Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg CITIES FACING THE BIGGEST HEALTH RISKS: A new report warns that global warming could ratchet up the heat waves across the country. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1734918,CST-NWS-heat26.article)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Heat_a_Global_Frontline_Investigation.jpgDAN VERGANO - SUNTIMES (http://www.suntimes.com) - Aug 26, 2009

4-11 degrees is a humongous leap :( --Ed.

The nation is headed for strong heat waves in coming decades that will hit cities and farmers and threaten wildlife with extinction, a new global-warming report warns.

The report -- titled "More Extreme Heat Waves: Global Warming's Wake-Up Call," sponsored by medical, environmental and civil rights organizations -- comes as a fight over a climate change bill gets ready to resume next month in Congress. Its remedies are based on recent findings of global warming effects by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates climate research across federal agencies.

"The report highlights the current vulnerabilities from heat waves growing," says climate scientist Amanda Staudt of the National Wildlife Federation, a report sponsor.

Average temperatures are expected to grow 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit nationwide over the next century, according to the federal climate research group.

The report lists the 30 major cities most at risk. Chicago is in the second tier of major urban areas at highest risk.

"Heat waves worsen... http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1734918,CST-NWS-heat26.article

And these are the same people who can't accurately predict next weeks weather.

Hi Jud:

___They seem to do a pretty good job around the Chicago area ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

all the heat is missing Minnesocold this year! :rolleyes:

all the heat is missing Minnesocold this year! :rolleyes:

Its August and my teeth are chattering in ChiTown.

Of course one year's results are hardly representative of a trend, but about a month ago we had our worst heat wave in decades. Several days in a row above 100, including two consecutive days at 106. Our summer highs average several degrees cooler than, say, Minneapolis, but that's because we have a lot more days in the 70s balancing out worse heatwaves (usually from desert air to the east) than you guys get. We haven't had much in the way of heatwave fatalities here yet, but far fewer people have A/C here than in the midwest. If the heat waves do keep getting worse, we're gonna have some trouble here.

Hi WH:

___You should have lived in the Portland and/or Seattle area this year. 100's multiple times during the summer and some up there would never have thought of owning A/C... Until this year that is!

___I am glad we did not have many 90 + days this year (I am not even sure that we had one up near the IL/WI border) as they suck.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

After Katrina the weather forecasters predicted calamity and a continuation of massive hurricanes. You all remember that right. It was all caused by global warming. But it never happened. My point is that all these predictions may or may not happen. The forecasters cannot forecast the weather outside of about 5 days with any certainty.

Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233454,00.html) is a link to the post Katrina forecasting blunder.

Sunsponts may have as much to do with the weather (warming and cooling) as anything else. The insistance that man made global warming is fact and beyond debate is just an excuse to control people's behavior or get funding for research.

This should stir the pot some.

Of course one year's results are hardly representative of a trend, but about a month ago we had our worst heat wave in decades. Several days in a row above 100, including two consecutive days at 106. Our summer highs average several degrees cooler than, say, Minneapolis, but that's because we have a lot more days in the 70s balancing out worse heatwaves (usually from desert air to the east) than you guys get. We haven't had much in the way of heatwave fatalities here yet, but far fewer people have A/C here than in the midwest. If the heat waves do keep getting worse, we're gonna have some trouble here.
Would evaporative coolers work? If it's desert air that's the problem, it sounds like they would.

Hi WH:

___You should have lived in the Portland and/or Seattle area this year. 100's multiple times during the summer and some up there would never have thought of owning A/C... Until this year that is!

___I am glad we did not have many 90 + days this year (I am not even sure that we had one up near the IL/WI border) as they suck.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Wayne-

do you remember 1995? Massive heat wave and high humidity in summer, and mother-loving COLD wave in winter.

That was extreme weather.

Only time I've seen a grill-blocked truck warm up for 15 min and still have 10w-30 sludge in the engine (-20 degrees w/o windchill IIRC).

When weather patterns shift due to global warming, some places will experience a bit cooler, while others will experience much warmer weather. The effects of global warming aren't as pronounced here as it is in some other countries and continents.

After Katrina the weather forecasters predicted calamity and a continuation of massive hurricanes. You all remember that right. It was all caused by global warming. But it never happened. My point is that all these predictions may or may not happen. The forecasters cannot forecast the weather outside of about 5 days with any certainty.

Sunsponts may have as much to do with the weather (warming and cooling) as anything else. The insistance that man made global warming is fact and beyond debate is just an excuse to control people's behavior or get funding for research.

This should stir the pot some.

Just a couple of points.

1) Weather forecasters and climatologists do different kinds of work, relying on some overlapping but mostly different data. Over the past decade, the predictive work of climate models has not only been accurate, it's gotten sharper and better.

2) AGW takes into account sunspot activity as well as natural temperature fluctuation due to other causes.

3) The claim that "The insistance that man made global warming is fact and beyond debate is just an excuse to control people's behavior or get funding for research" strikes me as over-the-top for two reasons. Not only does it make a very broad psychological assumption about thousands of scientists, many of whom are not government affiliated, it's insulting to people who put in years of their lives to doing research, refining it, publishing it, responding to suggestions, and researching anew. I'm not sure where this animosity toward scientists comes from, but it strikes me as unfair and unrealistic.

Thank you Booferama. I could not have said it better. I spent my career in the sciences (but not in climatology), and it still amazes me the misunderstanding and animosity some people have for scientific research

I would add that reputable scientists in the field do not state that global warming is an 'unquestioned fact', but in general agree that it is very likely to be occurring, and very unlikely to be caused by natural factors. For instance see page 8, table SPM.2, IPCC Report, Summary for Policymakers:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

For anyone who doubts mid-term climet prediciton...you don't have to look any further than the farmer's almanac. Its been publishing general predictions for a long time now (not the hocos pocus stuff that con artists are famous for). If you look back at their predictions for the next year and then look at that year....the number are very good. Not perfect, but good enough that you know they aren't just guessing.

It's August 27th and we reached a high of a mere 64°F and it's now dropping and it's down to 62°F. Oh, the predicted high? 75°F:confused:

Hi Larry:

___Follow the other thread. The Entire West Coast, Europe and Africa are getting baked while we enjoy the much deserved cool anomoly.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

The West Coasters-especially Wash and Oregon drove up the price of window AC's on Ebay this summer.
In early June I bought a new-5050 BTU GE for $61 delivered. 5 weeks ago,I searched Ebay for another one and discovered the west coasters were having a heat wave and the same window units were going for $90-$100(same sellers of course-they buy huge salvage containers/trucks full I think-open box, smashed box, few bent fins etc).
It was an expensive economics lesson!

If the high temps come to pass it will be a boon for the Rooskies.They will finally have all year ports-lots of them. They also will have a longer growing season, and much less harsh winter weather. Some countries will benefit-the USA won't but some will.Since the Rooskies still sorta' control most of N Europe and Asia, it will be mainly them. There won't be much to motivate the Rooskies to lower their CO2 output.


