Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Climate Change & The Environment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Climate Change & The Environment Discuss 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years at the General Discussion; There's no difference between science and scientific theory. A scientific theory is not "just theory". I think this is a ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2012, 11:57 AM
Infidel Dog's Avatar
The New Cool
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,690
Thanks: 744
Thanked 2,109 Times in 1,477 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
There's no difference between science and scientific theory. A scientific theory is not "just theory". I think this is a common misconception when people discuss science. As Wikipedia explains it:

Quote:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]
Oh really? "People" don't understand that you say. Well, here's something you don't appear to understand according to your own Wikipedia definition there, Professor.

According to your definition Human Caused Global Warming in the globally catastrophic way it is most often implied is not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

Wanna know why? It's that inconvenient word - "falsifiable.

Prove me wrong. Tell me what would falsify the Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming hypothesis. Ten years of no warming? Fifteen? It's happened and it didn't work. Twenty then? Thirty? No. They'd just move the goal posts, as they always do every time a tenet of the hypothesis such as climate fingerprints, or proposed essential warming at both poles, or faulty models are shown to be false. If you can't falsify it, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

That's if you want to get technical. Are you sure you want to do that?

Last edited by Infidel Dog; 07-27-2012 at 12:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:07 PM
Coyote's Avatar
Vole deMorte (the snack)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14,492
Thanks: 11,549
Thanked 8,279 Times in 5,306 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
But there's the thing. When you say "Pop media" you're talking about these science by press release claims such as you see in the OP, and also in the quote above. You don't realize that of course, but that's what anybody who knows this issue from both sides hears when you say that.
No. I'm talking about what the popular media chooses to emphasis and put into print. Are you pretending you know the issue from both sides?

Quote:
I think the one in your OP about the "massive" two weeks of warming in Greenland originated from this veterinarian turned "climate scientist" who now works massaging the message from NASA. I heard that somewhere. NASA itself is no longer the leader in space and other technologies many still think of it as. More and more it's purpose is becoming creating a message from political overlords for the masses.
Oh brother...

I'm guessing you aren't happy with NASA's data since it doesn't support your view so you need to find a way to discount it.

Quote:
The climate modeler in your quote is just a climate modeler. He's a nintendo scientist. Need a new hypothesis to explain why the last one was crap? No problem he'll "model" you one on his computer.

There are many scientists on both sides contradicting what each other say. Nothing is written is stone.
There very few scientists contradicting the basic theory that human activities influence climate change.

Quote:
However this remains true. None of these weather, or even climate disruptions are unprecedented. This includes the thirty year trend of rise in temps the nintendo scientist is talking about in your quote above, which was actually nothing more than a global temperature spike from 1978 to 1998 leading to a peak over a larger hundreds of years trend beginning after a warming from a long period of cooling called the little ice age.
Over the last 15 years CO2 rises dramatically, yet global climate is not getting warmer. It remains statistically static. That's not supposed to happen. No problem for the nintendo guys though, they'll just write another model, and create another hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

Again - global climate is effected by more than just CO2 as was pointed out in the article explaining why some areas get colder. It also takes time for small temperature changes to have effect when you consider there are so many variables. According to NOAA, the average increase over all land and ocean surfaces,is roughly 1.33F over the last century. That can be enough to make the difference between freezing and thawing especially when you consider there are likely to be stronger regional variations.

And yes, as new data becomes available I would hope they would create or modify their hypothesis and theories - that's the nature of science. The only thing skeptics have been able to offer is "holes" in theory - it doesn't explain this, or why doesn't this detail behave that way? They offer little the way of actual research proving a theory wrong or offering alternatives.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:32 PM
Infidel Dog's Avatar
The New Cool
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,690
Thanks: 744
Thanked 2,109 Times in 1,477 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post

Oh brother...

I'm guessing you aren't happy with NASA's data since it doesn't support your view so you need to find a way to discount it.
Only a moron would be happy with stuff like thrice arrested activist, and NASA/GISS head James Hansen's temperature record massaging, and laughable, proven incorrect predictions, or Obama's use of NASA to congratulate Muslims on their non-existent scientific contributions to it, or the steadily more obvious use of it's websites for Progaganda



Quote:
There very few scientists contradicting the basic theory that human activities influence climate change.
There are thousands who disagree with different sections of the Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming hypothesis according to stuff like the Oregon petition. If you disagree with that one Morano has a list of links to over a thousand offering disagreements. If you disagree with that one, I'll still say many. Prove me wrong. Even if you could (and you can't), science is not a measure of who's political party can organize the most scientists. It's about the facts. If you have those produce them. I've yet to see more than controversial claims of facts.

BTW you do not have to disagree with the idea humans can influence climate to disagree with the idea of Catastrophic human caused global warming. That's another reason they want to change the name all the time.


Quote:
Again - global climate is effected by more than just CO2 as was pointed out in the article explaining why some areas get colder. It also takes time for small temperature changes to have effect when you consider there are so many variables. According to NOAA, the average increase over all land and ocean surfaces,is roughly 1.33F over the last century. That can be enough to make the difference between freezing and thawing especially when you consider there are likely to be stronger regional variations.
The article explained nothing. It only offered another hypothesis, to excuse a previously failed one.

