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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, you really haven't been able to wrap your head around the scientific process of how a theory becomes an accepted theory.

You could be Dr. Gary C, a well respected medical doctor and you could publish a claim that you conclude that beer can cure cancer. You can show all your data of how you arrived at your conclusion, but in order for the medical community to accept your claim, that claim must go through a process of peer review.

If you only could understand that process, than you'd begin to understand why there is a scientific consensus on Global Warming. There is no debate on the theory. There may be debate on how to deal with it, but there is no scientific debate. HAL spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you, but apparently it just went right over your head.

You don't seem to understand. A theory is just an idea. It isn't fact. A theory must be tested through experiments and observation. The theory that man is causing GW has not been proven. In fact the data has refuted the theory. You are the one that does not understand. Oh, and science isn't run by consesus. It is run by facts. Just remember it wasn't long ago the consensus was that the earth was flat and only 5000 years old. So much for consensus.

In *some* fields that's true.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Private Pike

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

Gary, you really haven't been able to wrap your head around the scientific process of how a theory becomes an accepted theory.

You could be Dr. Gary C, a well respected medical doctor and you could publish a claim that you conclude that beer can cure cancer. You can show all your data of how you arrived at your conclusion, but in order for the medical community to accept your claim, that claim must go through a process of peer review.

If you only could understand that process, than you'd begin to understand why there is a scientific consensus on Global Warming. There is no debate on the theory. There may be debate on how to deal with it, but there is no scientific debate. HAL spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you, but apparently it just went right over your head.

You don't seem to understand. A theory is just an idea. It isn't fact. A theory must be tested through experiments and observation. The theory that man is causing GW has not been proven. In fact the data has refuted the theory. You are the one that does not understand. Oh, and science isn't run by consesus. It is run by facts. Just remember it wasn't long ago the consensus was that the earth was flat and only 5000 years old. So much for consensus.

A scientific theory is just an idea? Did you just pull that out of your head or can you find something that supports that claim? Feel free to Google or use an Encyclopedia.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Evolution

Quantum Physics

Nuff said.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you really haven't been able to wrap your head around the scientific process of how a theory becomes an accepted theory.

You could be Dr. Gary C, a well respected medical doctor and you could publish a claim that you conclude that beer can cure cancer. You can show all your data of how you arrived at your conclusion, but in order for the medical community to accept your claim, that claim must go through a process of peer review.

If you only could understand that process, than you'd begin to understand why there is a scientific consensus on Global Warming. There is no debate on the theory. There may be debate on how to deal with it, but there is no scientific debate. HAL spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you, but apparently it just went right over your head.

You don't seem to understand. A theory is just an idea. It isn't fact. A theory must be tested through experiments and observation. The theory that man is causing GW has not been proven. In fact the data has refuted the theory. You are the one that does not understand. Oh, and science isn't run by consesus. It is run by facts. Just remember it wasn't long ago the consensus was that the earth was flat and only 5000 years old. So much for consensus.

A scientific theory is just an idea? Did you just pull that out of your head or can you find something that supports that claim? Feel free to Google or use an Encyclopedia.

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

[GaryC 7]

I am a bit confused on one point. Are you claiming Gary that there is no evidence that the global climate is heating up? Or are you merely confining yourself to the observation that in your estimation, it is not, nor can it be man-made? Just curious about that.

No, I am not saying that the climate is not changing. It has been in constant change since the planet formed. I am saying that CO2 caused by man is not the reason for the change. FYI, the global temps have been going down since 1998. But the levels of CO2 have continued to rise. How does this fit in to the GW theory? It doesn't. I have shown HAL and Steven peer reviewed papers that say CO2 is a lagging indicator behind temps. It was about 50 pages long and very technical. I gave the link to the study to HAL and it took him 5 minutes to declare it invalid. Is that the way a scientist looks at data? IMO HAL is not an honest scientist if he is one at all. I get the feeling he is nothing more than a lab tech with delusions of grander.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you really haven't been able to wrap your head around the scientific process of how a theory becomes an accepted theory.

You could be Dr. Gary C, a well respected medical doctor and you could publish a claim that you conclude that beer can cure cancer. You can show all your data of how you arrived at your conclusion, but in order for the medical community to accept your claim, that claim must go through a process of peer review.

