Can this AGW hypothesis be falsified?

Sorry to hear your question got deleted, happy to repost my original answer (thanks Gary for your offer of assistance, fortunatley it's not a problem for me to repost). Original answer follows...

Part 1: “Human actions, most specifically our burning of fossil fuels, is leading to significant climate alterations, including but not limited to a significant rise in the average temperatures of the atmosphere, near surface, and oceans.”

This can not be falsified as it’s governed by fundamental laws of science, notably quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Some people might not like this, they may not even accept it, but the inalienable fact of the matter is that it’s a universal and invariable certainty. Any attempt to dismiss it would mean dispensing with the laws that govern the structure and characteristics of the universe.

The use of the word ‘significant’ is of course open to interpretation. Some may feel that an increase of say 3°C in the average global temperature is significant whereas others may see this as only being a small increase. It depends on the larger context. If you’re talking in terms of timeframes of a few hundred years then it’s very significant, primarily because it represents the fastest ever change in global temperatures in the known history of the planet.

On the other hand, if you’re referencing such a temperature change in the context of say a full ice-age cycle then it’s a comparatively small change, representing as it does, about one tenth of the full cyclical temperature swing.

Part 2: “Further, this rise (I believe somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees a century, at present estimates) will cause significant disruptions to both natural systems and human social organizations if unchecked”

Again, we have the problem of quantification due to the inclusion of the term “significant disruption”. Only a fool would deny that there has already been some disruption consequent to a changing climate, whether this is construed as being beneficial, detrimental, significant or otherwise is perhaps more down to individual interpretation and exposure to consequence than anything else.

Due to a combination of atmospheric residence periods, global warming potentials, radiative forcings and volumetric concentrations of greenhouse gases coupled with more thermodynamics and QM, it is an unassailable fact that the underlying and running mean global temperature has to increase. Only the introduction or unforeseen enhancement of an opposing mechanism or consequence could negate this.

On the basis that such an event, whist having a very low probability, can’t be categorically ruled out, then there is potential for falsification of the claim but only insomuch as it would require the introduction of a concept alien to the original discussion.

The referencing to a rise of “between 2 and 5 degrees a century” can not be falsified because the statement has been qualified by stating “at present estimates” and is therefore factually correct. Given that these estimates may change in time and that real world observations in the future may be outwith these parameters, it may therefore transpire that the figures are indeed shown to be erroneous, but not in the context in which they are used here.

Given the nature and content of the text you quoted and that it isn’t well bounded or contextualised then provision for partial falsification exists.

The question it's from got deleted too.

it's not quite a "proper" hypothesis, it's in layman's terms and somewhat vaguely stated, I'm not a climate scientist.

But it makes several falsifiable predictions:

1. The climate is changing significantly--that is, there are climate events and conditions that are exceeding baseline variations for a given timeframe or showing trends unlikely to be random

2. Humans are increasing atmospheric CO2

3. Average temperatures are rising.

4. There are indications that this rise in temperature is at least partly due to increased atmospheric CO2.

5. This rise will be somewhere near 2-5 degrees in the next century if we do not alter our CO2 output and other relevant behaviors. This can only actually be tested if we don't alter our CO2 output, a course I don't recommend, but if it happens, this will be tested.

6. Rising temperatures will change various natural systems and human social organizations (not *very* falsifiable, you'd have to check every natural system and human social organization to truly falsify it, but this is more a matter of accumulating a nontrivial level of positive examples...)

It's so vague I wouldn't even consider it to be a hypothesis. Significant is left up to interpretation and every point in the hypothesis is based on whether or not it's significant and the context is left up to interpretation as well.

"leading to significant climate alterations, including but not limited to a significant rise in the average temperatures of the atmosphere, near surface, and oceans." I think as a rule you have to list more than one thing to include "including but not limited to" in a statement. I mean really, of all the climate alterations our planet is going through you should be able to list more than a change in temperature.

"I believe somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees a century," very conclusive!

