Is global warming real?

[T2 Ernie]

Muddy - the inability to test your hypothesis probably has as much to do with plate tectonics as it does with global warming. But global warming from an ice age...

I prefer to use hypothesis as a derogatory term for bogus science. Like global warming. You say it's been "tested and proven", I refer you back to the voluminous data and the ability to make numbers say any darn thing you want.

Global Warming is a political buzzword. If you want to talk about climate fluctuations, we can discuss the theory that it is warming or cooling.

Make no mistake, I am arguing semantics - my own personal semantics - that "global warming" is not a theory, it is a political entity, therefore, it cannot be a theory based on usage.


Ernie the obtuse

EDIT: For grins, I referred to a much more respectable source than wiki, I used Merriam-Webster - you know, that place that defines what words actually mean - they do make a distinction between hypothesis & theory similar to yours, Muddy, however, they also list each as a synonym for the other!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

[k5083]

Nobody in this thread has defined theory and hypothesis correctly yet, nor does Merriam-Webster. In science, theory and hypothesis differ primarily in scope. A hypothesis in science is a statement about the world which, contrary to Muddyboots's definition, is empirically testable. In fact, just about all that empirical scientific research does is test hypotheses. Theory and hypothesis do not carry different connotations of credibility or level of empirical support. They are simply different levels in the reasoning chain. Theories are broad explanatory constructions and are generally not tested directly; instead, relatively narrow factual hypotheses are derived from them which seem likely to be true if the theoretical explanation is true and false if it is not. Testing of the hypothesis then provides evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence, for or against the theory. Hypotheses that have been tested repeatedly by a variety of researchers and always come out the same way eventually are accorded the status of fact.

Example:

Theory: The warming of the Earth is caused at least partly by human industrial activity. (This is a very crude and simple theory, and science would demand a great deal more elaboration of the causal mechanism, but it will do for purposes of an example.)

Hypothesis: The average temperature of the Earth's oceans has increased more rapidly since the advent of widespread industrialization in the past 150 years than it did in the 150 years prior to that.

The hypothesis is in principle, and perhaps in practice, testable. If it cannot be tested with available data then it is not a useful hypothesis and will be discarded. If it can be tested, the results inform our thinking about whether the theory is true.

"Global warming" is not a theory nor a hypothesis, it is a buzzword. Everybody means a different thing by it. There are a variety of legitimate theories about global warming, and those theories are generating hypotheses and those hypotheses are being tested. My opinion about the results of those tests has no value to anyone and so I will not bother to express it.

August

[rwdfresno]

The hypothesis was that the water would be warming as a result of global warming. They then tested it, and the results did not meet the hypothesis. I never commented regarding global warming as a theory, hypothesis, etc.

Last edited by rwdfresno on Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

[T2 Ernie]

k5083, are those "definitions" your theory, or hypothesis on what the words themselves me?

I mean, can we test that that's what they mean? Can you prove it empirically?

[muddyboots]

Nobody in this thread has defined theory and hypothesis correctly yet, nor does Merriam-Webster. In science, theory and hypothesis differ primarily in scope. A hypothesis in science is a statement about the world which, contrary to Muddyboots's definition, is empirically testable. In fact, just about all that empirical scientific research does is test hypotheses. Theory and hypothesis do not carry different connotations of credibility or level of empirical support. They are simply different levels in the reasoning chain. Theories are broad explanatory constructions and are generally not tested directly; instead, relatively narrow factual hypotheses are derived from them which seem likely to be true if the theoretical explanation is true and false if it is not. Testing of the hypothesis then provides evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence, for or against the theory. Hypotheses that have been tested repeatedly by a variety of researchers and always come out the same way eventually are accorded the status of fact.

Example:

Theory: The warming of the Earth is caused at least partly by human industrial activity. (This is a very crude and simple theory, and science would demand a great deal more elaboration of the causal mechanism, but it will do for purposes of an example.)

Hypothesis: The average temperature of the Earth's oceans has increased more rapidly since the advent of widespread industrialization in the past 150 years than it did in the 150 years prior to that.

