AGW - A falsified hypothesis

The hypothesis is that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. - known as man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW.)

Falsification 1
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

This is the opening paragraph of a paper by William DiPuccio. This paper was posted at on May 5, 2009. In closing, Mr DiPuccio says:
A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world's oceans have been losing heat. (LINK)

 Falsification 2, 
Tim Curtin wrote (HERE)
The first is the complete failure of all climate scientists – and their cheerleaders in the media – to investigate the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (the mountain in Hawaii which is the official source of the IPCC’s
data on atmospheric CO2) and temperatures at Mauna Loa.
The exceptionally inconvenient truth is that there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa. It only requires ability to use Google to verify my assertion. Neither James Hansen of NASA-GISS and NOAA nor Phil Jones of HadleyCRUT at Exeter and Norwich chooses to log temperature at Mauna Loa itself. Instead they prefer to represent Hawaii’s temperatures by those at Honolulu Airport, where the arrival of Boeing 707s in 1960 and 747s by 1970 had a very direct impact on temperatures there. But of temperatures at Mauna Loa, selected by the late and estimable Charles Keeling for its pristine lack of purely local influences, there is no mention by the aforesaid Hansen and Jones.
Louis Hissink followed up (here) with:
Tim Curtin has pointed out that the temperature record at Mauna Loa does not support the core climate change assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause a rise in global temperature.
Louis downloaded and plotted up the data and concludes:

 Extending the period to 1981 still shows no trend so clearly the AGW hypothesis has to be falsified.

Falsification 3:
Bob Carter also falsified the hypothesis with six tests. (HERE)

Hockeyshtick two weeks ago says that the lack of global warming has falsified the climate computer models.
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it's time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

Falsification 4:
Doctor David Evans says:
--> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.........
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.


  1. Jennifer Marohasy:

    wrote re DiPuccio:

    Jennifer Marohasy
    11 May 2009

    ACCORDING to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis while surface temperatures may vary from year to year, as long as we spew out carbon dioxide there will be a gradual accumulation of heat in the climate system eventually resulting in a climate crisis.

    In 2005, NASA boss James Hansen stated in an article in the journal ‘Science’ that confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the oceans which are the principal reservoir for excess energy.

    A problem for the AGW hypothesis now, is that the oceans have been cooling. Indeed there is no known mechanism to account for what some describe as vast amounts of missing heat, suggesting that contrary to the AGW hypothesis, heat is not accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer any radiative imbalance from all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

    According to William DiPuccio, in a guest post at the blog ‘Climate Science’, this not only demonstrates that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.

    Mr DiPuccio concludes “When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.”


    Notes and Links

    Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? – A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio

    The graph (in main post above) by Mr DiPuccio shows the increasing deficit of upper ocean heat from 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections. Actual heat accumulation is plotted from observed data (using ARGO) and shows the overall linear trend (after Willis and Loehle). Seasonal fluctuations and error bars are not shown.

  2. Nice compilation.
    Though judging from the warmlist, there is nothing that falsifies Thermageddon Theory.
    And we know what Popper said about that. ;-)

  3. Blast from the future: Bill Gray reveals that tropical storms pump dry air into the upper troposphere, not moist, in direct contradiction to all models. The notional emissions level is thus lowered and warmed, and radiates much more to space.

    The temperature impact of doubling CO2 is reduced by a factor of ~10, to 0.2 to 0.4K. IOW, we would have to double CO2 about 5-10 times in succession to warm the planet 2K. That's 32X to 1024X.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!