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

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've never wanted to get into arguing over the science behind the theory of Global Warming because I believe that I have at least a decent grasp at understanding scientific process of how scientific theory comes into being.

What Gary and many others here have argued time and time again, is first, that Global Warming isn't actually taking place, or that if it is, it isn't being accelerated by carbon emissions. I think Bill has expressed those views, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm just hoping that we can all concede that:

1. Global Warming is a scientific theory

2. There is a consensus among the scientific community on that theory.

3. Hal, you'll have to help me on this, but the contention man-made carbon emissions are accelerating climate change is also a scientific theory.

[HAL 9000 96]

I've never wanted to get into arguing over the science behind the theory of Global Warming because I believe that I have at least a decent grasp at understanding scientific process of how scientific theory comes into being.

What Gary and many others here have argued time and time again, is first, that Global Warming isn't actually taking place, or that if it is, it isn't being accelerated by carbon emissions. I think Bill has expressed those views, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm just hoping that we can all concede that:

1. Global Warming is a scientific theory

2. There is a consensus among the scientific community on that theory.

3. Hal, you'll have to help me on this, but the contention man-made carbon emissions are accelerating climate change is also a scientific theory.

Well, people's ability to come to conclusions in science isn't always necessarily accurate. As a scientist I am always willing to accept that even the most sound theory- even what some define as 'law' and 'fact' have potential to be disproven by virtue of the nature of how the data was acquired. Nevertheless...

There is the accepted notion that given sufficient, strong, correlative evidence, even at low statistical inference levels, that a set of observations can still support a hypothesis as being significant enough to be able to reject the 'No change- Null' hypothesis. That is one of the pillars of scientific reasoning.

So given these basic steps of thought:

1. GW is indeed a theory with scientific underpinnings and evidence to make the theory plausible AND strongly correlative.

2. There is a consensus, with debate, about the mechanisms of the theory of GW, both natural and artificial. What is unclear at this stage of research, due to the multiple, complex, combination of factors that contribute to the phenomeon, both natural and artificial. The scientific community is by and large quite clear on this, and this indeed is fact.

3. Yes. This is also a heavily tested theory, with strong ties to your point #1.

Claiming that CO2 is a lagging factor behind mean global temperature (and therefore prone to be discredited) is an inaccurate and incomplete picture of how global temperature propagates. Remember, the argument tends to claim that since the atmosphere occupies such a large volume, any physical effects from increased greenhouse gas is mitigated in that volume. But right there you have a counterargument:

a. The atmosphere is not uniform. Gases do not evenly spread about it. And in the layers where they do, Brownian motion (random) makes the gas molecules distribute. Since each molecular bond can hold energy, a more evenly distributed amount, at higher concentrations, will in turn hold more heat energy.

b. Energy is not a linear phenomenon. The more concentrated gas molecules exist within a defined space, the more intermolecular collisions will occur. This increases the amount of energy released as a result of these collisions. Think of it as placing two marbles in one box and moving the box around. Then add marbles to the box, one at a time, repeating the same motion. The number of audible collisions will do what?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thank you, HAL, and welcome back.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I've never wanted to get into arguing over the science behind the theory of Global Warming because I believe that I have at least a decent grasp at understanding scientific process of how scientific theory comes into being.

What Gary and many others here have argued time and time again, is first, that Global Warming isn't actually taking place, or that if it is, it isn't being accelerated by carbon emissions. I think Bill has expressed those views, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm just hoping that we can all concede that:

1. Global Warming is a scientific theory

2. There is a consensus among the scientific community on that theory.

3. Hal, you'll have to help me on this, but the contention man-made carbon emissions are accelerating climate change is also a scientific theory.

Well, people's ability to come to conclusions in science isn't always necessarily accurate. As a scientist I am always willing to accept that even the most sound theory- even what some define as 'law' and 'fact' have potential to be disproven by virtue of the nature of how the data was acquired. Nevertheless...

There is the accepted notion that given sufficient, strong, correlative evidence, even at low statistical inference levels, that a set of observations can still support a hypothesis as being significant enough to be able to reject the 'No change- Null' hypothesis. That is one of the pillars of scientific reasoning.