The hypothesis is in principle, and perhaps in practice, testable. If it cannot be tested with available data then it is not a useful hypothesis and will be discarded. If it can be tested, the results inform our thinking about whether the theory is true.

"Global warming" is not a theory nor a hypothesis, it is a buzzword. Everybody means a different thing by it. There are a variety of legitimate theories about global warming, and those theories are generating hypotheses and those hypotheses are being tested. My opinion about the results of those tests has no value to anyone and so I will not bother to express it.

August

Erm...Have I mistyped something somewhere? I thought I had repeatedly stated that a hypothesis is simply an idea which must be testable by some scientifically measurable means. Perhaps you misread? Or perhaps I mistyped ( i think in my original post I gave an unclear inpression which I later tried to correct). My point was, however, that once a hypothesis has been tested it ceases to be a hypothesis--it is either validated to some extent and therefore a theory (however shaky) or a discarded hypothesis.
A theory does not need to be a group of data, it can be as simple as this:

I hypothesise that if I shoot a bullet at a bee hive it will piss the bees off.

How do I test it? Well, I can think of a dozen ways offhand that will allow me to test my hypothesis. Simplest way I suppose, is to shoot the beehive. That means my hypothesis is verifiable. Doesn't make it a theory yet, as I haven't tested it.

However, If I go shoot it, and the bees come out, my hypothesis has been upgraded to theory. In theory, every time I shoot a beehive the bees will come out. In practice this probably won't happen, but it makes my theory no less a theory. It simply needs the fiddly edges worked on. If it is cold out will bees come out? If I smoke the beehive will they come out? If I hide it inside Jack Cook's pickup and THEN shoot it, will Jack come out? (just teasing, Jack)

There are a number of things which may confuse watchers, but the basic theory will stand until it has been flat out shown to be wrong or in need of corrections. My Theory of Bullet impacted Bee Aggression will be nitpicked and bellowed at by every yahoo, nabob and grandee in the known universe until the only people who DISbelieve are the flat earthers, nature hating cadillac drivers, and a few fanatical Catholics who think it implies the fallibility of the Pope. But it will still be a theory, until I can prove it is right 100% of the time. (then it's a law)

The theory of global warming is indeed a theory. It is in fact a series of theories which have been strung together, along with a lot of emperical evidence, and possibly bailing wire. But it IS a theory. The bees do indeed come out. That sometimes they do not is likely due to lack of roper testing, lack of background knowledge, and a lack of bailing wire. But with enough testing, and fiddling with the parameters, eventually the theory we call global warming will either be dropped or amended until it is actually a workable theory, or a law (highly doubtful)

August, in commonly accepted parlance, global warming is indeed a theory. It is the idea that the Earth's temperature is warming, that mankind has caused much it, and that its effects will be bad for mankind in general. That you don't particularly liek the common name hung on it by the media doesn't mean the name hasn't stuck to the theory, it just means you don't like the name they chose. Pick you own, it's a free country (except in Nevada and parts of California)

[Jet Mech]

Our local weatherman (Gary England) showed the other day that they had track deep water tempature in the oceans, and in 5 years there has been no warming.

I agree, the earth does things on its own over a long slow process. We humans can only talk about what we don't know about, and some talk so good about what others think they get nice reward and awards for talking about nothing, which is why I am typing, as I know only basics, and

Global Warming is a political issue not scientific!

Kurt, and thats my 2 cents worth!

[k5083]

Muddyboots, it seems I misread your post to some extent (although no matter how many times I reread it I'm still apparently misreading), because I understood you to say that a hypothesis by definition cannot be tested. The opposite is of course true. But a hypothesis does not cease to be a hypothesis merely because it has been tested. Science rarely considers the matter settled when a hypothesis has been tested once, or even several times. It has to come out the same way consistently to grow up to be something else, generally either a fact or a discredited hypothesis.

