[KarenRei]

Originally Posted by jstdadd

There is Man-Made Global Warming Theory, but there is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. There are consensus of opinion on scholarly studies, but no demonstrable predictions that can be rigorously tested.

Nonsense. AGW makes a huge number of predictions. Most of them have longer timescales, but some of them have shorter timescales. For example, CO2 levels aren't affected that much by El Nino cycles, so you'd expect them to keep rising:



You'd expect the ratios of C13 to C12 to keep falling, since fossil fuels are old, deep carbon:



For things that are affected by El Nino, you'd expect their long-running trends to keep rising (see earlier graphs). This includes everything from surface temperatures to arctic sea ice extent, SSTs, upper atmospheric temperatures, arctic sea ice thickness, sea levels, flood averages in flood-forecast regions, drought averages in drought-forecast regions, heat wave averages in heat wave-forecast regions, etc. These things are all variable from year to year due to the various oscillations, but the long running trends of all of them are upwards, as predicted.

You'd expect to see your temperature trends appear and correlate no matter which measuring/calculation method you use. You do.

You'd expect glacier retreats to keep quickening (they are... at a rather frightening pace, esp. in the arctic). Speaking of the arctic, the models have long suggested that the Arctic should see the most warming, and the Antarctic little. Which is exactly the observed trend. And speaking of the models, they should give accurate results when used on historical data for which we know the outcome. They do. I can keep going with word association if you like, or any other method you want to discuss predictions and their outcomes.

Global Warming can be measured. Man-made influences can hardly be attributed.

Nonsense. There's C13/C12 ratios; C14/C12 ratios; global carbon budget allocation (we're burning W amount of fossil fuel 1, X amount of fossil fuel 2, an acre of rainforest in this part of Brazil exchanges this much CO2, an acre of rainforest in that part of Brazil exchanges that much CO2, etc); carbon dioxide concentration distributions (we can measure it as it leaves each region and watch it dillute into the atmosphere as a whole), and about a hundred other methods. And each of them has confidence intervals associated with them, and dozens of people poking out any weaknesses in the methods (which in turn spawn a new round of peer-reviewed papers)

There is coincidence of observation (higher CO2 and higher global temperatures are coincident)

This is what's so annoying about people who've never actually studied climate science insisting that they know more than the professionals in the field. Do your self a favor. Read the IPCC WG1. Not the summary for policymakers, not the technical summary, but the individual technical reports. Get a sense of the vast amount of research that is actually done from literally hundreds of different angles, *then* come back here and talk.

And also, the fact that you use the word "coincidence", as though CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.... Apparently in your world, scientists can't even handle basic IR spectroscopy. As if there's not an entire HITRAN archive of transmission parameters calculated mathematically, as well as countless sources of physically measured transmission parameters dating as far back as hundreds of years.