Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Thank God for GW

by five you must mean the half million or so who marched in new york city feb 15th 2003. (or the million in london or 100,000 in dublin etc etc)

revisionist history

Experts: Cold, yes, but earth still warming i know this won't convince ma rep, but here you go.

Scientific hypothesis are not proved or disproved by elaborate models. Any weakness of the models has no bearing on the validity of the hypothesis. The only role of these models is to try to estimate the likely impact of the anticipated atmospheric changes.

The effort to model future climate change will inherently be subject to a large degree of variation and uncertainty in the best case.

How do scientists prove or disprove hypothesis? Any suggestions?

Ardy, I believe that when calculations and results support observations and studies then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Things like the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution or Einstein's Theory of Relativity are pretty much impossible to disprove. None of these really required computer models.

Hypotheses are proved or disproved by repeating the experiment. If others, beyond the original researches can duplicated the experiment, then the hypothesis is true.

If the experiment can't be duplicated, the hypothesis is false.


By others trying to duplicate the experiment such findings are eventually proven or disproven.

I forgot to mention, the above are the steps to the scientific method.

There are two types of experiments. The first is to prove a known fact and the second is to prove an assumption, ie, hypothesis. When trying to prove a known fact the answer is already known, so the focus of the experiment is more schematic. What steps were used, in what order, using what data.

The second type of experiment is for more difficult to successfully preform. The basis for the expeiment is that the assumption that you have made is in fact valid. The experiment is then designed around proving your hypothesis. The secret to successfully proving an unknown is to accumulate the correct data set and apply that data in a way that proves your thesis. The problem with any experiment of this type is that the person preforming the experiment tends to have tunnel vision, hence the need for peer review.

1) Outline your experiment, provide the purpose, a description of the procedures and the expected result.
2) Design your experiment, step by step. In this procedure you explain your processes, explain your external data collection processes, list any specialized tools required to complete your experiment.
3) Spend days, or years, collecting data, modifying your procedure if necessary and building your results to prove your assumption. Each step has to be documented and in many cases, whitnessed.
4) Publish your results - it can be published within your company, or published in a professional publication, but either way peer review is cyclical. First at the preliminary review, then at a critical review, then when published for outside review.
4)After all of your testing is completed, and your procedures and results are made public, others who are not closely associated to your project have their turn at tearing your heart out.

I have been through this process many times. There is no more humbling experience than having your project torn apart by people who have no idea what you went through to reach your conclusion. In the end, your concept is either accepted or refuted. Honesty forces you to accept the idea of eventual failure, professionalism forces you to fight for perfection.

If it sounds kind of harsh, it is. However, there is no more staisfying moment in time when somebody pats you on the back and tells you "Good job!".

Unlike some other things, climate change is either going to happen or it's not. Either the North Pole will become an Ice Free open ocean or it wont. Sea levels will rise or they wont. If climate change effects the Gulf Stream that keeps the United Kingdom warm then the Polar Bears can be hauled over there because it will be too cold for anyone but them and the Scotsmen. They should get along smashingly. "Just toss him a fried Mars Bar, Angus, and he'll go away!"
There is probably little or nothing we will be able to do about it one way or the other. Perhaps millions will die, what of it? There are way too many of us anyway. Perhaps we will continue in our current self destructive path and the climate will remain exactly the same. Millions will probably die anyway once we've sucked everything the planet has to offer from it to feed the teeming billions of souls who will still insist on breeding when there is no hope of feeding their offspring, much less sending them to college or getting them a decent car.
Mostly we need to get on with our lives as best we can and let the Scientists continue to make the observations and do the experiments while we try to survive the current economic meltdown. Once that's accomplished perhaps someone will slap a scientist on the back and say "Good Job, You've proved it! We're all going to die"

Close enough Ma (and others)
The answer is that scientific theories are proved by means of h controlled experiments.

In the case of CO2 forced climate change, the controlled experiment would involve changing the atmosphere and observing the climatic result while controlling ALL other variables.

That experiment is impossible to perform. Therefore the case for co2 forced climate change can never be finally proven. What ever we climate effects that we observe could conceivably have been caused by any number of uncontrolled and uncontrollable factors.

For that reason, no one would attempt to try to "prove" the GW theory via a model of what will happen to the climate in the future. And for that reason, any weakness in that model is irrelevant to the correctness of the GW theory. No matter how faulty the science behind the models... the theory may still be correct.

The reason for having a model is to try to project the possible impacts of the hypothesis that is proposed. And if the model is incorrect, then those projections MAY be incorrect... or at least not supported by the model.

So... if the models that you refer to are wrong, then you are saying that the projections may also be wrong. But, of course even an incorrect model might accidentally yield correct results. So the incorrectness of the model does not disprove the projection. It simply removes the suggested validity of the model.

The point I am getting at is simple: Human caused climate change is inherently impossible to "prove" (or disprove) Even if one grants the GW theory is correct, there is a large degree of uncertainty regarding the climatological impact of the theory.

All of that said, it is possible to do certain controlled experiments. For instance a scientist can do controlled experiments to learn the physical characteristics of the various gasses that are part of the earth's atmosphere.

I suggest that those experiments have been done, and that scientists have explored the physical properties of the various gasses that make up the earth's atmosphere. And in the course of that study, scientists have proven that... all other variables being equal... an increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a warmer climate.

One must admit, that all other variable may not be equal. For example we may have just entered a geological cooling period. Or, it is possible that the intensity of solar radiation will change.

Never the less, all things being equal, it is possible to prove that an increase in atmospheric CO2 should increase the temperature of the climate.

Winter Was Fifth Warmest on Record

'

Well, amid all this talk of hypotheses and experiments, there are a couple of tiny FACTS! Namely:

The world has measurably warmed;

The oceans have measurably risen.