[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 194 KB, 1920x960, bigstock-168398480-1920x960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10407848 No.10407848 [Reply] [Original]

Is global warming hypothesis falsifiable? Seems like no matter what happens, heat, cold, rain, drought, hurricane, lack of hurricanes, this counts as evidence towards global warming. I read that even girls' lower rates of STEM employement are caused by it! Normally this would be very unusual since you would usually see evidence for and against the hypothesis you are considering. Is there any evidence at all against global warming hypothesis? And are there any things that are not caused by global warming?

>> No.10407858

>>10407848
>hypothesis
saged and hidden polotocally motivated thread

>> No.10407861

>>10407848
>falsifiable
Stop reading popsci retard.

>> No.10407877

>>10407848
Not sure if this is a troll post, but it would be falsifiable since the warming trend could conceivably halt magically for some magic reason.

>> No.10407886

>>10407848
You spout so much uneducated bullshit (hopefully not deliberately) that I lost count.

>Is global warming hypothesis falsifiable?
You implicitly assume that Popper's criterion has resolved the demarcation problem; it has not. The Duhem-Quaine thesis shows that even if you are able to falsify something, it doesn't matter as you adjust your assumptions accordingly.
That being said, specific theories describing the impact of technology on climate are indeed falsifiable. This does not mean that they are any good, however (or any bad).
>Seems like no matter what happens, heat, cold, rain, drought, hurricane, lack of hurricanes, this counts as evidence towards global warming.
Where did you read it, exactly? On buzzfeed? On reddit? On 4chan? All of those are of similar usefulness and reliability. Papers on climate do not operate on the scale of a rain or a hurricane, they propose testable statistical hypotheses and the sample size is required to be rather large to use asymptotic behavior of the statistics.
>I read that even girls' lower rates of STEM employement are caused by it!
Every proper paper (of which there are plenty on climate) distinguishes very carefully between correlation and causality. The latter is often investigated using instrumental variables, Granger tests, and Bayesian frameworks, depending on the area.
> Normally this would be very unusual since you would usually see evidence for and against the hypothesis you are considering.
You would if you read the papers, which you haven't.
>Is there any evidence at all against global warming hypothesis?
Yes.
>And are there any things that are not caused by global warming?
Yes. Your ignorance, for instance.

>> No.10407895

>>10407886
He conflates global warming and climate change itself like fifteen words in.

>> No.10407925

>>10407848
Climate change is indistinguishable from an ideology at this point.

>> No.10407929

>>10407925
Wrong. Changes in local and global climates are observable.

>> No.10407947

>>10407848
>Seems like no matter what happens, heat, cold, rain, drought, hurricane, lack of hurricanes, this counts as evidence towards global warming.
Source?

>> No.10407951

Lemme break it down simple for you, thermodynamically.

All matter has a “heat capacity” meaning that some matter is extraordinarily good at holding on to heat and slowly releasing it and some matter lets heat simply flow through it (i.e. an insulated concrete wall vs. a single pane window). If you take a part of air in Earth’s atmosphere, the hydrogen and oxygen are more like the single-pane window, letting heat pass through on the way in and providing little resistance on the way out. Carbon-based molecules, on the other hand, are like the insulated concrete walls. They absorb the heat from sunlight and slowly discharge it. In a part of air, carbon molecules don’t need to be a particularly large fraction of the whole to make a marked difference in how much heat gets trapped inside our atmosphere instead of escaping back into space. And globally, it doesn’t take a huge rise in temperature to severely perturb the carbon equilibrium that we and many other organic lifeforms rely on to live.

It’s as simple as that.

>> No.10409633

>>10407886
>Duhem-Quaine
popsci garbage

>> No.10409820

>>10407848
hypothesis is the average surface temperature of the earth increasing? Oh wait it is. /thread.

>> No.10410252
File: 139 KB, 1400x800, nh_swe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10410252

>>10407929
True.
Globally it's getting snowy.
Cant wait to read all about it in IPCC AR6

>> No.10410257

Is the climate and biosphere changing? Yes, clearly. Is it caused by humans? Very likely. Does the solutions proposed by the UN, WTO, governments etc. etc. actually do anything or have the best interests of the citizen in mind? No, absolutely not.

>> No.10410261

>>10410252
No, in the northern hemisphere, it’s snowing because........it’s fucking winter.

Is this bait?

>> No.10410291

>>10410261
Can you read a graph?
Blue is the +1/-1 sigma probabilities based on 1998-2011 snowseasons.
This snowseason is almost 3 sigma more intense than the 1998-2011 average.

Other years have winter too. released 700 billion tons less snow though...

>> No.10410292

>>10407951
>>10407886
I would like to have a few eyes on these calculations:
>>10410236
Honestly, I don't know whats wrong with it but it seems to point that the IPCC overestimates it with 50%.
Would really appreciate a dialogue on this.

>> No.10410384

>>10407848
>Is global warming hypothesis falsifiable?
Yes. We just look at global averages instead of local temperatures.

>> No.10410879
File: 5 KB, 255x197, 1527990422235.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10410879

>>10410291
>hurrr durr.. global WARMING means it CAN'T snow more cause now is COLD

>> No.10411461
File: 75 KB, 645x729, angrybrainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10411461

>>10410879
>Hurr durr I dont know that 3 sigma actually denotes a one in a 300 year event so i'm just going to dismiss this as insignificant.

>> No.10411468

>>10407858
>we don't talk about the scientific method when it comes to global warming
I wonder why.

>> No.10411547

>>10411461
How exactly is it significant with respect to global warming?

>> No.10411549

>>10410257
Why?

>> No.10412735
File: 78 KB, 960x720, Venus,+Earth,+Mars+with+no+greenhouse+effect+(&+same+pressure):.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10412735

>>10407848
It's not a hypothesis, it's observations. Average global temperature is going up and sea level is rising. And we know it's happening because more greenhouse gas is causing a stronger greenhouse effect.
That's why wee need to stop greenhouse gas emissions to stop climate change.

>> No.10412739

>>10411468
Because you don't understand the scientific method and talking to people like you is fruitless.

>> No.10412745

>>10410252
Cold air is coming down from the arctic and making shit tons of snow in canada and the northern US. This is pretty much the only colder than average place in the northern hemisphere right now.

>> No.10412749
File: 209 KB, 1100x828, temp_anomaly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10412749

>>10410252
>>10412745
forgot pic

>> No.10412865

>>10407848
It's the Popper way of doing things. Just make your hypothesis invincible and add evidence post hoc

>> No.10413634

>>10412739

>what is a hypothesis based on a false premise
>what is a scientific control

Ask any "climate change" scientists these questions and watch how once they piece it together they'll start insisting that you don't know what you're talking about. Like you, no offense.

>> No.10413961

>>10413634
>what is a hypothesis based on a false premise
Which false premise? And none of this is a hypothesis anymore, it's a theory.

>what is a scientific control
Something which certain experiments use to isolate the effect of one variable.