Global Warming science?

"1. What successful predictions has it made linking climate effects directly to man made causes?"

It depends on how strictly you define "successful." Hansen's 1988 model made specific predictions about how much warming would occur under three different GHG scenarios. Atmospheric CO2 from 1988-2010 followed his worst case scenario. The warming from 1988-2010 was less than his best case scenario. I would describe it as a spectacular failure and a falsification of his hypothesis. The Gorebots & Warmistas say that Hansen's model was a success because he revised it to hindcast what his original model failed to forecast.

"2. What observation(s) could falsify it?"

Apparently none.

"3. How can any science be "settled" given the possibility of future contradictory observations?

(Isn't Relativity still being tested?)"

Science is never settled. But politicians need for it to be settled so that they can set about taxing the Hell out of us.

"4. Is it considered a fact, a theory or a hypothesis?"

I would call it a hypothesis - One of multiple working hypotheses. The Warmistas call it a ruling theory and the Gorebots call it a fact.

Adolescents love to get a teacher off on a tangent, by asking an irrelevant question. If the student is clever, the question leans on some interesting area of debate or uncertainty, or on a teacher's insecurity. Then, when the teacher tries to give a careful answer, the student gloats and wins, because the goal all along was to distract the teacher from the learning process.

Carbon dioxide in the air is increasing at over 2 parts per million per year and the current concentration of 390 is already high enough to heat the Earth in a few decades way past the level that is healthy for mankind. The layer is there.. Excess CO2 holds heat in air; you can demonstrate this in a laboratory. The predictions of extreme weather events are already coming true.

Asking for a direct link is like wearing a fur coat on a summer day and wondering why you are so hot.

The only questions we should be asking are how can we best reduce carbon emissions; how can we stop the government from supporting fossil fuel with tax credits, how can we ramp up clean energy, conserve electricity and preserve forests?

Everything else is spitballs on the blackboard.

The first part of the answer to the questions, incidentally, is to talk about it.

>>The scientific method requires that hypotheses make falsifiable predictions. 1. What successful predictions has it made linking climate effects directly to man made causes?<<

You do know that the term “predictions” does not necessarily mean “future events”, right - and that the outcome of scientific hypothesis tests are either (a) reject or (b) fail to reject?

>>2. What observation(s) could falsify it<<

Hypothesis: The observed warming trend is the result of solar variability.

Result: false – tested and rejected.

Hypothesis: The observed warming trend is the result of known natural cycles in global temperature.

Result: false – tested and rejected.

Hypothesis: The recent observed temperature pattern has the same defining parameters and is similar in behavior to other known historic events.

Result: false – tested and rejected.

Hypothesis: The observed warming trend is the result of a combination of some or all known “natural” factors and forces that contribute to variability in global temperature.

Result: false – tested and rejected.

>>3. How can any science be "settled" given the possibility of future contradictory observations?<<

The same way that gravity, electricity, and molecular and atomic theories are settled.

<<(Isn't Relativity still being tested?)<<

Yes, as are its component variables gravity and the speed of light. So what?

>>4. Is it considered a fact, a theory or a hypothesis?<<

The observed (measured) warming is a fact.

AGW as theory / hypothesis is more equivocal. It is theoretical in that it generates scientific hypotheses, but it has less explanatory power than something like evolution I have an opinion, but it is not worth arguing over because the opposite opinion also has valid points.

There is a theory that is used to predict the change in global temperatures as a result of orbital cycles, solar activity, volcanic eruptions and human activity. A theory is different than a hypothesis. A theory incorporates the elements for basic scientific principles from the sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) with what has been learn doing years of testing hypothesis related to the subject into a mathematical formula (or very large set of very of equations) to make predictions of how the system will respond ( how earth's mean global temperature will change if solar cycles change, earth's orbit changes a little, people emit CO2 into the air, or volcanoes erupt). These models have been used for years to research past climates and are widely accepted by scientist. It is hard to pick a theory apart because they can just be changed (and do change - that is the norm) as we get more data and learn more to make them better.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be proven as false (in the case of a null hypothesis). A null hypothesis cannot be proven to be true. You can't prove the negative. It is ASSUMED to be true unless evidence proves otherwise. Some big questions are very difficult to prove with hypothesis testing, so the problem has to be broken down into small, testable parts and the experiments repeated with many different scientist with different data sets to determine how generalizable the results of the testing are. The simple hypothesis test for global warming is - -> Null hypothesis = Global warming is not occurring (we assume this is true). We look for evidence it is. This can involve taking temperature readings all over the earth over time and checking them, taking temperatures of the water, using satellites to measure temperatures, measuring the amount of ice on earth, measuring when spring greening occurs, etc. All this has to be done over time in many locations to make it generalizable to the earth as a whole. We can clearly see this now - the warming IS settled because we can directly measure it.

If something occurs in the future that changes everything, the equations that go with the theory will be revised to incorporate the new information. It doesn't mean the old equations were not correct, it just means they were not complete. The more we learn, the better the theory in most cases.

Other theories

gravity

atoms

light

evolution

Liberals have not got any difficulty with mendacity. See the observed owl. lots of "scientists" claimed that they could in easy terms stay in previous boost wood and could replace into extinct if we minimize down lots as one extra tree. Then the photograph of the reclusive observed owl living in a Kmart sign confirmed up. OOOPPPS! Then there grew to become into the solitary caribou who could no longer ever co-exist with a pipeline which might avert their mating and wipe them from the face of the earth. those surprisingly respected scientists have been dropped at congress and testified to this. OOOOPPPS, i think they made a mistake. The herd is greater than ever. The caribou love the pipeline. Then there grew to become into worldwide cooling... OOOPPS. Then there have been those scientists who stated we in easy terms had 10 years in the previous it grew to become into throughout, (in 1989). OOPS. There there have been the German scientists who stated worldwide warming grew to become into taking a 10 365 days "smash". Yep, genuine Einsteins...... OOOPs..... Now we come across they are fudging archives to further their faith. Gee, great marvel......

1. None at all. Quite the contrary. The dire predictions made have always failed to materialize.

2. It is difficult to settle such a vague idea finally. Showing that there is no real whatever the con men call it now is not easy to accomplish.

3. That is not real science that says such an outrageous thing, and this shows us it is not real science. Nothing is ever absolutely proved in rel science, but the believers say this issue is 100% settled. That shows it is belief and more religioon than real science.

4. It is far from being a fact or even a theory, in spite of what some fanatic believers say. It is a hypothesis at best and more likely just a hoax used to make Al Gore richer.

1) Zero

2) It's a claim being made that something is happening and that we need to modify our behavior. All it takes to logically nullify the call for drastic action is a plausible other explanation for what we see. The correlation between sunspots and temperature is not deniable by an honest person. (Look here for sunspots http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sunspots) Compare that with information about the little ice age and... well, you'll get the picture.

3) Only the politically motivated would even suggest that the science is "settled" -- and if they really think the science is settled, they should suggest that all research on the subject stop. (unless they're really there just for propaganda.)

4) Fact, theory, hypothesis, or politically motivated scam... the last one.

Starski

"2. What observation(s) could falsify it?"

-Seems like you've already made up your mind that the science is corrupt, so it appears you aren't very objective.

Stop as it iz Harming us a lot..

Its not science and still a theory . No predictions came true .