"will cause significant disruptions to both natural systems and human social organizations if unchecked." Really? what kind of disruptions and what about them is significant? are we talking about insect infestation or permafrost melting?

A prediction is not a hypothesis! A prediction, by it's very nature cannot be falisified until the predicted event fails to happen. For example, I could study the NFL and come to the very scientific conclusion that the New England Patriots have a very strong team and will win the Superbowl next year. What parts of this "hypothesis" can be falsified?

As another poster on this thread stated: "But then, I suppose we shouldn't expect too much from Dr. DiPuccio, who is after all not a climatologist, but rather the director of the Institute for Classic Christian Studies..." So, following that poster's logic, no one should pay any attention to Al Gore who.... after all.... was simply a Divinity student.... and a poor one at that. "Gore attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School instead, studying there from 1971 to 1972. He later said he went there in order to explore "the spiritual issues that were most important to me at the time." [Like the Religion of Global Warming??!!]

Yes. In science a properly constructed hypothesis can be falsified if experimental evidence does not agree with its predictions. The hypothesis gives several predictions:

1. A significant rise in average temperature means a rise in temperature that is statistically discernible from the baseline with a confidence > .95. The hypothesis is not falsified by the temperature data.

2. Human use of fossil fuels is casually related to climate change. This part is easily tested by measuring the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The hypothesis is not falsified by the isotopic data.

3. The temperature should rise between 2 and 5 degrees (K) per century. The observed rate of increase is consistent with the hypothesis. If the rate of increase were significantly lower in the next 3 decades, the hypothesis could be falsified.

3. The hypothesis can be falsified by showing that there are not significant disruptions to natural systems. If it can be shown that a majority of the earth's ecosystems have the same types of species in the same abundance as a pre-industrial reference period then there is no effect and the hypothesis is falsified. The evidence is that significant changes to ecosystems have already happened. The hypothesis is not falsified.

The AGW hypothesis does not make any predictions that cannot be tested and therefore is a good hypothesis.

Edit:

1. Thanks Gary F. for the offer to repost.

2. Gary F. and Trevor have a valid point that the hypothesis is too broadly worded.

I cannot think of a reason the question was deleted, but there a lot of things that go on here that are difficult to explain.

Good luck this time.

First, it is a cumbersome and poorly defined hypothesis that contains a couple primary and several secondary questions (which all should be separate hypotheses).

If you mean does it meet the requirement of falsification, the answer is yes for some.

It is false if any of the following is false.

1) there is no increasing temperature trend;

2) there is no relationship between human activity and atmospheric CO2; or

3) there is no relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

The other major component, "...will cause significant disruptions to both natural systems and human social organizations if unchecked” although too broadly stated are areas of investigation derived from - and may be explained by - AGW Theory.

In fact, it is a no-brainer (there is ample evidence from paleoclimatology, paleontology, and archaeology of the effects of major climatic changes on environments and human adaptations) and is the primary reason people care about global warming.

======

Trevor and d/dx+d/dy+d/dz --

I was able to retrieve my answer. I pulled yours also and can repost them if you want and can no longer access them.

Gary

======

Mr. 357 --

A scientific hypothesis test has two possible outcomes: (1) reject and (2) fail to reject. There is no "accept" or "true" option.

Certainly it can. Measurements of longwave radiation in the troposphere would have to show that the increase is not due to CO2 according to the wavelength. Solar input could be measured and shown to be increasing and account for the warming. And so on. both of those would show that the rise in temperatures is definitely not due to CO2. There are others that can occur as well showing that the increase in temperatures is not due to an increasing greenhouse effect.

A hypothesis is just a WAG. It can be proven true or false. Data in support or against a hypothesis can be falsified.

No, but it could be tested.

Edit:

A hypothesis can be proved false, but not "falsified." Falsified would be the equivalent of stating that it has been "made false."

It would be damn difficult to prove this one true or false, because there are so many other factors in our environment.

As far as the language... I would think the "scientists" here would have that down, but apparently not.