The ocean absorbs excess CO2 from the atmosphere. If it absorbs it as fast as we produce it, there will not be any warming, but a lot of acidification.
If it absorbs it much more slowly, then there will be a lot of warming but little acidification. The truth is somewhere in between.
What is the basis for the assumption that any ocean acidification won't suddenly disappear, because some algae species decided it is now sufficiently widespread and easy to acquire to use it for lunch ?
Plus it won't be catastrophic at all. Some very low-level species, like algae, will adapt by changing their internal chemistry. And because we eat them (through intermediaries) we will have effectively adapted too.
And don't you believe in evolution ? If this doesn't happen, then we die, and in that case we should die. The whole point of creation is that it adapts to these sort of things. Adapt or die. Works on a large scale as well as a small one.
A rapid unexplained significant decline in global temperatures over a decade despite increasing carbon use would clearly falsify the idea of AGW.
edit: or just a theory that explains global temperature trends better than the current climate models that use anthropogenic carbon emissions. Or data that conclusively overturns the record of recent warming.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...
No. The claim that AGW implies that mean global temperature will increase every single year is a naked straw man.
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/GlobalSurfaceTem...
You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent.
If it's not happening you need better data showing it isn't happening or reasons why the current data is being massively misread.
If, all else being equal[1], global warming is happening and then stopped/reversed without anthropogenic carbon emissions going down then the case for rejecting AGW gets stronger. You'll need a replacement theory/model though. At what point does the new model become more convincing then the current one? Scientific consensus might be a good starting point.
[1] obviously if a bunch of volcanos or nuclear winter are responsible for the cooling that's not going to falsify the ideas behind AGW. For example, cooling in the 1940's.
"5 year period? 10? 20? 50?"
How much reversing are we talking about? We have 100+ years of warming to reverse. The fact that it's hard to easily falsify AGW isn't because AGW is unfalsifiable, it's because the science and data supporting AGW is enormous.
No need to get hostile. I was referring to two possible outcomes: (1) global warming was never occurring (2) global warming was happening, but for what ever reason stopped or even reversed.
Make sense now?
You'll need a replacement theory/model though.
Wait, what??
I. points out incoherence. {first he says show it isn't happening, then he assumes it's happening but it stops or reverses}
II. you could show warming is not happening this way (data)
III. if it was warming and then started reversing falsification might happen this way (new theory/model)
IV. additional considerations about falsification
I'm not sure absolute falsification is meaningful with this kind of prediction. We only have one system, very hard to falsify.
We can falsify elements of evidence which suggest one planetary state over another. That's about it.
Then it's not science.