This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Question: I ask for observations that would refute the premise that CO2 is causing devastating climate change? From the bounds of the book of this site and all the other skeptical sites around the internet, I think I have learned that the root of the scientific process is not "hypothesis->create test to prove hypothesis->repeat" but "hypothesis->create test to disprove hypothesis->repeat". There are times when it is not feasible to follow this, but I think, in general, that it is close to correct.
I should be able to ask the question "what observation will make you think that climate change is a natural occurrence?">..
I guess the simplest falsification observation is that currently cloud cover reflects between half and two thirds of solar radiation before it reaches the earths surface. In my neck of the woods theoretical clear sky solar radiation at the ground level is something around 2500 and change kilowatt hours per square metre per year whilst the official maps give actual solar radiation of approaching 1,100 kilowatt hours per square metre per year.
A (very) crude justification is fairly easy.
Given that clouds are water vapour and that increasing global temperatures will cause more water to evaporate there is clearly some degree of feedback going on to stabilise the temperature. As you pretty much don't get evaporation and clouds below 0°C (gross oversimplification) and that the average temperature round here is officially around 10°C we could suggest that a 1°C temperature change can be associated with around 150 kilowatt hours per square metre per year reduction in solar radiation due to increased cloud cover. If memory serves me correctly the highest clouds are about 10 miles up and clear sky horizontal 10 mile path transmission in the carbon dioxide bands is around 30%. From memory black body radiation in those bands at 10°C is around 40 watts per square metre. Hence a maximum of around 100 kilowatt hours per square metre per year can escape in the carbon dioxide bands through a clear sky. Chop that off completely by increasing carbon dioxide enough to reduce transmission over a 10 mile path to 0% and the temperature will rise, as the AGW crowd predict. However rising temperatures will evaporate more water increasing cloud cover creating more cloud cover reducing incoming solar radiation until things come into balance at 0.75°C or thereabout surface temperature rise. Are you there Mr Gore!
The reality is even worse for the AGW crowd because the earths surface is not a black body, therefore less radiation in the carbon dioxide bands, and water absorption bands overlap the carbon dioxide ones, therefore more absorption as well as more cloud.
OK that made hand-waving after three pints in the pub look like Nobel Prize science but it can be prettied up into something sensible. But not right now when bedtime was around an hour ago.
It’s perfectly simple. You make observations. You create a hypothesis based on them. You make predictions from that hypothesis. If your predictions are accurate, the hypothesis stands, subject to further continual tests. If they prove false, the hypothesis falls. See, for example
I completely agree that it is simple. When I try to elicit the observations that would disprove the hypothesis I get moving targets. The observation might negate one of the models being used, but there are 60 models out there and the advocate switches the model he is defending without so much as a blink of an eye.
Your collection of things caused by global warming should be an eye opener to any person reading it. Basically there is no observation that can refute the hypotheses they put forward.
As you have also noted though, there is a concerted campaign to discredit anyone who disagrees.
My credentials are called into question as soon as I post something. "Are you a climate scientist". It does not matter what my question or discussion is. It only matters what my credentials are.
I did finally get Phil Plait to recognize that Venus is not too hot because it has too much Carbon Dioxide (percent volume) but because it has too much Carbon Dioxide (total mass). He has used that analogy many times in the last several years. "We don't want to become like Venus".
We will see if he learned the lesson or if he will continue to use it. I have this suspicion that he will continue down the path of belief.....
In reply to Brad there is an very recent example of the 'moving targets' issue picked up by the "Tallbloke's Talkshop" blog. The UK Met Office has substantially revised downwards the projected global annual temperature graph up to 2020, with apparently no announcement of the revision.
Further to my previous post it looks like the BBC has now reported the Met Office's revised average annual global temperature forecast.
The change is attributed a new computer model called HadGEM3 which stands for the "Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 3", and this apparently differs from previous models in that it includes the NEMO ocean modelling framework, and CICE the Los Alamos sea ice model.
Presumably the previous forecast was carried out with HadGEM2.
My understanding of the "Scientific Method" as it currently exists:
Where I disagree with your depiction is where you have modify theory to fit data.
At least in "Climate Psience"™, that should be "Modify data to fit hypothesis".
You can see this in the USHCN where the purported temperature change since the LIA is almost identical to the sum of adjustments made.