A hypothesis never, however, becomes a theory. They are just different things, pitched at different levels; neither can become the other. A theory is a broad causal explanation or model that is used to explain observed phenomena. It is that from birth, before any testing. A hypothesis is narrower, more operational, generally (though not always) non-causal in nature, and capable of direct falsification. Almost all hypotheses can be expressed fully in one or a few sentences; a theory takes at least several pages, more often a whole book, to set forth fully.

Scientific "laws" are a different thing altogether, they are not just well-supported theories. They are relatively simple statements of relationships that are applicable at all times and places throughout the universe, like Kepler's laws of planetary motion. A theory about whether the Earth is getting warmer at the moment is not a candidate to become a law.

August, in commonly accepted parlance, global warming is indeed a theory. It is the idea that the Earth's temperature is warming, that mankind has caused much it, and that its effects will be bad for mankind in general. That you don't particularly liek the common name hung on it by the media doesn't mean the name hasn't stuck to the theory, it just means you don't like the name they chose. Pick you own, it's a free country (except in Nevada and parts of California)

The definition you propose above is not commonly accepted parlance. If everyone meant that by "global warming" we could agree that it is a theory. But they do not. It is a highly politicized term with many meanings. That was T2 Ernie's point and he is correct.

August

[muddyboots]

no no. I am definitelky NOT trying to say that lol! A hypothesis has to be testable to be of any use. I think we are saying the same thing there, I'm just not as adept at explaining it as you are

As for Global Warming...Darwin did not use the term Evolution. He called it "the Origin of the Species," Others picked up on the term and made it famous. right? Same thing imho. Global Warming is in fact a fairly broad subject which can and does contradict itself, and has large gaps which don't seem to fit. But in general, if you mention global warming, laypeople and scientists will know what you are talking about. If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, in general if you call it a duck, then people will get what you mean. Until you come up with an easier way to describe the theory in all its aspects, I'll stick with GW if only for the simpicity of the term.

And back to laws...I have always been amused by their simplicity. There are several evolutionary laws which, when explained, fill volumes. But they are almost always things which support the theory of evolution. I never really noticed just how complex the relationships between the three terms really are. You barstard! You've dragged me back to class even now! lol!

[T2 Ernie]

But in general, if you mention global warming, laypeople and scientists will know what you are talking about. If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, in general if you call it a duck, then people will get what you mean.

That's called a buzzword in my vernacular.

Until you come up with an easier way to describe the theory in all its aspects, I'll stick with GW if only for the simpicity of the term.

And I'll call you alarmist. The term global warming has taken on its own meaning - mainly political & meant to elicit a specific response.

...which it seems to have done in this thread!

[Pat Carry]

Well, we have had 85" of snow here at the Wisconsin/Illinois border and March so far is something like the 15th coldest March recorded so my answer has to be, global warming may exist somewhere but definately not here!

[bdk]

Bad humans! They just kill everything off... If only the enlightened few could have made them all be vegans this never would have happened!

Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com
Tue Apr 1, 1:15 PM ET

Humans may have struck the final blow that killed the woolly-mammoth, but climate change seems to have played a major part in setting up the end-game, according to a new study.

Though mammoth populations declined severely around 12,000 years ago, they didn't completely disappear until around 3,600 years ago. Scientists have long debated what finally drove the furry beasts over the edge. Researchers led by David Nogues-Bravo of the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Spain used models of the climate, as well as models of woolly-mammoth and human populations, to study the relative importance of various factors leading to the mammals' demise.

The team found that the brunt of the damage done to mammoths was due to Earth's warming weather around 8,000 to 6,000 years ago. Since Earth was coming out of a glacial period at that time, temperatures were climbing and recasting the planet's landscape, and the mammoth's preferred habitat, steppe tundra, was vastly reduced.

The researchers calculated the temperature window in which mammoths can survive by matching known fossil specimens with climate models. They determined the temperature at the time each mammoth specimen lived and combined the data to get an overall picture of the animals' preferred climate range.

The team found that by 6,000 years ago, mammoths were relegated to 10 percent of the habitat that had previously been available to them 42,000 years ago when the glaciers were at their largest size and greatest extent.

