt.
Men of science already knew the causes they had effected before. The snap freeze actually would be a caused event as a returned to earth pressurised snap freeze.
In the long count future less sun mass so natural law pressure of space changes.
So told Roman scientists do not apply any nuclear technology ever again.
Ignored just human advice about planet earths natural history in space changes. Caused a voided pressure moment no light of day as evidence it's real.
A scientific teaching ice had saved earths God body ground mass body as it's gods or earths saviour.
As basic science advice knowing hotter heavens gases pressures equated giant celled biology. As trees were giant in nature terms too.
So insects would also by body alien looking types be larger too.
Giant earth terms. Heated heavens gas status.
Volcanic mass eruptions. Huge earth implosion indentations from underground gas eruptions etc.
So ice pressure mass ground freezing he taught as a scientist said the saviour body had saved planet earth as gods saviour.
No human ...then no consciousness... no lying theisms either. Not ours to claim ownership.
Saviour body was owned by planet earths mass.
Is basic advice.
You weakened the earths mass by melt floods....next moment man is pretending a scientific thesis about earth heat leaving ground mass.
In fact conscious aware first is our life conditions life was being warned.
Earths heat was leaving its ground mass. Lots of methane escaping.
Earth is readying for a saviour return as a snap freeze incident old technology had actively caused. Already told you so.
Ice sheet glacier mass of earth as a melt.
Men of science already knew the causes they had effected before. The snap freeze actually would be a caused event as a returned to earth pressurised snap freeze.
In the long count future less sun mass so natural law pressure of space changes.
So told Roman scientists do not apply any nuclear technology ever again.
Ignored just human advice about planet earths natural history in space changes. Caused a voided pressure moment no light of day as evidence it's real.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Men of earth science taught frozen ground was a part of earths mass hardness in atmospheric body mass heavens change.
A scientific teaching ice had saved earths God body ground mass body as it's gods or earths saviour.
As basic science advice knowing hotter heavens gases pressures equated giant celled biology. As trees were giant in nature terms too.
So insects would also by body alien looking types be larger too.
Giant earth terms. Heated heavens gas status.
Volcanic mass eruptions. Huge earth implosion indentations from underground gas eruptions etc.
So ice pressure mass ground freezing he taught as a scientist said the saviour body had saved planet earth as gods saviour.
No human ...then no consciousness... no lying theisms either. Not ours to claim ownership.
Saviour body was owned by planet earths mass.
Is basic advice.
You weakened the earths mass by melt floods....next moment man is pretending a scientific thesis about earth heat leaving ground mass.
In fact conscious aware first is our life conditions life was being warned.
Earths heat was leaving its ground mass. Lots of methane escaping.
Earth is readying for a saviour return as a snap freeze incident old technology had actively caused. Already told you so.
Ice sheet glacier mass of earth as a melt.
Men of science already knew the causes they had effected before. The snap freeze actually would be a caused event as a returned to earth pressurised snap freeze.
In the long count future less sun mass so natural law pressure of space changes.
So told Roman scientists do not apply any nuclear technology ever again.
Ignored just human advice about planet earths natural history in space changes. Caused a voided pressure moment no light of day as evidence it's real.
A scientific teaching ice had saved earths God body ground mass body as it's gods or earths saviour.
As basic science advice knowing hotter heavens gases pressures equated giant celled biology. As trees were giant in nature terms too.
So insects would also by body alien looking types be larger too.
Giant earth terms. Heated heavens gas status.
Volcanic mass eruptions. Huge earth implosion indentations from underground gas eruptions etc.
So ice pressure mass ground freezing he taught as a scientist said the saviour body had saved planet earth as gods saviour.
No human ...then no consciousness... no lying theisms either. Not ours to claim ownership.
Saviour body was owned by planet earths mass.
Is basic advice.
You weakened the earths mass by melt floods....next moment man is pretending a scientific thesis about earth heat leaving ground mass.
In fact conscious aware first is our life conditions life was being warned.
Earths heat was leaving its ground mass. Lots of methane escaping.
Earth is readying for a saviour return as a snap freeze incident old technology had actively caused. Already told you so.
Ice sheet glacier mass of earth as a melt.
Men of science already knew the causes they had effected before. The snap freeze actually would be a caused event as a returned to earth pressurised snap freeze.
In the long count future less sun mass so natural law pressure of space changes.
So told Roman scientists do not apply any nuclear technology ever again.
Ignored just human advice about planet earths natural history in space changes. Caused a voided pressure moment no light of day as evidence it's real.
As far as Methodological Naturalism and falsifiability of theories and hypothesis with objective verifiable evidence simply google the definitions on the internet.
I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant to do the homework of the known research. If anything exists in the physical existence by its nature it is potentially falsifiable by scientific methods,
Actually I cited some of scientists in the 1950's that did ground breaking research on global warming and there are literally thousands of scientific research articles supporting global warming do to climate change The falsification of global warming and climate change involves predictions of change in the climate over time this has been done since at least the 1950's beginning with the scientists cited before.
@sayak83 has posted at least several references demonstrating global warming and you have not responded.
