Anthropogenic Global Warming, a scientific theory?

[h-j-m]

Again battling with this matter, suddenly an odd thought struck me.

Does the theory meet the requirements demanded for any scientific theory?

As to my understanding there is just one basic requirement, its assertion must be disprovable. If there is no obvious method for disproof one needs to be part of the theory.

Unfortunately neither I nor anyone I have spoken to could come up with an obvious method of disproof.

But searching so far I failed to find any formal formulation of the theory to check.

Maybe it is just the case that I just don't know where to look.

Any help is appreciated.

[Richard111]

As far as I am aware there are no "peer reviewed" scientific papers that identify AGW. This whole debacle was triggered by the "policy advice" from the IPCC that correlated rising global temperatures and rising levels of CO2. Since CO2 already had a bad press for being being a "greenhouse gas" -- well, Bingo! Take control of the industrial world and then you will be able to control release of CO2 and save the world! Very much a win - win situation and they still might make it.

If you can get hold of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory', have a read of Chapter 19 - Computational Blackbody Radiation. It explains very clearly how cold cannot make warm hotter which is the very basis of AGW.

[Sunsettommy]

(12-02-2010 09:06 AM)h-j-m Wrote:  Again battling with this matter, suddenly an odd thought struck me.

Does the theory meet the requirements demanded for any scientific theory?

As to my understanding there is just one basic requirement, its assertion must be disprovable. If there is no obvious method for disproof one needs to be part of the theory.

Unfortunately neither I nor anyone I have spoken to could come up with an obvious method of disproof.

But searching so far I failed to find any formal formulation of the theory to check.

Maybe it is just the case that I just don't know where to look.

Any help is appreciated.

As far I see it.

It is as best a HYPOTHESIS or conjecture.It never reached the status of a Theory.

hypothesis

Excerpt:

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.


theory

Excerpt:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

================================================================================​===========================

AGW hypothesis has never been made to be a coherent proposition.It has been failing the few predictions it was subjected to.

The explanations has not been adequate either,in support of the AGW conjecture.

[Sunsettommy]

(12-02-2010 09:06 AM)h-j-m Wrote:  Again battling with this matter, suddenly an odd thought struck me.

Does the theory meet the requirements demanded for any scientific theory?

As to my understanding there is just one basic requirement, its assertion must be disprovable. If there is no obvious method for disproof one needs to be part of the theory.

Unfortunately neither I nor anyone I have spoken to could come up with an obvious method of disproof.

But searching so far I failed to find any formal formulation of the theory to check.

Maybe it is just the case that I just don't know where to look.

Any help is appreciated.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is summarized by Warren Meyer as follows:

LINK

================================================================================​=========================

This is a starting point to define the hypothesis.

[Derek]

(12-02-2010 09:06 AM)h-j-m Wrote:  Does the theory

Please show where it is shown to be a theory. ?
Lots call it a "theory", which is not the same thing.

As far as I'm aware AGW is a hypothesis, a disproven hypothesis at that.

The hypothesis has been disproven by,

1) The missing atmospheric hot spot (no warming mechanism as proposed / modeled).

2) "back radiation" has not been shown to exist in the form or strength as proposed / modeled.

3) The "greenhouse effect" has, because of 2) not been shown, and right back in the early 1900s Wood's showed it does not exist, as proposed / modeled.

4) The "proofs" generally offered of AGW, ie, K&T diagrams, modeling, AND MODTRAN (which is also modeling), are not proofs.
The first two are for unphysical, over simplified, shown to be wrong, "disc world" scenarios,
and the later is based on incorrect / inapplicable measurements (closed flask) added together by unstated assumptions / relationships
in an attempt to apply these "measurements" to an open and mixed atmospheric system.
Physicists and chemists views on the specific heat capacity of CO2 are quite illuminating in this respect regarding the "reliability" of MODTRAN....

Interestingly, there are no reliable global climate metrics, not a one.

As hypothesis's go, I think it is a bit of a dead horse really.
But "a theory" it most definitely is not.

[h-j-m]

Unfortunately due to the permanent public indoctrination that stresses the scientific nature of the issue, I naturally thought there has to be a theory.

Thanks for correcting my misguided impression.

[Derek]

Hey, don't worry h-j-m, it is a road we have all been down here.
We here think more of you for asking the questions and keeping an open mind to the responses.
Discussion, and hopefully a better understanding, is what we hope to achieve, for all, however long it takes.

Although I do begin to wonder if I'll ever get through to Richard111.

[Richard111]

(12-02-2010 02:18 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  Unfortunately due to the permanent public indoctrination that stresses the scientific nature of the issue, I naturally thought there has to be a theory.

h-j-m, you have pointed to the heart of this problem. Why is the so called independant media supporting this hoax when there is so much scientific evidence showing that AGW is imossible?

I can understand the BBC, which is entirely reconstructed by the previous labour government, but why all the rest? To me this displays a frightening level of control that extends through out the so called civilised western nations.

Only retired and/or independant persons speak out publicly and the media response is usually silence because there is no science to support the AGW hoax. I don't think it qualifies as theory or hypothesis, its a monumental global hoax.

[h-j-m]

I just found out what had supported my impression of an existing theory. I was the headline of this article.

[Derek]

h-j-m, re articles author.
There are a lot of AGW stooges about, arn't there.