But climate doesn't seem to explain the entirety of the mammoth's extinction. These hardy animals had survived, barely, a previous interglacial period of planet warming around 126,000 years ago. Scientists have found some fossil bones from this time, so climate change didn't completely knock out mammoths then.

One difference between that first interglacial period and the second one during which they actually died off was the presence of humans. Around 6,000 years ago when the climate warmed in North Eurasia where mammoths lived, our ancestors were able to move in to the region. Once there, they might have hunted the already weakened population of mammoths to oblivion.

"During the [earlier] interglacial period, climates were fairly warm, so why didn't [mammoths] go extinct then?" said Persaram Batra, a climate modeler at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, who worked on the study. "It could be because humans weren't there. Mammoth populations were so sparse, that if there had been humans, maybe they would have gone extinct."

The researchers calculated that by 6,000 years ago, an optimistic estimate of mammoth numbers would mean humans would only have to kill one mammoth each, every three years, to push the species over the brink. A more pessimistic calculation figures that even if one mammoth per human were killed every 200 years, they would still die off.

"This paper argues that climate change would have reduced the size of the habitat for the mammoths to the point where hunting could have extinguished them," Batra told LiveScience. "We're arguing that it's sort of a combination. Climate change probably didn't do it completely, but it made their life so precarious that humans could come in and kill them off."

[bdk]

As we know, the debate is over, so why do scientists persist in studying this topic?

Doubt Thrown on Global Warming-Hurricane Link
A Prominent Storm Expert Changes His Tune

By Dan Shapley

Hurricanes are unlikely to become more frequent as the world warms, according to a new analysis by a scientists who until now had supported a link between global warming and tropical cyclone activity. But they may still become more intense.

"The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week," according to a report in the Houston Chronicle. "The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries."

2007 saw fewer hurricanes than expected, though there were several rapidly-intensifying cyclones in the Atlantic basin. The early prediction for 2008 is for an above-average year filled with frequent storms and several intense hurricanes.

The art of hurricane prediction, even just a few weeks ahead of a season, is young. Scientists readily acknowledge that the list of unknown influences on hurricane activity is likely to be long.

As the Chronicle put it:

"Scientists wrangling with the hurricane-global warming question have faced two primary difficulties. The first is that the hurricane record before 1970 is not entirely reliable, making it nearly impossible to assess with precision whether hurricane activity has increased during the last century. The second problem comes through the use of computer models to predict hurricane activity. Most climate models, which simulate global atmospheric conditions for centuries to come, cannot detect individual tropical systems."

[bdk]

It's OK to be a hypocrite as long as you spread the word about "the right thing" to do:

June 21, 2008

Smokestack Al

Environmentalists are constantly telling us that major reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions can be made fairly painlessly, so the case of one former Vice President is instructive.


Al Gore made headlines last year when the Tennessee Center for Policy Research disclosed just how much energy the "Inconvenient Truth" auteur consumes in his giant new palace in the Nashville suburbs. Mr. Gore responded at the time by assuring the public that he was purchasing "offsets" to make up for his energy-guzzling ways.

Well, this week the Tennessee Center's Drew Johnson checked in on Mr. Gore again. And despite an alleged program of greenification – including geothermal systems, solar panels and lots and lots of nifty compact fluorescent bulbs – Mr. Gore's electricity use from the grid was up 10% in 2007 compared to the year before. At this rate, he'll never hit his Kyoto targets. His Tennessee home currently eats up 17,768 kilowatt-hours of electricity every month – about 50% more electricity than the average household consumes in an entire year. That's one inconvenient carbon footprint.

[muddyboots]

I notice there have been no posts since the administration finally admitted there is actually global warming...How about it folks?

[richkolasa]

Of COURSE Global Warming is real. DUH! We had an ice age thousands of years ago, and now it's 100 degrees fahrenheit in places, thus the globe has WARMED.

See, that was so simple.

And no, I don't think we should pollute needlessly, but the Government is just using this as a power-grab.

Rich