That doesn't answer my question. My question was what are the falsifiablity for the hypothesis of "Global Warming"*. You gave a reply for the falsifiability of computer models. That is something else.A climate model is falsifiable since it can predict something that will happen in the future and we can test that prediction in the future. One of the key predictions of climate models is how the global surface temperature anomaly will increase given a certain GHG emission amount as the decades go by. Climate models before 2000 predicted this. Now we have the data of how much GHG gas has been emitted and hence see if the corresponding prediction of these models in the 2000 - 2020 period has come true or not. It HAS
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide hat other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
“The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming,” said study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. “This research could help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts.”
*I use "Global Warming" here because that is the term you used. However, what I think the term is you actually intended to use would be the theory of anthroprogenic climate change. Which is another point I would ask about later if I could ever get a satisfactory answer for my first, what should be simple, question.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That doesn't answer my question. My question was what are the falsifiablity for the hypothesis of "Global Warming"*. You gave a reply for the falsifiability of computer models. That is something else.
*I use "Global Warming" here because that is the term you used. However, what I think the term is you actually intended to use would be the theory of anthroprogenic climate change. Which is another point I would ask about later if I could ever get a satisfactory answer for my first, what should be simple, question.
. The computer models are the theory. Falsifying them would refute the theory.
I wasn't asking what falsifiability means. I was asking for the falsifiablity standards that were being used with the OPs theory. Anyone who understands the concept of fasifiability understands that it is quite proper to ask for it from someone positing a scientific theory. You also seem to misunderstand what was asked. What was asked was what falsifiability standards are used for the theory of [anthroprogenic induced] "Global Warming". Nobody asked for fasifiablity for observed phenomena.
That doesn't answer my question. My question was what are the falsifiablity for the hypothesis of "Global Warming"*. You gave a reply for the falsifiability of computer models. That is something else.
*I use "Global Warming" here because that is the term you used. However, what I think the term is you actually intended to use would be the theory of anthroprogenic climate change. Which is another point I would ask about later if I could ever get a satisfactory answer for my first, what should be simple, question.
The computer models and prediction of the observations of over time is how climate change over time onto the future and changes in the past related to the effects of anthropomorphic factors is falsified. The past historical and geologic evidence is the foundation of the models to predictjng future change since at least the 1950s, and measurements in the past. The ability to project verifiable predictions in space and time in any science is the foundation of the falsification process.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Also the models can be tested by hind casting. They do have the advantage of already knowing the data, but a computer model can be used as if the data does not exist. They can put in the data and see if it can predict temperatures in the past. If it fails at that one knows that the model has serious problems.
Climate Models.
See post #94. Again this is something you can look up yourself from many internet sources and you failed to do. If you understood the concept of falsification, and predictive purpose of the climate models you would not need to ask the question.
Again the projection of the computer models over time and the predictions of climate change due to anthropomorphic effects is how the hypothesis is falsified. and it as been successful.
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.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science says a Finished reactive changed earth is a history.
The changes began. It ended also.
Giving a review all results.
O earth therefore states the conditions it had involved as a changed body.
Science says all things is a past ended. I hence don't want it to begin again as life now does not want that end.
Science themes beginning...destruction and end destruction.
As natural just exists.
Science hence says why the past isn't a present nor future model.
A teaching legally relative stated...so don't look back.
Advised human science only memory.
As science is chosen is practiced owned causes itself.
Said on old technology man released an abundant underground methane body. That exited Rock made holes and changed heavens above.
Flooding ensued as ice glaciers frozen saviour earth melted.
Saviour body was released earth as frozen.
Told you what the saviour was...returned winter ice body. So you could not argue the terms.
As science argues science. Yet earth isn't man's science it's natural.
Methane once again released abundantly man said as cows farts....as satanic theism is a big joke.
The changes began. It ended also.
Giving a review all results.
O earth therefore states the conditions it had involved as a changed body.
Science says all things is a past ended. I hence don't want it to begin again as life now does not want that end.
Science themes beginning...destruction and end destruction.
As natural just exists.
Science hence says why the past isn't a present nor future model.
A teaching legally relative stated...so don't look back.
Advised human science only memory.
As science is chosen is practiced owned causes itself.
Said on old technology man released an abundant underground methane body. That exited Rock made holes and changed heavens above.
Flooding ensued as ice glaciers frozen saviour earth melted.
Saviour body was released earth as frozen.
Told you what the saviour was...returned winter ice body. So you could not argue the terms.
As science argues science. Yet earth isn't man's science it's natural.
Methane once again released abundantly man said as cows farts....as satanic theism is a big joke.
I explained very well and you are not responding coherently. Falsifiability applies to proposed theories and hypothesis. Climate Change due to anthropomorphic causes fits better as a hypothesis, but lets not be too picky here. Data and facts determined in research are necessary in the falsification of a hypothesis.
The key you are not responding to is that the predictability of the models for global warming is how the the results are falsified. This is true for all theories and hypothesis. If the proposals for hypothesis and theories fail to make successful predictions than the hypothesis or theory has failed.
The hypothesis for global warming caused by anthropomorphic changes in the environment has successfully predicted the patterns of global warming necessary for the hypothesis to be valid.
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.That doesn't answer my question. My question was what are the falsifiablity for the hypothesis of "Global Warming"*. You gave a reply for the falsifiability of computer models. That is something else.
*I use "Global Warming" here because that is the term you used. However, what I think the term is you actually intended to use would be the theory of anthroprogenic climate change. Which is another point I would ask about later if I could ever get a satisfactory answer for my first, what should be simple, question.
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.
Last edited: