OT: I know how to solve global warming

[AMF]

This may sound harsh, but, well, too bad: Don't be a fool.

Let's have a basic lesson here on how scientific progress works, shall we?

Science moves forward by deriving theories that explain the world, and comparing them to existing theories.

A new theory is progressive if and only if

1) it explains more than prior theories
2) it makes predictions that are later corroborated
3) it explains anomalies in prevailing theories

The mere presence of anomalies in a theory doesn't actually prove or disprove anything - progress only happens when competing theories are compared in terms of their explanatory power.

Anomalies will ALWAYS exist in theories - because no theory can ever fully explain the complexity of the real world. That is why it is a theory (a theory is a simplification of reality).

The classic example is newton-einstein-quantum mechanics. Newtown came up with the theory of gravity. But his work wasn't completely satisfying, since while it explained almost everything, it still had a few anomalies. So then einstein came along, and realized, hey, Newton was almost entirely correct, but here's a modification of his work. Ok, great, but Einstein was later supplanted and modified by quantum theory.

So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is a theory that contrasts with current theories of global warming, explains everything they do and more, makes predictions that we can test, and explains existing anomalies.

In all the decades of study, NO ONE has been able to do that. Instead, everyone just says things like "oh, it's just natural that the globe is warming" - there is no theory there, only a knee-jerk rebuttal.

So, prior theories such as 'global cooling' have been supplanted by global warming theories which explain more, explain anomalies, and make predictions.

And it is just plain stupid and shortsighted to say things like "I wouldn't recommend...drastic action (or any action) to counter hypothetical catastrophes predicted by a field as immature and uncertain as climate science" - climate science is NOT immature, much as hunpecked wants to believe it is. It's been around as long as physics.

Hell, hunpecked quotes some climatalogist to attempt to refute Al Gore (failing at it by the way), but then claims that climate science is immature? Can't have it both ways.

And, most importantly of all: this is a big issue, and affects all of us. Our children, and our childrens' children will be living with the decisions our generation makes (or fails to make) regaring climate change. To say that we shouldn't do anything is selfish in the extreme.

Sorry if I sound harsh, or insulting, but it really burns me when people make decisions based upon what they WANT to believe, rather than accepting the overwhelming prepoderance of evidence, scientifically arrived at. Being unable or unwilling to change one's mind in the face of disconfirming evidence is what animals do, not humans.

Here's what I propose to all of ya: provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong. What criteria would need to be met for you to change your mind? Tell me that, and then I'll go and test it. And answer me this: if I meet your criteria, then will you change your mind? If I take whatever reasonable test you propose, and meet it, then do you think it possible to change your mind?

Again, I apologize for sounding harsh and/or insulting. But human civilizations have been practicing and refining science and scpetiicism for thousands of years, and improving our lives and understanding the world through it. Yet this discussion makes it clear that we are still so clearly enslaved to our passions and instincts that I feel I have to face this issue head on. The world is a tough place that may not conform to your belief system about what it should be like. Sorry. But reality is reality. Don’t drag the rest of us down simply because you believe in a reality that doesn't exist.

Thanks,

AMF

PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."

This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years

Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.

[Renegade 13]

Will: I must disagree with you as well. Seems like I'm being a rather disagreeable person today, doesn't it?!

To qualify that statement somewhat, I'd say that you're mostly correct, just not totally. For most scientific fields, you would be correct, as the current, most accurate theories in most scientific fields don't require drastic and expensive climatic intervention due to their doomsday predictions.

The whole "global warming" scenario is rather unique. Remember; the global warming theory says that it is an unusual rise in temperature. That has not been proven, therefore the theory can not be accepted as truth. If the day comes when it actually is proven, then it can be accepted as fact.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I think what Renegade is saying is that the *Data* that the theory is based on is not clear, therefore the theory is too imprecise to base a plan of action on.

What Alarikf seems to be saying is that the theory still has the most consistant data that fits the facts and that the temperature is rising drastically, therefore we must take steps to lower it.

[Will]

We aren't spouting off doomsday scenarios here. The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

What alarikf is saying, and what I'm saying, is: the data supports the model that humans have had an impact on the rise of temperatures in the world. You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model. To deny the hypothesis, you must show that something else accounts for the data. You may introduce doubts about how much data is explained by the model, but by scientific reasoning, you cannot throw it out entirely unless you replace it with a better model OR show that the data does not fit the model after all.

So, sorry, but I'm not seeing why you have an objection. We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature (to within fractions of a degree). We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries (to within a few degrees when averaged out). We also have data that goes back for millenia from the arctic and antarctic ice shelves. It shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The western Industrial Revolution has been steadily pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the temperature has steadily been rising. Model fits. Where is the problem here?

[AMF]

Exactly

[Hunpecked]

From Will:

"The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

And many politicians, like Al Gore. Unfortunately some people, like alarikf, seem to have bought into the alarmist scenarios (I doubt he'd be "physically sickened" by climate skeptics unless he really believed in Doomsday). The current "climate" (ouch) of hysteria has already led to expensive "corrective" action not justified by the actual science.

"You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model."

I'm skeptical of the hypothesis because a lot of data don't fit the model.

"We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature..."

We don't. As I pointed out in an earlier post, even direct historical measurements are uncertain due to location, changes in location, lack of coverage (especially the oceans), changes in instrumentation, land use changes, etc. etc. Note also that satellite and balloon measurements show less warming than ground stations.

"...(to within fractions of a degree)."

We're confusing precision with accuracy here.

"We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries..."

See my earlier posts on climate proxies and the "hockey stick" debacle.

"It [ice cores] shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature."

Correlation is not causation. And as Gozra pointed out, it's an open question whether carbon dioxide changes preceded or actually followed temperature shifts. (All this assumes, of course, that ancient ice bubbles are as pristine as paleoclimatologists like to believe -- more uncertainty.)

But who knows? Maybe one day the ice drillers will find one of those Viking SUVs that caused the Medieval Warm Period!

[Will]

I doubt he'd be "physically sickened" by climate skeptics unless he really believed in Doomsday

Doubt away, but I believe the part that "sickened" alarikf (and myself as well) was the part where untrained and uneducated individuals attempt to dominate debate on the issue, on either side. Meaning both the people predicting the end of the world because of global warming, AND the people that are saying it has nothing to do with human impact. Both types of individuals are motivated by some kind of personal gain instead of a desire to reach the truth.

I'm skeptical of the hypothesis because a lot of data don't fit the model.

Good! That's what we have been trying to say. Your and Renegade's earlier posts seemed to imply an outright denial of the hypothesis, which would be wrong. You need more to deny it, but being skeptical is part of the game. As for a lot of data not fitting the models, sounds like you've been listening to a bit too much talk radio; it's fairly common there to take something like the "hockey stick graph" and therefore conclude that all the data in all studies are just like it. That is not the case, since I agree that that particular graph is wrong, but do not agree that it in any way disproves anthropogenic global warming.

We don't. As I pointed out in an earlier post, even direct historical measurements are uncertain due to location, changes in location, lack of coverage (especially the oceans), changes in instrumentation, land use changes, etc. etc. Note also that satellite and balloon measurements show less warming than ground stations.

I'm sorry, but we do. There are countless records dating back to the late 1800s that are very accurate in terms of temperature, specific location, and specific time. Go to any small-town historical society, and you can probably take a look at a general store owner's log book, that will contain things like how many bags of flour Mrs. Wilson bought on a particular day, a letter came in for Mr. Smith, and what the temperature reading off the thermometer on the front porch was. Also, your "confusing precision with accuracy" statement is a non sequitur, since the words are synonyms for the same thing... We have time and location data to go along with the recorded temperatures, over a fairly wide area; what more do you want? Sure, there isn't data for oceans etc, but that is not needed for looking at trends in the data. In this case, having data for a single location over a long period is much more enlightening than having data coverage for all locations at any one particular time.