On another subject- The " Global Warming is to control man's behavior" isn't because of an anti science bias. It is a main talking point of talk radio. The current theme of talk radio is that the current administration wants to control all behaviors and it is using the economic crisis and the threat of Global warming to consolidate their power.
The reason the current bunch OF pols in power want to "control all behaviors" is because they "hate the USA" and - "think the rest of the people are stupid, and they know what is best for us." The hate the USA and want to destroy it is usually just considered some sort of a bonus-not the ultimate aim, just a fortunate byproduct. The"people don't know what is best for them,so we have to control them" is the main reason.Talk radio folks are fond of saying,"you-my listeners-aren't stupid."

Global Warming is considered a left wing trick to seize power-like the burning of the Reich(stahg??) something or other in 1933.
I listen to talk radio everyday-RL is pretty entertaining but not so likable.
Michael Savage is likable -and very entertaining-folksy even. He is sorta' pro dogs/cats/whales so he gets some points for that.
Charlie

I'm still waiting for Spanish moss and alligators (which are native 90 miles to the south of here) to spread their ranges northward with the warming climate and to show up on my property and pond. No signs of either yet.

Also waiting for the wood frogs (which are at the southern limits of their native range) to start disappearing from their breeding ponds on my other piece of property up near the NC state line in the SC mountains. They are still arriving in record numbers in late winter of each year. There are also a number of other species of mountain plants at their southern range limits on and near this property and none have shown any signs of dying out or withdrawing their range limits northward or to higher elevations yet. If the climate is truly warming, this should be happening.

I don't know how many people understand the miniscule span of human life compared to the world in the universe...

I'm not sure what causes you to believe that wood frogs and alligators are better able to tell changes in the environment better than the scientists that discovered the abilities of these animals.

Hi Larry:

___Follow the other thread. The Entire West Coast, Europe and Africa are getting baked while we enjoy the much deserved cool anomoly.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I know. It's just hard to wrap my head around GW when it's been so much cooler than it has been in our recorded weather history.

Reptiles and amphibians like frogs and gators are climate sensitive and disapperence or showing up in new places could be indicators of climate change.
Climate change is a fact and has always been in natural history.
Whether man has a significant influence over this is the debate and scientist take both sides.

I don't know how many people understand the miniscule span of human life compared to the world in the universe...

I'm not sure what causes you to believe that wood frogs and alligators are better able to tell changes in the environment better than the scientists that discovered the abilities of these animals.

Maybe it's because scientists only study those animals but for them(the animals/reptiles), it's their life. I have observed different animals engaging in behaviors that experts say isn't true or possible.

I'm not sure what causes you to believe that wood frogs and alligators are better able to tell changes in the environment better than the scientists that discovered the abilities of these animals.

I refuse to bow to the alter of science and be told what to think by the priests of that religion science. Scientists are the same people who in the 50's and 60's said baby formula was better then mothers milk.

I put my trust in the wood frogs and alligators over scientists.

This reminds me of a certain hypermiling antagonist who claims the results we often get are not possible. He posts the proof complete with charts.

I don't really have a dog in this fight-Man Caused Global Warming-but
The majority of Scientists never said baby formula was better than mother's milk.Shills for Pharmaceutical(and big agribusiness companies) companies usually made that claim.

Now if you had said that various Medical organizations pushed cigarettes, you would be right. MDs aren't usually scientists,but we get the point-smart people can be wrong.
Charlie

We're living in a world, where, were it not for science and pure science, we would not be capable of the majority of the fantastic leaps of humanity we now observe. The two things that drive the world today and gives us understanding of our own world are Science and Technology.

I'm not asking anyone to change their beliefs, however when information is presented, use your best form of analysis to judge whether or not what one is saying is the truth or is some deterrent.

We as human beings have come to the understanding that no one man is a mountain and cannot know all things. As individuals, humans can go no where. We end up as nothing by ourselves. We need the strength of humanity in order to better understand our world and do our part in making it a better place for each and everyone of us.

Cue talents. We all have special abilities whether it be knowledge in the healthcare field, engineering field, economic field, or.....climate field. If I want the best information in healthcare, I will take the advice from majority of the best in the healthcare industry, I will not ask an engineer. If I needed to know the best type of investments, I consult someone in the economic field. If I have a mechanical issue, I go see the engineer...Now tell me...with all this data you are presented with, you listened to the economist, the engineer and the doctors...do you then tell the climatologists and other experts in that field that they don't know what they're talking about? On what grounds do you disagree? Ignorance? I'm not saying anyone is ignorant here, but unless you have more knowledge on the subject matter than the individual or group or in this case, the respected community, I suggest it would be wise to approach the situation renewed with an open mind, search for data pertaining to climate change and read both articles for and against, consult a highly respected scientist specializing in the area, and ask this person's point of reasoning.

We're living in a world, where, were it not for science and pure science, we would not be capable of the majority of the fantastic leaps of humanity we now observe. The two things that drive the world today and gives us understanding of our own world are Science and Technology.

I'm not asking anyone to change their beliefs, however when information is presented, use your best form of analysis to judge whether or not what one is saying is the truth or is some deterrent.

We as human beings have come to the understanding that no one man is a mountain and cannot know all things. As individuals, humans can go no where. We end up as nothing by ourselves. We need the strength of humanity in order to better understand our world and do our part in making it a better place for each and everyone of us.

Cue talents. We all have special abilities whether it be knowledge in the healthcare field, engineering field, economic field, or.....climate field. If I want the best information in healthcare, I will take the advice from majority of the best in the healthcare industry, I will not ask an engineer. If I needed to know the best type of investments, I consult someone in the economic field. If I have a mechanical issue, I go see the engineer...Now tell me...with all this data you are presented with, you listened to the economist, the engineer and the doctors...do you then tell the climatologists and other experts in that field that they don't know what they're talking about? On what grounds do you disagree? Ignorance? I'm not saying anyone is ignorant here, but unless you have more knowledge on the subject matter than the individual or group or in this case, the respected community, I suggest it would be wise to approach the situation renewed with an open mind, search for data pertaining to climate change and read both articles for and against, consult a highly respected scientist specializing in the area, and ask this person's point of reasoning.

Hmm, Where to begin. Warning this is long and at times goes against the establishment so read at your own risk.

Let me give you two thoughts on science. These is my own thoughts and I have not run it by any of the experts or respected people so I caution you that it may (is probably) be ignorant.

There are two fields in science. Physical science and Theoretical science. (I compassionately give you the short version)

Physical science. This is a field where an observation of a process is made. This observation is repeatable, document table, published, and verified by others. Processes like this are the basis on which all engineering is based. As you mentioned before all advances in technology are based on this. It is based on observable facts.

Theoretical science. It is what a scientist thinks something happened or is going to happen. It is not based on physical process. It is not verifiable. It is usually an explanation of what has happened. Why a certain event has happened, or is going to happen. This is a field of conjecture. Evolution is based on this. The history of the universe is based on this. Yes man induced global warming is based on this. It is conjecture and based on assumptions. It is not observable. It is not verifiable. It is not repeatable. It is theory and is more often then not changed when the next discovery is made.

Physical scientists have tremendous credibility. Why? because when you go into a room and turn on the light, it works every time. Why is this, because of the reasons above. It is what all engineering is based on. So Physical scientists have this aura about them. They are respected and if a physical scientist says it, it is pretty close to fact. Why? because it is going to be checked, verified, and people will build things based on the observation and they will work. The term scientist, with all the credibility is also used by the Theoretical scientist. These "scientists" ride on the backs of the Physical scientists in terms of credibility. If a scientist says it, it must be correct, because of the credibility that science as a whole has. This is exactly the idea expressed and eloquently stated above.