If you only could understand that process, than you'd begin to understand why there is a scientific consensus on Global Warming. There is no debate on the theory. There may be debate on how to deal with it, but there is no scientific debate. HAL spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you, but apparently it just went right over your head.

You don't seem to understand. A theory is just an idea. It isn't fact. A theory must be tested through experiments and observation. The theory that man is causing GW has not been proven. In fact the data has refuted the theory. You are the one that does not understand. Oh, and science isn't run by consesus. It is run by facts. Just remember it wasn't long ago the consensus was that the earth was flat and only 5000 years old. So much for consensus.

A scientific theory is just an idea? Did you just pull that out of your head or can you find something that supports that claim? Feel free to Google or use an Encyclopedia.

Here Steven, this is an explanation of hypothesis, theory and law.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

[Peikko 1,575]

Link

Interesting stuff from the UK met office

Facts and myths.

Fact 1

Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it

Temperatures provide the clearest evidence that the climate is changing and globally the average temperature has risen by more than 0.7 °C over the last 100 years.

The natural greenhouse gas effect keeps Earth much warmer than it would otherwise be, without it Earth would be extremely cold. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour behave like a blanket around Earth. These gases allow the Sun's rays to reach Earth's surface but impede the heat they create from escaping back into space.

Any increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that more heat is trapped and global temperatures increase - an effect known as 'global warming'.

There is indisputable evidence from observations that the Earth is warming. Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years

Fact 2

Temperatures are continuing to rise

The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.

A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.

Fact 3

The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle

Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

Fact 4

Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone

There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.

Over the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.

In the 20th century the situation becomes more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century, CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century.

As well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen.

Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun's energy.

Fact 5

If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix

The global average temperature will increase by 2 to 3 °C this century – according to one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) mid-range estimates (blue line on the graph below). This rise in temperature means that the Earth will experience a greater climate change than it has for at least 10,000 years and it would be difficult for many people and ecosystems to adapt to this rapid change.

These temperature increases are likely to result in an increased frequency and severity of weather events such as heatwaves, storms and flooding. Rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could set in motion large-scale changes in Earth's natural systems. Some of these could be irreversible - the melting of large ice sheets will result in major consequences for low-lying areas throughout the world.

Fact 6

Climate models predict the main features of future climate

There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years and the current models give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change.

Computer models cannot predict the future exactly, due to the large number of uncertainties involved. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics, but also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most sophisticated computer models simulate the entire climate system. As well as linking the atmosphere and ocean, they also capture the interactions between the various elements, such as cryosphere (ice) and geosphere (land).

Climate models successfully reproduce the main features of the current climate (e.g. rainfall in the map below), the temperature changes over the last 100 years, the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000 years ago).

Current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change, and predict the main features of the future climate, with a high degree of confidence. We now need to develop the models to provide more regional detail of the impacts of climate change, and a more complete analysis of extreme events.

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

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[GaryC 7]

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

[The_Dude 1,142]

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

Blogs and unreferenced research doesn't count

[GaryC 7]

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

Blogs and unreferenced research doesn't count

Do I have to quote myself? Look at post 96. Jeez.

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

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

Blogs and unreferenced research doesn't count

Do I have to quote myself? Look at post 96. Jeez.

Gary, you're being oddly defensive considering most other times you'd just as soon copy and paste. I'm calling you out on this. Find a reputable source that defines scientific theory as just an idea as you claim....that it's not rooted in fact.

[The_Dude 1,142]

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

Blogs and unreferenced research doesn't count

Do I have to quote myself? Look at post 96. Jeez.

That was in reference to your point of view regarding global warming, not methodology.

[mawilson 2,133]

Temperatures provide the clearest evidence that the climate is changing and globally the average temperature has risen by more than 0.7 °C over the last 100 years.

Seriously, 1.26 °F over 100 years is reason enough to change our way of life? #######!

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

and for the record, Gary...

HAL has a master's degree in a scientific discipline and is currently working on a doctorate degree at an Ivy-level major research university in science. That means people like HAL are trained in reading scientific articles, how to dissect the information given, and spot flaws in the author's arguments.

...which goes back to my argument. I think it may take God Himself to reach down and press you under His thumb before you come around to accepting the scientific consensus of Global Warming. In the meantime, the world with not wait for you...we're already addressing the issue on a global scale.