So given these basic steps of thought:

1. GW is indeed a theory with scientific underpinnings and evidence to make the theory plausible AND strongly correlative.

2. There is a consensus, with debate, about the mechanisms of the theory of GW, both natural and artificial. What is unclear at this stage of research, due to the multiple, complex, combination of factors that contribute to the phenomeon, both natural and artificial. The scientific community is by and large quite clear on this, and this indeed is fact.

3. Yes. This is also a heavily tested theory, with strong ties to your point #1.

Claiming that CO2 is a lagging factor behind mean global temperature (and therefore prone to be discredited) is an inaccurate and incomplete picture of how global temperature propagates. Remember, the argument tends to claim that since the atmosphere occupies such a large volume, any physical effects from increased greenhouse gas is mitigated in that volume. But right there you have a counterargument:

a. The atmosphere is not uniform. Gases do not evenly spread about it. And in the layers where they do, Brownian motion (random) makes the gas molecules distribute. Since each molecular bond can hold energy, a more evenly distributed amount, at higher concentrations, will in turn hold more heat energy.

b. Energy is not a linear phenomenon. The more concentrated gas molecules exist within a defined space, the more intermolecular collisions will occur. This increases the amount of energy released as a result of these collisions. Think of it as placing two marbles in one box and moving the box around. Then add marbles to the box, one at a time, repeating the same motion. The number of audible collisions will do what?

You need to clean this up a little bit.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bill, so where do you stand on those points?

[tmma 467]

All I have to add is that OBSERVED and observeable increases in ( for example sea surface temps) is irrefutable evidence that global temperatures are indeed increasing. Up for heavy debate is largely why; however, this does make the 'Global Warming Theory' not so much 'theory' in the truest sense of the word, but an actuality ( observed changes). The term 'theory' when tied to Global Warming ( especially by those whom are certain that GW is ALREADY OCCURING)-is confusing to me. How can it be a 'theory' if it is occuring and observeable? I've had this discussion lots of times with other meteorologists and climatologists; and we agree-if it's actually happening, and observable/measureable...Then warming is no longer a mere 'theory'.

What is an HYPOTHESIS is the outcome of such a warming trend.

Bill, so where do you stand on those points?

Didn't you read the thread quoted up there somewhere. He thinks it will be great! Like Eden.

[NickD 203]

Theory or no theory, if the politicians want to scare the hell out of us with the oceans rising 500 feet, category zillion hurricanes, severe droughts , polar bears floating down to the equator, etc, using global warming as the reason. It's fine with me, as long as this leads to energy independence and far less ocean traffic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, so where do you stand on those points?

The earth is a dynamic system. There are large contributers to the system. Man is a contributer. Man's contribution is measurable and somewhat significant in the short term, but probably insignificant in the long term, given the magnitude of the large contibuters. There are some mathematical models for "natural systems", in the way the things in nature propagate, that without detroying the base structure, that no matter what stress is applied to the system, that the base structure will continue to be replicated in the system as a whole.

To your more specific query, in our effort to be able to control the enviroment in which we live, we forget that events over which we have no control jeopardize our existence to a greater extent than those things we can control.

As far as the release of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO₂, I would like to know exactly how much hydrocarbon is left to be released, and whether, or not, for what is left, will the impact be all that significant in the short, or long term. I have already seen some studies that suggest that quantity and exploitation has already peaked, and within a decade it will be a non-issue, given the leadtime necessary to do any remediation of the problem.

It short, we will run out of oil before we find a way to solve the problem petroleum use has caused. However, the need to develop alternative sources of energy is real. That should be more of a concern than the issue of carbon sequestation.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

All I have to add is that OBSERVED and observeable increases in ( for example sea surface temps) is irrefutable evidence that global temperatures are indeed increasing. Up for heavy debate is largely why; however, this does make the 'Global Warming Theory' not so much 'theory' in the truest sense of the word, but an actuality ( observed changes). The term 'theory' when tied to Global Warming ( especially by those whom are certain that GW is ALREADY OCCURING)-is confusing to me. How can it be a 'theory' if it is occuring and observeable? I've had this discussion lots of times with other meteorologists and climatologists; and we agree-if it's actually happening, and observable/measureable...Then warming is no longer a mere 'theory'.