We're living in a world, where, were it not for science and pure science, we would not be capable of the majority of the fantastic leaps of humanity we now observe. The two things that drive the world today and gives us understanding of our own world are Science and Technology.


The problem is we are then told to treat all "scientist’s with the same credulity. Both the Physical scientists, and Theoretical science are to be considered experts. We are told to consider theoretical scientist with the same credibility as the physical scientist. That is why the above poster mentioned it. It is to establish the link in credibility between the physical scientist and the theoretical scientist.

The situation we have is exactly the one above. We are given the impression that since a "respected" scientists has made a determination and we had better listen to them or we are ignorant. Man made global warming, is a prediction. It is a theory on what is what is going to happen. It may be true, but it is just a theory at this point. When people say it is settled science, they are saying that they have closed there minds and don't want to hear dissent. They don't want to hear open debate. They don't want to hear other theories. It is time for us to act. Time for profits to be made. Time for former politicians to cash in on the emergency.

These are my thoughts on the subject. If you don’t agree with me that is fine. I am just an ignorant peasant who should not be able to make these comments and since I am not respected or an expert, my opinion has less value then their’s. So ignore it. Erase it from your memory and go with the flow. You will be less likely to be called names that way.

I don't know how many people understand the miniscule span of human life compared to the world in the universe...

I think it is this very fact that keeps so many people from hopping on the human caused GW fear bandwagon and drinking the Kool-Aid. We have only been around for a very short time and we don't know all of the factors going on with the climate. I'm not necessarily saying GW isn't happening but I don't think it's a done-deal that we are causing it. If that does turn out to be the case, our intervention could end up being more of a problem than a solution. I do still agree that our country has an energy addiction that we need to get under control and we need to unhook the oil IV from countries that want the U.S. to go away.

Oh come on Jud, :p. I wont be brushing off such a well thought out statement. I don't generally read long posts, I read yours. It was not gibberish and not repetitive.

However, this might seem unrelated, but I'm sure you'll see the relation. What do you think of Darwin?

Good point Larry, the thing is though, since there are two sides to this, one side may be the laughing stock...of the future generations, but it would be for a good cause...or the future gen will be too teed off to have any respect for their ancestors if this goes the other way.

Theories are based on a logical conclusion formed from a massive database. These scientists all over the world see these facts, make their own opinions and they happen to be very similar. A thousand expert minds is a wealth of information.

Oh come on Jud, :p. I wont be brushing off such a well thought out statement. I don't generally read long posts, I read yours. It was not gibberish and not repetitive.

However, this might seem unrelated, but I'm sure you'll see the relation. What do you think of Darwin?

Do you mean Darwin personally or evolution the theory.

Hmm, ...........

Physical science. This is a field where an observation of a process is made. This observation is repeatable, document table, published, and verified by others. Processes like this are the basis on which all engineering is based. As you mentioned before all advances in technology are based on this. It is based on observable facts.

Theoretical science. It is what a scientist thinks something happened or is going to happen. It is not based on physical process. It is not verifiable. It is usually an explanation of what has happened. Why a certain event has happened, or is going to happen. This is a field of conjecture. Evolution is based on this. The history of the universe is based on this. Yes man induced global warming is based on this. It is conjecture and based on assumptions. It is not observable. It is not verifiable. It is not repeatable. It is theory and is more often then not changed when the next discovery is made.

Physical scientists have tremendous credibility. Why? because when you go into a room and turn on the light, it works every time. Why is this, because of the reasons above. It is what all engineering is based on. So Physical scientists have this aura about them. They are respected and if a physical scientist says it, it is pretty close to fact. Why? because it is going to be checked, verified, and people will build things based on the observation and they will work. The term scientist, with all the credibility is also used by the Theoretical scientist. These "scientists" ride on the backs of the Physical scientists in terms of credibility. If a scientist says it, it must be correct, because of the credibility that science as a whole has. This is exactly the idea expressed and eloquently stated above.

......

These are my thoughts on the subject. If you don’t agree with me that is fine. I am just an ignorant peasant who should not be able to make these comments and since I am not respected or an expert, my opinion has less value then their’s. So ignore it. Erase it from your memory and go with the flow. You will be less likely to be called names that way.

I'd say that you have one of the common attitudes towards science which most of the time is good enough to work from, but rascals often play off confusion between the difference between what scientists do and what people think they do to advocate some position or other.

Science advances by questioning received "wisdom" in both small and large questions. This means that young scientists everywhere look for paradoxical results and put data (and tentative theories) out there for others to discuss and potentially shoot down. Scientific journals (as opposed to press releases, blogs and talk radio) put new results through an initial round of peer review, so their published results come with some assurance that the obvious errors have been weeded out, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone won't figure out a better explanation.

In areas where science is advancing (think climate change or medicine) the media does a bad job distinguishing between ideas that just represent one side of an ongoing discussion and what results have generally been confirmed and accepted. Rascals can use the presence of two sides of a discussion to distort people's perception of what the accepted science of the matter is. In climate change there was a passionate debate in the late 80's before good data and computing power had been applied to the problem. Generally speaking acquiring more data and more computing power put the passionate doubters on the losing end of the discussion. Scientists are people too, so not all passionate doubters will let evidence make them switch sides. Talk radio will have expert doubters to quote for a few more years.

Man caused Global Warming hasn't risen to the level of a theory. A theory has to be backed by correct predictions- lots of correct predictions. Evolution is a theory-you can see it in real time-just look at bacteria, or fruit flies,or anything else that has short turnover.

Man Based Global Warming is strictly a Hypothesis-"a tentative interpretation or explanation of observations." For example "Arctic ice is melting" might be an observation, and the tentative explanation is CO2 build up in the atm from burning coal. oil etc -man caused global warming.

There is no way that Man Global Warming has risen to the level of a theory. It will take many many years to see if that is a supported hypothesis.

Charlie
PS Now if the temp rises 5 C over the next 20 years, and then we manage to suck the CO2 out of the atm and the temp drops waaaaay down, man caused Global warming should rise to the level of a theory. This probably won't happen very quickly, so we'll be dead before it rises to a theory.Just the melting won't be enough, since as you point out other things-solar activity-can raise the atm temp.

Jud:

I wouldn't go as far as to say his personality, but yes, his theory of evolution, possibly tying that to his other ideas and where he would fall on the the topic of global warming.

There are two fields in science. Physical science and Theoretical science. (I compassionately give you the short version)

Physical science. This is a field where an observation of a process is made. This observation is repeatable, document table, published, and verified by others. Processes like this are the basis on which all engineering is based. As you mentioned before all advances in technology are based on this. It is based on observable facts.

Theoretical science. It is what a scientist thinks something happened or is going to happen. It is not based on physical process. It is not verifiable. It is usually an explanation of what has happened. Why a certain event has happened, or is going to happen. This is a field of conjecture. Evolution is based on this. The history of the universe is based on this. Yes man induced global warming is based on this. It is conjecture and based on assumptions. It is not observable. It is not verifiable. It is not repeatable. It is theory and is more often then not changed when the next discovery is made.



Bestmapman, I congratulate you for thinking about science. I must point out, however, that most climatologists and evolutionary biologists would be amazed by your description of their fields as being what you call 'theoretical science'. In fact many scientists would characterize your description of 'theoretical science' as being what science is NOT.

I invite you to read this perspective of 'What Science Isn't' (from the Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Georgia):
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html#SCIVSOTHER

Bestmapman, I congratulate you for thinking about science. I must point out, however, that most climatologists and evolutionary biologists would be amazed by your description of their fields as being what you call 'theoretical science'. In fact many scientists would characterize your description of 'theoretical science' as being what science is NOT.
[/url]

You are not understanding what I am saying. As an example, in the field of Geology for instance, the physical science part is the actual chemical makeup of the rock. Other aspects of the rock such as the age is theoritical science part. The two are mixed together as fact. One, the chemical makeup is based on observation the other the age is a guess. However both are thought of as being scientific facts.

Because both processes are established by the same scientist, making the same claims, both are regarded as facts. People, namely certain politicians, treat the theory part as scientist fact also. Just ask AlGore about man made global warming and you will see if he thinks it is a fact or not. They think it is settle science and don't want to hear other opinions. Some climatologists have even called for the stripping (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528) of climatologist's scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.

This is the problem and it is not limited to global warming. Physical science is very specific. It is what all engineering is based on. Theoritical science is not specific at all. It is not necessary for any engineering it is only scientific theory it is not scientific fact.

Hope this helps.

Jud:

I wouldn't go as far as to say his personality, but yes, his theory of evolution, possibly tying that to his other ideas and where he would fall on the the topic of global warming.

You will need to take one of the many trips that CleanMPG goes on to get the full story. Unfortunately, I am better at "telling" the story personally, rather then committing it to paper. Also it is too long to write down.

Ask Wayne, once I get started .....

Bestmapman,

Man made Global Warming isn't a theory-it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is more or less a plausible guess to explain observed "stuff". It has to be supported by experiments to become a theory.(impossible in this case) or by lots of correct predictions(which will take many many years in this case).

A theory is an explanation of observed "things" that has withstood many tests-experiments or predictions. It is then used to predict future behavior.\

Now somethings are settled science
1)CO2 has been rising in the atm-especially in the last 150 years
2)Dissolved CO2 has been rising in the oceans(which is where a HUGE amount of the extra CO2 is).
3)CO2 absorbs energy in the range that the earth gives off once it is heated by more energetic radiation-light waves.

The 3 facts above are what lead to the man produced global warming hypothesis.Now the crux of it is actually showing that the 1)atm and the oceans are getting warmer, AND WE ARE CAUSING IT.It is actually hard to measure how hot-on average-the atmosphere ,and the oceans-are.It is even harder to "prove" that 2) CO2 is the main driver of the temp rise-and not solar activity.

What you call theoretical science is what the science types call a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is supported by lots of evidence(experiments or correct predictions).
Scientists WORKING IN THE FIELD DON'T say man based global warming is settled science.They-many-certainly say it is plausible. Since many think it plausible, they think it a good idea to act as if it is "fact". The downside to not doing something could be a catastrophe for the USA, and a VERY GOOD THING FOR THE ROOSKIES.

It isn't settled, but it is plausible.
Charlie

What

Bestmapman,

Man made Global Warming isn't a theory-it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is more or less a plausible guess to explain observed "stuff". It has to be supported by experiments to become a theory.(impossible in this case) or by lots of correct predictions(which will take many many years in this case).

A theory is an explanation of observed "things" that has withstood many tests-experiments or predictions. It is then used to predict future behavior.\

Now somethings are settled science
1)CO2 has been rising in the atm-especially in the last 150 years
2)Dissolved CO2 has been rising in the oceans(which is where a HUGE amount of the extra CO2 is).
3)CO2 absorbs energy in the range that the earth gives off once it is heated by more energetic radiation-light waves.

The 3 facts above are what lead to the man produced global warming hypothesis.Now the crux of it is actually showing that the 1)atm and the oceans are getting warmer, AND WE ARE CAUSING IT.It is actually hard to measure how hot-on average-the atmosphere ,and the oceans-are.It is even harder to "prove" that 2) CO2 is the main driver of the temp rise-and not solar activity.

What you call theoretical science is what the science types call a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is supported by lots of evidence(experiments or correct predictions).
Scientists WORKING IN THE FIELD DON'T say man based global warming is settled science.They-many-certainly say it is plausible. Since many think it plausible, they think it a good idea to act as if it is "fact". The downside to not doing something could be a catastrophe for the USA, and a VERY GOOD THING FOR THE ROOSKIES.

It isn't settled, but it is plausible.
Charlie

What

Theory and hypothesis are so close they are essentially the same. Now you may consider them different, but the basis is the same, they are guesses. Unlike physical science theory and hypothesis are what someone thinks has or is going to happen. When does a hypothesis become a theory. You see the difference? Who or what decides which one is which. How does hypothesis become a theory. Who blesses the hypothesis to become a theory. They are both guesses with fancy names.

The point of all this is that the physical part of science is very usefull. When a geologist says the oil is found in the Haskill Sandstone. That sandstone has certain characteristics and be followed over a certain area. When is is trapped, oil can accumulate in it.

When the same geologist says that the Haskill Sanstone is of the Miocene Epoch and is a certain age is is irrelevant to the engineering part of finding the oil.

However, they are both lumped together as fact. One is based on observation and one is a guess or theory.

Now on global warming. The climate is changing. There is evidences of ice ages in the past. So the climate is warmer then is has been. I believe the climate is in constant flux. The problem I have is with the "we must do something" crowd. This almost always means that "they" want to tell us what we can and can not do in the name of "doing something". The current "We have a 10 year window (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/)" is an example of scaring people into doing something that may or may not have any effect. Also it may be a way of funding research for that person.

I am a big supporter of cleaning the environment. I want clean water and clean air. I don't want to pollute. I don't want any extra CO2 put in the atmosphere. I am also against the lack of creative thought and blindly following the status quo or having to rely on what experts have said, or there opinion.

Facts and theories or "hypothesis" should not be treated and believed as facts.

A hypothesis is as you say-a guess-an educated guess that explains observations-

Observations are what you call facts-in general what you call facts are measurements-length,depth, temperature, density, chemical composition.

A theory on the other hand was/is a hypothesis that has allowed you to make PREDICTIONS that are correct-within limits.!!

When the predictions or experiments based on a hypothesis are CORRECT then it becomes THEORY. Always correct doesn't mean you always find oil-it means something else-I'll explain. Supported is the science word for "correct"


A hypothesis becomes a theory once people working in the field "decide" that it has withstood the test of time. If it allows correct predictions- within the limits of the theory- it becomes a theory.This is how science works-no magic, no absolute certainty, just best current info.

Your geology example- theories allow your geologists the make predictions on where to find oil. It is more or less settled fact that organic matter-plants algae-croaks, sinks to the bottom of a body of water , or mud, or just dirt,where the O2 is so low it doesn't rot away, it gets covered up, put under pressure, heat, low O2 and it becomes oil.

Without theories how would you know where to drill-just random drilling??The theory doesn't say you will always find oil there-lots of reasons it could have escaped, or never formed, or not be concentrated.

Oil folks use theories all the time-the whole oil "BIDNESS" is based on theory. There is a reason oil is found associated with salt etc. The theories work well enough to find lots of oil.They are why lots of oil is under water and why we drill in the Gulf of Mexico/alaska etc.

Do you think thhey-geologist ARE JUST MAKING RANDOM GUESSES??? No they are guessing based on THEORIES!!!

The search for oil is a great example of Science and THEORIES in action-THANKS!!

A current idea- oil being formed-in large part-from not once living matter- is a HYPOTHESIS!! Who knows??

If a hypothesis allows correct and useful predictions, and you never find evidence that it is "wrong" it becomes theory.No magic, no absolute certainty-not on this earth.

Charlie

PS-Without theories you won't find much oil. They aren't absolute certainty-no one kept records for 100 million years ago.

bestmap,

Geology and oil exploration is an excellent example of theory vs facts/measurements.

Like you say the engineers can pump it out with just measurements-what you call facts.

However finding that oil is based in THEORY.The Geologists use theory-best guesses based on lots of correct predictions on the WHY oil is where it is.

Without well supported theory telling them where to drill the oil business is sunk.

Not finding oil once or twice or 80% of the time doesn't mean the theory is wrong-or useless-if it did, oil drillers wouldn't continue to use the theories. Now consistently finding oil where it shouldn't be(according to the theory)-that might sink the theory.

The theory doesn't say "oil will be found here" it says based on our past observations oil could have formed here, so look here.

Glad you brought up oil-good example of what theory is and how they are used in the real world. Those Geologists-and the engineers-study theories.
You drill holes based on THEORIES!

Charlie

I want to make a few points, but I want to preface it with this: I disagree with a lot of what's been written about science and global warming in this thread--I'd go so far as to say a lot of it is inaccurate--but I want to make clear that I respect everybody here. The people who resist specific scientific theories seem defensive here, and I think I understand why. Scientists can be condescending, and science itself can be really hard to fathom. As science writers point out all the time, most writing about science--especially in the media--is either not very clear or tremendously misleading. Most of that has to do with how difficult it is to summarize complex mathematic formulas, a vast body of research and statistics, etc.

Also, science education in this country isn't very good, from elementary school on up through some intro to science college classes. There are a lot of very good science teachers--I was lucky to have two very good ones in high school, and my brother-in-law teaches engineering--so I'm not trying to say all science teachers are bad.

So, onto the long post.

Hypothesis, Theory, and Law in science

Phoebeisis made the point pretty clearly: there's distinct difference between hypothesis and theory, that hypotheses are early guesses based on observations, and theories are interpretations that synthesize data. But something that I think needs to be emphasized: scientists use the word theory differently than we use it in everyday life. Gravity, for example, is a theory, and it's one that none of us would question. It's also, generally speaking, a scientific law. Evolution is also a scientific theory (http://www.notjustatheory.com/).

Also, scientific theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) aren't made by individuals; hypotheses are. The broader scientific community tests the hypotheses in a variety of ways, and eventually the hypothesis becomes accepted as a theory. So, in short (too late), the way scientists use the word "theory" essentially is the same as the way we use the words "law" or "truth."

Global warming is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis


Someone (I think phoebeisis) claimed that global warming is a hypothesis, not a theory, but that's not the case. Global warming has been tested, evidence has been evaluated, and scientists have come to accept AGW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) based on a preponderance of evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). (I'll get to the claim that scientists disagree about global warming later.) Global warming was once a hypothesis (http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx), one that was variously rejected and accepted over time until a consensus developed among scientists, working in a variety of fields (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html). Moreover, that scientific work is based on physical evidence. I think bestmapman makes a good point about physical science and theoretical science, but it doesn't apply to the work on AGW.

The "controversy" over whether or not AGW is real or "just a theory" exists mostly in the public sphere between people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy) who aren't scientists. Of course, there are some scientists who don't accept AGW as a valid theory. Which leads me to. . .

Scientists disagree about global warming, but the science itself does not

Some notable scientists have publicly said they don't accept AGW. That's fine. I have no problem with skepticism, as long as it's backed up by data. However, the vast majority of scientists accept AGW (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey). Most of the debate about whether or not humans impact the climate takes place in the mass media, not (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+warming&hl=en&btnG=Search) in the scientific literature (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22global+climate+change%22&btnG=Search). (In a minute I'll explain why the difference between mass media and scientific literature matters so much.)

More importantly, if you search that body of scientific literature, you'll find a tiny (or teen-einsy, as my mom says) amount of work that contests AGW. Often, people will claim that thinks that are settled aren't, even when they are (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html). For example, CO2 appears in nature. It's crucial to life. But not in excess.

Why peer review matters

A week or two ago, a reporter came to the CleanMPG forums to ask for hypermilers to interview. I was surprised at the amount of anger about that request, but I really shouldn't have been: in general, the media does a really bad job of explaining how hypermiling works and why it's safe (as well as how it's distinct from, say, drafting). If I can float a hypothesis, that anger comes from the fact that Wayne and others are experts about hypermiling and can explain clearly why and how hypermiling works, but their expertise is treated by the media as something much less than expertise.

Science works the same way, especially in the peer review process. To summarize peer review, it's the process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) by which scientific studies are evaluated for accuracy and merit. Occasionally, the peer review process falls short, but the vast majority of the time, it's the way scientific journals successfully filter out the bad science from the good.

Most importantly, it's not a broad conspiracy to promote one theory over another. It's a necessary way to ensure that the scientific work that gets published is of the highest quality (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/). Sometimes, work that challenges AGW gets published in peer-reviewed journals; however, as you'll see in the link to Real Climate, that work often comes with flaws that get missed. And, yes, sometimes papers that support or accept AGW come with flaws, but the peer-review process, and the follow-up work that gets publishes, corrects those flaws so the evidence and theory are as accurate as possible.

Science is not a religion

A short way (and probably an incomplete way) of distinguishing science from faith is that science deals with the physical world, whereas faith deals more specifically with the metaphysical. No one's asking anyone to accept science as a faith or a religion; there's no altar or gods. Most importantly, science does not challenge religion.

There are some people who challenge religious faith with science (and vice versa), but science itself makes no challenge to faith or religion. Moreover, most scientists believe in God (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html). It's completely compatible to believe in God and accept evolution as true. Fierce partisans on both sides would claim that isn't true, but simply put, they're wrong. I'm an atheist, but I think faith is a completely valid thing--my wife is a Christian. And I don't see science as an anecdote to or challenge to faith of any kind. As I said above, they address very different aspects of life. Individual scientists may make more claims, but the work of science does not.

*****
Okay, long post over.

bestmap,

Geology and oil exploration is an excellent example of theory vs facts/measurements.

Like you say the engineers can pump it out with just measurements-what you call facts.

However finding that oil is based in THEORY.The Geologists use theory-best guesses based on lots of correct predictions on the WHY oil is where it is.

Without well supported theory telling them where to drill the oil business is sunk.

Not finding oil once or twice or 80% of the time doesn't mean the theory is wrong-or useless-if it did, oil drillers wouldn't continue to use the theories. Now consistently finding oil where it shouldn't be(according to the theory)-that might sink the theory.

The theory doesn't say "oil will be found here" it says based on our past observations oil could have formed here, so look here.

Glad you brought up oil-good example of what theory is and how they are used in the real world. Those Geologists-and the engineers-study theories.
You drill holes based on THEORIES!

Charlie

I would agree there is nothing wrong with theories, but they are not facts. That is my point.

I am not trying to be disagreeable, however, I don't think your above example is a good representation of theory in work. The geologist has found oil in this particular formation. He knows it is a oil bering strata. It is not theory it is a fact that this particular formation contains the right elements for oil bering strata. Then his job is to look for traps. These are places were oil is likely to be found. Either in a anticline, sale dome, etc. Based on the structure of the strata and the physical representations at the surface and through seismic surveys, traps are located. They may or may not contain oil. Then they drill to find out.

The idea I am putting forth is that theories in the scientific community are presented as facts when they are just theories (or hypotisis). Why this is important, is that if something is a fact it is not argueable. You can't say that Gravity is just a theory when Newton kept getting hit on the head by the apple. He finally got it. Everytime the apple falls it falls the same way. Call if a law, call it a truth. I lump all those type of measurable phenomonem into the physical science category. The rest theory, hypotosis or whatever, I lump into the theoritcal science category. I have a problem when the later is considered truth.

Thanks for responding. I hope this helps you understand my position on this.

note: What causes gravity is a theory, but the measureable and repeatable, verifiable aspect of it is not.

bestmapman,

I get your point.
The jargon sometimes gets in the way.

What you call fact or physical science is what science people call observations.Observations are measurements or a "bunch" of measurements that are put together to make underground pictures like the case of your oil bearing strata.

The "why" of the oil bearing strata is where theory comes into play. Why is oil in this strata or under this oil dome?

Theories are useful explanations of observations. The theory might be there was once a sea here-living "stuff" plants, algae died, dropped to the bottom, got buried,then turned into oil after being exposed to extreme pressure and temps. It then floated upward in the rocks/sediment until it got sealed in place by salt or some other impermeable strata. Can you absolutely prove a theory-NO, YOU CAN'T.

Geologists use theories to find oil. The non biogenic(I think that is the term) oil guys have tried their hypothesis to find oil, but never found useful amounts-

A plausible explanation that "works" and has never been proven false is a theory.It can't never be proven absolutely true, it can only be proven false.
Charlie

PS The real argument here is"should you act on a plausible idea that has lots of scientific support." It is a political argument-.
The answer is-if you have the political support-votes-you do what you want!!
On the bright side, most of the Global warming "remedy" is just straight conservation of resources mixed with getting off foreign energy.

I'm glad this discussion has been kept civil. In addition to the link I posted earlier from the IPCC, I invite readers to look at a web site by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, giving real OBSERVATIONS relevant to climate change:

Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Causes (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

This very interesting presentation, geared to non-scientific readers:

A Day in the Live of the Earth: Understanding Human-Induced Climate Change. (http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/)

interesting thread this has become! :D



So, onto the long post.
Some notable scientists have publicly said they don't accept AGW. That's fine. I have no problem with skepticism, as long as it's backed up by data. .

Eh? ;) Usually when a believer and a skeptic debate, isn't it the believer who has the burden of proof?


However, the vast majority of scientists accept AGW. Most of the debate about whether or not humans impact the climate takes place in the mass media, not in the scientific literature. (In a minute I'll explain why the difference between mass media and scientific literature matters so much.)

A majority of scientists thought the earth was the centre of the solar system too, ooops ;)
They could be right this time, then again, new information could come along that changes everything.:) and so it goes...

My own opinion (everyone has one ;) ) is climate change is real, man might have an impact on the climate. I don't know if climate change is good or bad for us. it won't hurt the earth, only change it.
taking care of our environment should be our responsibility as individuals.
government taking more and more control over this makes me more nervous than any consequences of climate change

bestmapman,

I get your point.
The jargon sometimes gets in the way.

What you call fact or physical science is what science people call observations.Observations are measurements or a "bunch" of measurements that are put together to make underground pictures like the case of your oil bearing strata.

The "why" of the oil bearing strata is where theory comes into play. Why is oil in this strata or under this oil dome?

Theories are useful explanations of observations. The theory might be there was once a sea here-living "stuff" plants, algae died, dropped to the bottom, got buried,then turned into oil after being exposed to extreme pressure and temps. It then floated upward in the rocks/sediment until it got sealed in place by salt or some other impermeable strata. Can you absolutely prove a theory-NO, YOU CAN'T.

Geologists use theories to find oil. The non biogenic(I think that is the term) oil guys have tried their hypothesis to find oil, but never found useful amounts-

A plausible explanation that "works" and has never been proven false is a theory.It can't never be proven absolutely true, it can only be proven false.
Charlie

.

That is a good point! Is that how they test theories, by trying to prove them false?
that makes sense to me, like geocentricism was the theory, and later it was proved false so it is no longer a theory.
gravity is still a theory because no one has faslified it yet. mabye some day...

This is pretty cool, I logged onto this site to learn how to save gas, and I am learning lots of other stuff too! Thanks everyone for posting here! :thumbs_up:

There are some interesting recent reports in the primary literature about heat waves and high nighttime minimum temperatures/high humidity. One in Calif. went back 50 years which seems a shame because the NWS cooperative observer program is much older than that.

We have yet to make full use of historical data towards understanding of the climate system and human effects on it.

Many here know the name Pielke because he speaks strongly against a exclusive focus on CO2 changes. He also suggests that we should be spending (most of our) climate change dollars to understand the history of extreme weather events (when and where) so we can mitigate them in the future. This strikes me as a sensible suggestion. It can be a loss to all when when a CO2 litmus test is applied to any person or idea.

DAs

MT,
Yes, that is how the(hypothesis and theories) are tested. Set up an experiment to try to show if it is supported(fancy way of saying "correct") or unsupported(fancy way of saying false or wrong).Theories by definition can never be proven absolutely 'true".They can only be supported by the current evidence., or falsified(proven wrong).
Theory is state of the art best supported best guesses on WHY of something.
Hypothesis- plausible sounding guess on WHY of something.
Academic types are fond of saying- especially in respect to intelligent design- "it can't be science because it can't be falsified".
Yes, that is true, but it is a bad way of saying it. "Can't be falsified" sounds to lots of folks like the same as being true. It isn't but it sure sounds like it. It really means it can't be tested.

I don't worry too much about Global warming-I'm 58 I'll probably be dead before anything significant happens in respect to it- if it happens. I have enough present day worries.I'll leave tomorrow for tomorrow.

Charlie

A majority of scientists thought the earth was the centre of the solar system too, ooops ;)
They could be right this time, then again, new information could come along that changes everything.:) and so it goes...


I've heard people say this before, and it indicates a lack of understanding about the history of science. The people saying the earth was the center of the universe were NOT scientists. Modern science as we know it did not exist then. See the link I posted earlier:

What Science Isn't (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html#SCIVSOTHER)

Usually when a believer and a skeptic debate, isn't it the believer who has the burden of proof?

Very good point. Let me clarify what I was thinking. The evidence for global warming has been presented pretty fully in public multiple times--including, obviously, An Inconvenient Truth. And whatever you think of Al Gore as a person or politician, he's got the science accurate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/)in the film. Attempts to paint the documentary as inaccurate have been debunked (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/) fully multiple (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/) times.

I've been posting under the assumption that people know the basic theory of what global warming is and what the evidence is (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/06/why_i_believe.php). Maybe I'm wrong. Do we need to make the case for global warming in the Anything Goes forum here?

The other thing I had in mind were all the demonstrably false claims I've come across in threads multiple times, claims that were easily debunked (the lie that there was a consensus in the 1970s that the planet was cooling, for example).

I hope that's clearer.

I wanted to add a point to what dr61 wrote about the global warming/Ptolemaic solar system theory. (Quick note: I had a freshman class years ago on science and society, and we spent a really, really long time on Galileo, to the point that the words "heliocentric" and "Ptolemaic" have been burned onto my brain. But I can walk into a room and forget what I'm doing there. Go figure.) Comparing AGW and heliocentrism isn't even apples to oranges because heliocentrism wasn't really science. What I wanted to add is this: the claim that scientists have been wrong before so they might be wrong again, doesn't really address the issue of how much evidence there is to support AGW. What does heliocentrism have to do with AGW? Seems like a change of subject to me.

I've heard people say this before, and it indicates a lack of understanding about the history of science. The people saying the earth was the center of the universe were NOT scientists. Modern science as we know it did not exist then. See the link I posted earlier:

What Science Isn't (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html#SCIVSOTHER)

Ooops, guess I should have read up on it before giving that example :o
Thanks Dave

booferama,

In respect to whether man caused global warming is a hypothesis(plausible guess on the why of some observations)), or a theory( hypothesis that has gathered lots of supporting data,so much so that it is accepted as "correct").

You say it has risen to the level of a theory.Well, it kinda depends on exactly what you consider THE THEORY OF MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

Long term climate prediction is a very new science.They-those scientists in the field-haven't correctly predicted ANYTHING yet. It isn't their fault because their science by its nature is LONG TERM and the business of long term climate prediction hasn't been around long enough to make any correct predictions.


If there isn't any track record of correct predictions,I don't think you can say they have "proven" -supported-any of their hypotheses.

In 20-50 years if we see continued rise in CO2 and a continued rise in temp-them maybe it is a theory.

A hypothesis doesn't become a theory until you use the "why" to predict a future event, or use the why to predict how an experimant will turn out.You can't do real world experiments in long term climate science, so you are just stuck with long term predictions.

It is still a hypothesis.Once you have used this hypothesis to correctly predict something significant, then it becomes a theory.
Like Einstein and relativity- it was just a hypothesis until the predictions he made-based on his explanation of why of space/time/light etc-were proven to be dead on.An eclipse was photographed, and sure enough the mass of the sun actually bent light, exactly as much as he said it would-voila- hypothesis became theory.

Where is that in Global Warming??

Charlie

I wanted to add a point to what dr61 wrote about the global warming/Ptolemaic solar system theory. (Quick note: I had a freshman class years ago on science and society, and we spent a really, really long time on Galileo, to the point that the words "heliocentric" and "Ptolemaic" have been burned onto my brain. But I can walk into a room and forget what I'm doing there. Go figure.) Comparing AGW and heliocentrism isn't even apples to oranges because heliocentrism wasn't really science. What I wanted to add is this: the claim that scientists have been wrong before so they might be wrong again, doesn't really address the issue of how much evidence there is to support AGW. What does heliocentrism have to do with AGW? Seems like a change of subject to me.

Hi Boofer
As per my post to dave, i agree that my example was not a good one, i guess those who thought the earth was in the center were not even scientists.:rolleyes:

I am not denying that climate is changing, or that man has some influence over this. And i think we should all, as individuals, be more responsible on how we treat the envornment for sure just that .i hear all the hype, panic and big government solutions that could possible ruin the economy and take away freedoms for what?
I dont trust the government.
If AGW didnt get popularized by politicians, mabye I wouldn
t have come against it so much:p

If there isn't any track record of correct predictions,I don't think you can say they have "proven" -supported-any of their hypotheses.

In 20-50 years if we see continued rise in CO2 and a continued rise in temp-them maybe it is a theory.

A hypothesis doesn't become a theory until you use the "why" to predict a future event, or use the why to predict how an experimant will turn out.You can't do real world experiments in long term climate science, so you are just stuck with long term predictions.


Charlie


Mabye they are concerned that in 20 to 50 years when New York is underwater and we can officially call GW a theory, it will be too late to do anything about it! :eek::D

AGW is a theory, if it had already happened and documented, it would be a law.

additionally, gravity is a law.

The other thing I had in mind were all the demonstrably false claims I've come across in threads multiple times, claims that were easily debunked (the lie that there was a consensus in the 1970s that the planet was cooling, for example).



You would be more credible if you back up your statments with links. A link for your assertions would help.

Mabye they are concerned that in 20 to 50 years when New York is underwater and we can officially call GW a theory, it will be too late to do anything about it! :eek::D

No one is predicting anything like New York underwater. Al Gore maybe, but scientists don't. IPCC predicts less than 10 inches by 2050 worst case scenario and average 5 inch.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc_fig1.html

No one is predicting anything like New York underwater. Al Gore maybe, but scientists don't. IPCC predicts less than 10 inches by 2050 worst case scenario and average 5 inch.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc_fig1.html


Just a poor attempt at humor on my part!:rolleyes::p

Hey Michael--I wasn't trying to jump on you. I guess I've heard too many variations of the "scientists have been wrong about x, so they must be wrong about global warming." As dr pointed out already, it's not a valid argument. But in a much broader way, I think you raise a good point: why should we trust scientists on this?

In some ways, that's a harder question to answer. Small groups of scientists are wrong all the time, and even understood science starts to change. For example, the placebo effect (i.e. if you believe you're taking an effective drug, it cures you) is getting even stronger (http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all). That will change how we test medicines in a major way.

And as phoebeisis pointed out, there's no way to suddenly wave some magic wand and say, "Theory Brand X is proven. Let's never talk about it again." I think the way to get past the noise (media reports about science, websites put together by cranks) is to look as much as possible at the science. I have to admit, my eyes start to blur once the first math formula pops up. But with global warming, there's an overwhelming body of evidence that points in the direction of global warming, and there's very little (if any) evidence to counter global warming. (I have the bad feeling that we'll have to lay out the case for AGW somewhere here. It's a bad feeling because it'll be a lot of work, and my wife wants me to spend less time online. :) )

Phoebeisis--You wrote,

Long term climate prediction is a very new science.They-those scientists in the field-haven't correctly predicted ANYTHING yet. It isn't their fault because their science by its nature is LONG TERM and the business of long term climate prediction hasn't been around long enough to make any correct predictions.

Actually, that's not true. They've predicted quite a lot. Over twenty years ago, James Hansen made his first presentation of climate predictions to Congress, and they've proven remarkably accurate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/). Also, many other predictions have been accurate as well (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php), and those accurate predictions (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Hansen_etal_1.html) keep on coming (http://proj1.sinica.edu.tw/~jds/JDS-436.pdf) (warning: last link there is a pdf). And in the citations on that last link, there are several more articles that demonstrate accurate predictions about the climate. Here's (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm) a long history of climate modeling and how it's changed over time. Shorter version here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Climate_models). So those scientists have actually predicted quite a lot.