Correlation is not causation. And as Gozra pointed out, it's an open question whether carbon dioxide changes preceded or actually followed temperature shifts. (All this assumes, of course, that ancient ice bubbles are as pristine as paleoclimatologists like to believe -- more uncertainty.)

Correct, correlated data does not imply causation. It suggests causation, in one direction or the other. And yes, it could be that increased temperatures somehow causes more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere, but the problem is that does not make any sense. The other problem is that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas identified in the theory, so showing that in some cases the curve of carbon dioxide concentration follows after the curve in temperature is insufficient to show that carbon dioxide has no effect. You must also take into account dihydrogen monoxide gas, methane, fluorocarbons, sulfur compunds, etc. For all you know, there could be a spike in other gasses that resulted in the temperature spike, and as those subsided, CO2 rose up, and your anomaly is debunked.

And you joke about medieval SUVs, presumably as part of the argument of "hey, there have been lots of temperature fluctuations in the past, and we had nothing to do with it". We aren't denying that there are "natural" processes at work here (meaning processes that we do not control). What we are saying is that there appears to be some effect that humans have on these natural processes, and you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation.

I mentioned dihydrogen monoxide gas earlier... this site linky is a good example of how scientific data can be mischaracterized in the hands amateurs. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover exactly what this dangerous chemical is

[Hunpecked]

From Will:

"Doubt away, but I believe the part that "sickened" alarikf (and myself as well) was the part where untrained and uneducated individuals attempt to dominate debate on the issue, on either side."

Um, the "sickened" bit was the prelude to "There is NO debate on global warming", "You're...helping to doom the planet with shortsighted biases", "the future of the entire planet", and "I can understand why people don't want to pay a bit more in taxes to save the planet". It was pretty obvious that alarikf had bought into the Doomsday scenarios (note "doom the planet" above) and he was specifically irked at climate skeptics. His later posts have been more moderate, but alarikf's first post to this thread made a lasting impression.

"As for a lot of data not fitting the models, sounds like you've been listening to a bit too much talk radio"

No, I've been reading up on science, for example the bit about "dihydrogen monoxide" being the principal infrared-absorbing gas (please, not "greenhouse" gas), and the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide largely overlapping that of water vapor. As a professional programmer I know that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, no more, no less ("Surprise! Our model shows man-made global warming, just like we predicted!"). My brother the geologist and fellow "climate skeptic" has been very helpful with ice core data.

On the other hand alarikf seems to have been listening to Al Gore.

With regard to uncertainty in temperature records, Will's "general store" is a perfect example. What brand of thermometer was it? Was it calibrated? Was it in the shade? Did it get rained on? Was it close enough to the side of the store that it was warmed slightly by the coal stove in winter? Did it have gradations for every degree? Every two degrees? Was it read at the exact same time every day? Was it always read by only the store owner? Was he nearsighted? When the original thermometer was replaced in 1902, how closely did the new thermometer match the old? Was the store in the woods? In town? Surrounded by wheat fields? Near a big lake? When the store was torn down in 1935 and city hall did the temp records, how did that affect the readings? What about when the new airport (30 miles from the old general store) took over in 1962?

Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here!

"Also, your "confusing precision with accuracy" statement is a non sequitur, since the words are synonyms for the same thing"

[counts to ten] No, children, they're not. Example: That state-of-the-art Acme thermometer over there, the one that measures temps to three decimal places? Well, it's in an ice water bath and it reads 5.142 decrees Celsius. It's very precise (three decimal places!), but not accurate (it should read zero).

"...it could be that increased temperatures somehow causes more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere, but the problem is that does not make any sense."

Actually, as Gozra pointed out, it does; melting tundra, bogs, and such.

"...you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."

No, as long AGW enthusiasts fail to demonstrate a causal relationship, climate skeptics only have to point out holes in the hypothesis. And for catastrophic AGW, the bar is even higher. And as for the hypothesis that the earth's climate can be predictably adjusted by "tuning" one variable (i.e. carbon dioxide), the bar is higher yet.

Will, why does your linky point to a dental HMO?