White House issues new dire climate report: Scientists: Extreme weather will worsen if pollutants aren't curbed

[HAL 9000 96]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

There really is no rabid scientific dispute... its something more like consensus vs healthy skepticism, which is quite normally part of the scientific vetting process. Although I have seen a few scientific fistfights. Reminds me of the time I saw some howler monkeys flinging poo at each other. Kind of funny, and when it was all over, they helped clean themselves up.

The rabid 'debate' is political in nature, and usually takes shape when understanding the issue is lacking, thereby lending itself to political agendas that do not represent science.

Spot on. Politics TOO OFTEN gets in the way of scientific discovery.

As for the scientific fistfights...me too. Been in a couple myself.

Well... that's not including 'High School Grad School' if you know what I mean...

VJ is bearable in that way... it sometimes reminds me of the emotional maturity of some of my younger colleagues.

I think we could have a 'ask a scientist' thread... and include engineers and their mechanical perspectives as well. But that would eventually merge with the usual chopfvuckery that runs rampant in these here parts so hmmm.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

oh ohhh

HAL is back, brace yourselves!

[HAL 9000 96]

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

Everyone had something to say. Well, most everyone. Some just get ignored. I only hope that when people have the audacity to try and discuss something scientific in background, midground, and foreground, that they at least ask if something scientific befuddles them. Then we can move on to the social and political consequences of these concepts.

For what its worth... CO2 isn't the ONLY greenhouse gas and isn't the only contributor to climate phenomena. That's the beauty of this complex system. No one variable can claim to be the unique culprit behind climate change, and by virtue of simple logic, anthropomorphic warming.

Imagine throwing probability statistics into these interpretations of climate phenomena!

Or confidence intervals... *gasp*

Or tests of significance!!! THE HORROR!!!

Careful! You are starting to sound like an engineer!

My mother would've been so proud if I had actually done Chemical Engineering. A simple minor in Chemistry wasn't enough for her.

I have to suit myself with calling myself a genetic engineer from time to time with nasty little viruses and plasmids. Oh well!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

Scientific theories are models, and work only as long as they can show a cause and effect relationship between what is observed going in (input) and what is observed coming out (output). Without observations at both ends, then we just have a hypothesis. Much of the data that is used to come to that hypothesis is by way of a process of Numerical Analysis, one of the core courses within my degree field. Trying to fit an equation, or set of equations to observed data works as long as you stay within the observed data points. Once you venture beyond that set of data points, you are likely to observe increasing divergence.

In other words, trying to predict the future is not an exact science, especially when dealing with a dynamic system, where the observer has few contraints on the system.

[tmma 467]

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

There have been countless threads on GW...but I think at heart of the matter are two things - if in fact Global Warming is a scientific theory and if so, what that means. Because it's not just Gary disputing that there is no consensus, but we have Senators who think along the same lines. Setting aside the scientific data, if you could get these GW deniers to at least understand what a scientific theory is and what it means, you could avoid getting into these armchair science debates, IMO.

I'm NOT saying that GW is NOT happening....but.....

"setting aside scientific data..." ????? huh???

If we do what you suggest and "set aside scientific data" ( and scientific dissention, discussion and challenges to hypothesis) we effectively stop all debate, reasoning and scientifically grounded alternate HYPOTHESIS on the outcome of a warming atmosphere.

[HAL 9000 96]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

Scientific theories are models, and work only as long as they can show a cause and effect relationship between what is observed going in (input) and what is observed coming out (output). Without observations at both ends, then we just have a hypothesis. Much of the data that is used to come to that hypothesis is by way of a process of Numerical Analysis, one of the core courses within my degree field. Trying to fit an equation, or set of equations to observed data works as long as you stay within the observed data points. Once you venture beyond that set of data points, you are likely to observe increasing divergence.

In other words, trying to predict the future is not an exact science, especially when dealing with a dynamic system, where the observer has few contraints on the system.

Remember there are non-mathematical models too. But that is for the theoretical scientists out there. Definitely not you or me (thank goodness). I am sure multivariate systems like, ehemm... climate... flows somewhere between basic mathematical models that are being fine-tuned by existing and forthcoming methods and the more theoretical stuff. I suspect as we start combining more and more contributory variables we'll see a more faithful mathematical representation of the events unfolding. Including real-time phenomena that tend to likely confuse observers into discrediting the theory by ignoring homeostatic states.

[HAL 9000 96]

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

There have been countless threads on GW...but I think at heart of the matter are two things - if in fact Global Warming is a scientific theory and if so, what that means. Because it's not just Gary disputing that there is no consensus, but we have Senators who think along the same lines. Setting aside the scientific data, if you could get these GW deniers to at least understand what a scientific theory is and what it means, you could avoid getting into these armchair science debates, IMO.

I'm NOT saying that GW is NOT happening....but.....

"setting aside scientific data..." ????? huh???

If we do what you suggest and "set aside scientific data" ( and scientific dissention, discussion and challenges to hypothesis) we effectively stop all debate, reasoning and scientifically grounded alternate HYPOTHESIS on the outcome of a warming atmosphere.

I think what he wants to say is that people should talk science when dealing with science... and concomitantly accept the philosophy of science as one that constructs scientific knowledge, instead of thinking they are being scientific when in fact, they are not, in outright challenging the product of scientific reasoning, methods, and logic, due to factors that have no sound basis in science.