Bestmapman, You wrote,

You would be more credible if you back up your statments with links. A link for your assertions would help.

Well, I did have a total of eighteen links in my last two posts combined, so I hope my credibility can be forgiven for forgetting to include one or two. But you're right that I should've added a link or two on the myth that scientists had reached a consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. So here goes:

In the first half of the 70s, there were a few articles in the popular media that seemed to suggest there was a significant part of the scientific community that claimed the planet was cooling. (There's a list with links here (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html) and a broader rundown of the global cooling argument here (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/index.html).) One of the articles prominently cited as predicting an ice age appeared in the New York Times on May 21, 1975 (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf) (pdf). Ironically, that article begins, "The world's climate is changing. Of that the world's scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate." Hardly a loud conclusion that the planet is cooling.

Having heard that myth many times, a few scientists went back and reviewed (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf) (again, pdf link) the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1965 through 1979 and found that, of all the papers published on climate, seven predicted global cooling, twenty were neutral, and forty-four predicted warming. So over a span of fourteen years, seven articles predicted global cooling (that's one every two years), and forty-four predicted warming (that's an average of over three articles per year). So no consensus about an ice age. More importantly, since 1977, no scientific journal has predicted global cooling.

Even more crucially than that, in 1979 (http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/), the National Research Council "concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled CO2 of 1.5°–4.5°C was possible, the panel reported." So there was anything but a consensus about global cooling in the seventies.

I hope that helps.

Mabye they are concerned that in 20 to 50 years when New York is underwater and we can officially call GW a theory, it will be too late to do anything about it! :eek::D

Nah....just need a different theory....The theory of excess dew, caused by wind turbines catching and flinging water out of the air. :flag:

AGW is a theory, if it had already happened and documented, it would be a law.

additionally, gravity is a law.

Yes, gravity is a Law, but a scientific Law is a " BRIEF STATEMENT OR EQUATION THAT SUMMARIZES PAST OBSERVATIONS AND PREDICTS FUTURE ONES" -no explanation of why attached to them. Hypothesis and Theory by definition are WHYS-explanations- of collections of observations.
I COPIED THE ABOVE-in quotes- OUT OF MY CHEMISTRY BOOK.
You would think a law would be an explanation of why, but it is more about how much with no concern as to why.

Booferama,
Yes, some folks have made correct predictions, but the basic predictions-temp up or temp down leave lots of room for them to have been correct by chance.Not their fault of course-just the nature of what they are working on. Temps go up or down, so a random guess is a 50/50 deal.

I think that man released CO2 has caused the temps to go up-certainly very plausible- but smart folks can be wrong,so I'll just wait and see.
Thanks,
Charlie

Booferama,
Yes, some folks have made correct predictions, but the basic predictions-temp up or temp down leave lots of room for them to have been correct by chance.Not their fault of course-just the nature of what they are working on. Temps go up or down, so a random guess is a 50/50 deal.

If you think it's a 50/50 deal, I don't think you looked at the links I provided.

booferama,

No, I wasn't clear. A random guess when there are just 2 choices-up,down- would be a 50/50 deal. If you simply rolled a die with up and down written on it-3 and 3- you would be right 1/2 the time.

The last line I wrote- "I think that man released CO2 has caused temps to go up" is what I "think" and would bet on if $$ was involved.However my thinking it has no bearing on the correctness of it.

Since CO2 absorbs EMR in the range the hot earth gives off-higher CO2 means more EMR absorbed instead of just going out into space with the heat being lost to the earth. The main "pick" with it, is that there might be something else-solar activity etc-that completely overwhelms the effect of CO2.

Like I said,I think it is happening, but I put little stock in what I "think" and I don't credit the science community with being always right.Humans are loaded with bias,and we frequently just don't know what we don't know(sometimes we do know what we don't know, but not always).Climate science is in its infancy.

Einstein was wrong for many years on Quantum Mechanics-. If he can be wrong-these scientist can be wrong.
Yes, you won't like that argument-smart people can be wrong-but it is good to remember.
Thanks
Charlie

PS It is largely harmless to act as if AGM is fact.It will mainly entai old fashioned conservation(use less become more efficient) with developing other resources-which will get us off foreign energy-both good things. The right usually argues that developing other resources will put us at a competitive disadvantage-BS-they are in the pockets of big business which has a 3 month field of view with no particular interest in the national well being of the USA-the 3 month bottom line is the bottom line.

Since CO2 absorbs EMR in the range the hot earth gives off-higher CO2 means more EMR absorbed instead of just going out into space with the heat being lost to the earth. The main "pick" with it, is that there might be something else-solar activity etc-that completely overwhelms the effect of CO2.

Like I said,I think it is happening, but I put little stock in what I "think" and I don't credit the science community with being always right.Humans are loaded with bias,and we frequently just don't know what we don't know(sometimes we do know what we don't know, but not always).Climate science is in its infancy.


Just a note that solar activity (for which we have good data since the 1970's) and other climate forcings ARE accounted for in climate models (see the NASA web site I posted previously (http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/). There has been no solar activity that can account for warming of the earth since good measurements began in the 1970's. Other variables listed probably have a much greater affect on climate change.

No good scientist would say that they are always right. All climate change predictions have statistical margins of error calculated. Part of the modern scientific method is to challenge all results through the peer review process and by further studies. I personally have gone through 35 of these peer reviews for scientific papers which I have co-authored (not in the climate field), and they are NOT fun.

The consensus on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is that it is VERY PROBABLE (the latest IPCC report concludes that the probability is 90%). I think we all hope for that 10% chance.

I agree with your final statement. Taking action against greenhouse gas emissions via conservation and renewable energy development will likely have positive long-term consequences even if the 10% chance that AGW is not significant comes about. These include conservation of scarce fossil fuels, national energy independence, reduction of air pollution, preservation of species, and greater human health. It is not prudent to fail to take action, for the good of our children and grandchildren, and the many other species on our planet. While some are distrustful of government action, what are the alternatives? It is highly unlikely that the capitalist economic system can, without regulation and incentives, deal with AGW. How well did it deal with the financial crisis?

Yes, gravity is a Law, but a scientific Law is a " BRIEF STATEMENT OR EQUATION THAT SUMMARIZES PAST OBSERVATIONS AND PREDICTS FUTURE ONES" -no explanation of why attached to them. Hypothesis and Theory by definition are WHYS-explanations- of collections of observations.
I COPIED THE ABOVE-in quotes- OUT OF MY CHEMISTRY BOOK.
You would think a law would be an explanation of why, but it is more about how much with no concern as to why.

Booferama,
Yes, some folks have made correct predictions, but the basic predictions-temp up or temp down leave lots of room for them to have been correct by chance.Not their fault of course-just the nature of what they are working on. Temps go up or down, so a random guess is a 50/50 deal.

I think that man released CO2 has caused the temps to go up-certainly very plausible- but smart folks can be wrong,so I'll just wait and see.
Thanks,
Charlie

Engineering and physics seek only to explain HOW something happens. We know A occurs as an effect of B etc.

If you would like to study the WHY's, then that would be a completely different field (Biology, psychology etc). This is also sought by deeper science.