What is an HYPOTHESIS is the outcome of such a warming trend.

Bill, so where do you stand on those points?

Didn't you read the thread quoted up there somewhere. He thinks it will be great! Like Eden.

It's an ill wind that blows nobody good.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All I have to add is that OBSERVED and observeable increases in ( for example sea surface temps) is irrefutable evidence that global temperatures are indeed increasing. Up for heavy debate is largely why; however, this does make the 'Global Warming Theory' not so much 'theory' in the truest sense of the word, but an actuality ( observed changes). The term 'theory' when tied to Global Warming ( especially by those whom are certain that GW is ALREADY OCCURING)-is confusing to me. How can it be a 'theory' if it is occuring and observeable? I've had this discussion lots of times with other meteorologists and climatologists; and we agree-if it's actually happening, and observable/measureable...Then warming is no longer a mere 'theory'.

What is an HYPOTHESIS is the outcome of such a warming trend.

This then goes back to how does a scientific theory come about. If the scientific community is classifying it as a theory, then how can it be any less than what that entails?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bill, so where do you stand on those points?

The earth is a dynamic system. There are large contributers to the system. Man is a contributer. Man's contribution is measurable and somewhat significant in the short term, but probably insignificant in the long term, given the magnitude of the large contibuters. There are some mathematical models for "natural systems", in the way the things in nature propagate, that without detroying the base structure, that no matter what stress is applied to the system, that the base structure will continue to be replicated in the system as a whole.

To your more specific query, in our effort to be able to control the enviroment in which we live, we forget that events over which we have no control jeopardize our existence to a greater extent than those things we can control.

As far as the release of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO₂, I would like to know exactly how much hydrocarbon is left to be released, and whether, or not, for what is left, will the impact be all that significant in the short, or long term. I have already seen some studies that suggest that quantity and exploitation has already peaked, and within a decade it will be a non-issue, given the leadtime necessary to do any remediation of the problem.

It short, we will run out of oil before we find a way to solve the problem petroleum use has caused. However, the need to develop alternative sources of energy is real. That should be more of a concern than the issue of carbon sequestation.

Thanks. Nice post.

[tmma 467]

All I have to add is that OBSERVED and observeable increases in ( for example sea surface temps) is irrefutable evidence that global temperatures are indeed increasing. Up for heavy debate is largely why; however, this does make the 'Global Warming Theory' not so much 'theory' in the truest sense of the word, but an actuality ( observed changes). The term 'theory' when tied to Global Warming ( especially by those whom are certain that GW is ALREADY OCCURING)-is confusing to me. How can it be a 'theory' if it is occuring and observeable? I've had this discussion lots of times with other meteorologists and climatologists; and we agree-if it's actually happening, and observable/measureable...Then warming is no longer a mere 'theory'.

What is an HYPOTHESIS is the outcome of such a warming trend.

This then goes back to how does a scientific theory come about. If the scientific community is classifying it as a theory, then how can it be any less than what that entails?

I got drawn into this discussion because of the arguments going on over what exactly IS a theory. What exactly IS the 'scientific method' of proving an hypothesis?

My point is that [with regards to GW] if there is observeable and measurable changes [increasing temps] occuring now-then warming is not and cannot be a mere 'theory', and it's wrong ( IMO) to classify it as such when there are changes that are measurable and occuring NOW ( according to various groups of scientists).

What is up for debate is why (THEORIES abound on this) and hypothesis of the outcome.

The 'scientific method' of research in it's most basic form starts with an hypothesis of an outcome.

That's it, really. Sorry if I am not clear enough.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

All I have to add is that OBSERVED and observeable increases in ( for example sea surface temps) is irrefutable evidence that global temperatures are indeed increasing. Up for heavy debate is largely why; however, this does make the 'Global Warming Theory' not so much 'theory' in the truest sense of the word, but an actuality ( observed changes). The term 'theory' when tied to Global Warming ( especially by those whom are certain that GW is ALREADY OCCURING)-is confusing to me. How can it be a 'theory' if it is occuring and observeable? I've had this discussion lots of times with other meteorologists and climatologists; and we agree-if it's actually happening, and observable/measureable...Then warming is no longer a mere 'theory'.