[Peikko 1,575]

Check out that UK Met office website. The models they use now are incredibly complex. No one is suggesting that they have the 'definitive' answer to what will unfold but there are some awfully good 'best guesses'.

[tmma 467]

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

There have been countless threads on GW...but I think at heart of the matter are two things - if in fact Global Warming is a scientific theory and if so, what that means. Because it's not just Gary disputing that there is no consensus, but we have Senators who think along the same lines. Setting aside the scientific data, if you could get these GW deniers to at least understand what a scientific theory is and what it means, you could avoid getting into these armchair science debates, IMO.

I'm NOT saying that GW is NOT happening....but.....

"setting aside scientific data..." ????? huh???

If we do what you suggest and "set aside scientific data" ( and scientific dissention, discussion and challenges to hypothesis) we effectively stop all debate, reasoning and scientifically grounded alternate HYPOTHESIS on the outcome of a warming atmosphere.

I think what he wants to say is that people should talk science when dealing with science... and concomitantly accept the philosophy of science as one that constructs scientific knowledge, instead of thinking they are being scientific when in fact, they are not, in outright challenging the product of scientific reasoning, methods, and logic, due to factors that have no sound basis in science.

ah...ok...thanks for the translation. For a minute I thought he was wanting to literally 'set aside' data! Perish the thought....

[HAL 9000 96]

Check out that UK Met office website. The models they use now are incredibly complex. No one is suggesting that they have the 'definitive' answer to what will unfold but there are some awfully good 'best guesses'.

I agree. With a 'thing' as large as the atmosphere, I have a feeling that these models will be maturing even more to show how very slight fluctuations, be they natural or artificial, can have very real effects.

Some people make small temperature fluctuations into nothing. But I wonder... if anyone has wondered... what happens to humans when our body temperature rises a few degrees above core? And below?

The answers are quite fixed: + 2 degrees C and you're talking hyperthermia, protein denaturing, DNA damage, oxidative stress on cells... and a couple of more degrees higher, death.

-2 degrees C and you're talking hypothermia, a decrease in systemic metabolism, and a degree or two lower... eventual death.

In between you have daily fluctuations about the core temperature, caused by a myriad of factors, that are somewhat parallel to the global phenomenon... just more tightly regulated due to the nature of the system.

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

There have been countless threads on GW...but I think at heart of the matter are two things - if in fact Global Warming is a scientific theory and if so, what that means. Because it's not just Gary disputing that there is no consensus, but we have Senators who think along the same lines. Setting aside the scientific data, if you could get these GW deniers to at least understand what a scientific theory is and what it means, you could avoid getting into these armchair science debates, IMO.

I'm NOT saying that GW is NOT happening....but.....

"setting aside scientific data..." ????? huh???

If we do what you suggest and "set aside scientific data" ( and scientific dissention, discussion and challenges to hypothesis) we effectively stop all debate, reasoning and scientifically grounded alternate HYPOTHESIS on the outcome of a warming atmosphere.

I think what he wants to say is that people should talk science when dealing with science... and concomitantly accept the philosophy of science as one that constructs scientific knowledge, instead of thinking they are being scientific when in fact, they are not, in outright challenging the product of scientific reasoning, methods, and logic, due to factors that have no sound basis in science.

ah...ok...thanks for the translation. For a minute I thought he was wanting to literally 'set aside' data! Perish the thought....

If that were the case... HAL 9000 would likely have a sit down with Brother Guano.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

Scientific theories are models, and work only as long as they can show a cause and effect relationship between what is observed going in (input) and what is observed coming out (output). Without observations at both ends, then we just have a hypothesis. Much of the data that is used to come to that hypothesis is by way of a process of Numerical Analysis, one of the core courses within my degree field. Trying to fit an equation, or set of equations to observed data works as long as you stay within the observed data points. Once you venture beyond that set of data points, you are likely to observe increasing divergence.

In other words, trying to predict the future is not an exact science, especially when dealing with a dynamic system, where the observer has few contraints on the system.

Remember there are non-mathematical models too. But that is for the theoretical scientists out there. Definitely not you or me (thank goodness). I am sure multivariate systems like, ehemm... climate... flows somewhere between basic mathematical models that are being fine-tuned by existing and forthcoming methods and the more theoretical stuff. I suspect as we start combining more and more contributory variables we'll see a more faithful mathematical representation of the events unfolding. Including real-time phenomena that tend to likely confuse observers into discrediting the theory by ignoring homeostatic states.

Data is always your friend as a scientist, but sometimes makes more work for the mathematician. Some of those curves look pretty ugly when you try to fit a polynomial to the data set, and trying to extrapolate anything beyond the first and last inflection points is meaningless. It was a very dry subject, and not well attended, much like Combinatorics, a real mindfvck couse.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[mawilson 2,133]

Consider this. If you are wrong Gary, the consequences are, well somewhat tragic. If the climate scientist are wrong, what exactly do you lose?

Consider this:

If God doesn't exist, the consequences of being an atheist are tragic - you're going to hell!

If God does exist, what exactly do you lose?

[mawilson 2,133]

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white.

Precisely.

[Peikko 1,575]

What? You are asking me to consider something that has no basis in reality in the same light as GW?

Here's something else for you to chew on, if you want to go into the realms of philosophical, what makes you so sure that someone who leads an ethical life will go to hell simply because they do not believe in god? There is no consensus on that

[mawilson 2,133]

I've just proven your claim that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming.

Excellent!