What is an HYPOTHESIS is the outcome of such a warming trend.

This then goes back to how does a scientific theory come about. If the scientific community is classifying it as a theory, then how can it be any less than what that entails?

I got drawn into this discussion because of the arguments going on over what exactly IS a theory. What exactly IS the 'scientific method' of proving an hypothesis?

My point is that [with regards to GW] if there is observeable and measurable changes [increasing temps] occuring now-then warming is not and cannot be a mere 'theory', and it's wrong ( IMO) to classify it as such when there are changes that are measurable and occuring NOW ( according to various groups of scientists).

What is up for debate is why (THEORIES abound on this) and hypothesis of the outcome.

The 'scientific method' of research in it's most basic form starts with an hypothesis of an outcome.

That's it, really. Sorry if I am not clear enough.

Theories are valid as long as they explain what is being observed. Once something occurs that can't be explained by the theory, then the theory needs to be updated, or replaced. That doesn't mean the previous theory is invalid, just that it is incomplete beyond a certain point.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

Thank you, HAL, and welcome back.

I've never wanted to get into arguing over the science behind the theory of Global Warming because I believe that I have at least a decent grasp at understanding scientific process of how scientific theory comes into being.

What Gary and many others here have argued time and time again, is first, that Global Warming isn't actually taking place, or that if it is, it isn't being accelerated by carbon emissions. I think Bill has expressed those views, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm just hoping that we can all concede that:

1. Global Warming is a scientific theory

2. There is a consensus among the scientific community on that theory.

3. Hal, you'll have to help me on this, but the contention man-made carbon emissions are accelerating climate change is also a scientific theory.

Well, people's ability to come to conclusions in science isn't always necessarily accurate. As a scientist I am always willing to accept that even the most sound theory- even what some define as 'law' and 'fact' have potential to be disproven by virtue of the nature of how the data was acquired. Nevertheless...

There is the accepted notion that given sufficient, strong, correlative evidence, even at low statistical inference levels, that a set of observations can still support a hypothesis as being significant enough to be able to reject the 'No change- Null' hypothesis. That is one of the pillars of scientific reasoning.

So given these basic steps of thought:

1. GW is indeed a theory with scientific underpinnings and evidence to make the theory plausible AND strongly correlative.

2. There is a consensus, with debate, about the mechanisms of the theory of GW, both natural and artificial. What is unclear at this stage of research, due to the multiple, complex, combination of factors that contribute to the phenomeon, both natural and artificial. The scientific community is by and large quite clear on this, and this indeed is fact.

3. Yes. This is also a heavily tested theory, with strong ties to your point #1.

Claiming that CO2 is a lagging factor behind mean global temperature (and therefore prone to be discredited) is an inaccurate and incomplete picture of how global temperature propagates. Remember, the argument tends to claim that since the atmosphere occupies such a large volume, any physical effects from increased greenhouse gas is mitigated in that volume. But right there you have a counterargument:

a. The atmosphere is not uniform. Gases do not evenly spread about it. And in the layers where they do, Brownian motion (random) makes the gas molecules distribute. Since each molecular bond can hold energy, a more evenly distributed amount, at higher concentrations, will in turn hold more heat energy.

b. Energy is not a linear phenomenon. The more concentrated gas molecules exist within a defined space, the more intermolecular collisions will occur. This increases the amount of energy released as a result of these collisions. Think of it as placing two marbles in one box and moving the box around. Then add marbles to the box, one at a time, repeating the same motion. The number of audible collisions will do what?

You need to clean this up a little bit.

High pass or low pass filter?

Pretty clear to me.

[alienlovechild 75]

Must have missed some important stuff in almost 200 posts.

Any strategy that combat global climate change beyond having phony target limits that few if any nations have met in the last 20 years?

If there's no measurable reduction, then what? More money in research, harsher penalties on industry and people?

What if the effects are so slow in a limited human lifespan that no one really notices the climate change or merely accepts it as inevitable?

Sounds crazy but if you recall growing up with all the scary predictions about life in the year 2000 as so terrible and different, it really hurts the cause.

1984? Wow, really scary year there.