.07 degrees celsius of warming in not unheard of, and man survives. Actually he thrives. Historically climate warms and cools. It got warmer following the little ice age. At present it appears to have peaked. To get to the catastrophic levels of warming you have to postulate another hypothesis of positive feedback (look it up) - something rarely seen in the natural world, and something there is no hard, data-based, evidence of in climate.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:33 PM
Coyote's Avatar
Vole deMorte (the snack)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14,492
Thanks: 11,549
Thanked 8,279 Times in 5,306 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
Oh really? "People" don't understand that you say. Well, here's something you don't appear to understand according to your own Wikipedia definition there, Professor.
No. I didn't say that. The question originally asked was why aren't cooling events reported in the media. You - yourself - are a frequent enough critic of the media when they sensationalize and distort YOUR pet peeves yet you stop short when it happens with climate change?

Quote:
According to your definition Human Caused Global Warming in the globally catastrophic way it is most often implied is not a theory. It's a hypothesis.
Woah - back up a moment buckaroo and quit putting words in my mouth (yes, I realize it's your favorite tactic).

I'm not talking about a theory of "global catastrophy". That is projecting into the future and there may not be enough data to be that accurate. Global change? Likely. Catastrophe for some areas? Likely. For example rising sea-levels drowning low lying areas. (which by the way was one of the conerns from the OP and what I specifically commented on).

When I'm talking about a climate change as a theory - it is that human activity is affecting global climate.

Quote:
Wanna know why? It's that inconvenient word - "falsifiable.

Prove me wrong. Tell me what would falsify the Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming hypothesis. Ten years of no warming? Fifteen? It's happened and it didn't work. Twenty then? Thirty? No. They'd just move the goal posts, as they always do every time a tenet of the hypothesis such as climate fingerprints, or proposed essential warming at both poles, or faulty models are shown to be false. If you can't falsify it, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.
To show it could be "falsifiable" is not a matter of proving it false. It is whether we can imagine some phenomenon that would disprove the hypothesis.

Falsifiability says nothing of whether the hypothesis is actually false. Asking the question about whether or not a hypothesis is falsifiable is nothing more than determining whether that hypothesis is a question for which science can offer any answer at all by methods of scientific inquiry.

So...let's look at the theory that human activities are effecting global climate. How would I go about disproving it? I could observe one defined geographical area and see whether human activity has impacted that region and compare it to historical data. I'm not a climate scientist and don't pretend to be.


Quote:
That's if you want to get technical. Are you sure you want to do that?
What ever you want.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:48 PM
Coyote's Avatar
Vole deMorte (the snack)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14,492
Thanks: 11,549
Thanked 8,279 Times in 5,306 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
Only a moron would be happy with stuff like thrice arrested activist, and NASA/GISS head James Hansen's temperature record massaging, and laughable, proven incorrect predictions, or Obama's use of NASA to congratulate Muslims on their non-existent scientific contributions to it, or the steadily more obvious use of it's websites for Progaganda
Only a moron employs such fallacious tactics as red herrings and poisoning the well.

Quote:
There very few scientists contradicting the basic theory that human activities influence climate change.

There are thousands who disagree with different sections of the Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming hypothesis according to stuff like the Oregon petition. If you disagree with that one Morano has a list of links to over a thousand offering disagreements. If you disagree with that one, I'll still say many. Prove me wrong. Even if you could (and you can't), science is not a measure of who's political party can organize the most scientists. It's about the facts. If you have those produce them. I've yet to see more than controversial claims of facts.
That's kind of funny the way you put it. They disagree with different sections - in other words, I suspect for many - they disagree with certain details. That's no surprise. Very few disagree with theory that human activities are causing climate change. The disagreement is largely to what extent it will effect us on a global level.

Quote:
BTW you do not have to disagree with the idea humans can influence climate to disagree with the idea of Catastrophic human caused global warming. That's another reason they want to change the name all the time.
I'm not arguing for or against a "catastrophic" version of the theory - my argument has been that human activity is causing climate change.

The idea of whether or not it is catastrophic is open to debate because there are many factors and variables from weather pattern changes and sea level rising to such seemingly minute things as a few degrees of temperature change allowing an insect that might normally die down in the winter to survive in greater numbers and decimate huge tracts of forest or new disease vectors emerging in areas that they hadn't previously inhabited. What is "catastrophic" is hard to be sure of and what might be catastrophic in one region might be good in another (warm weather opening up longer growing seasons in certain latitudes for example).

Quote:
The article explained nothing. It only offered another hypothesis, to excuse a previously failed one.

.07 degrees celsius of warming in not unheard of, and man survives. Actually he thrives. Historically climate warms and cools. It got warmer following the little ice age. At present it appears to have peaked. To get to the catastrophic levels of warming you have to postulate another hypothesis of positive feedback (look it up) - something rarely seen in the natural world, and something there is no hard, data-based, evidence of in climate.
Humans survive. But - thriving depends on where you are. The "Little Iceage" is not a conclusively documented event and the so-called warming that followed (if you mean the Medievil Warming Period)as a global event is also poorly supported by evidence or through misinterpretation of the available evidence.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:06 PM
Infidel Dog's Avatar
The New Cool
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,690
Thanks: 744
Thanked 2,109 Times in 1,477 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
To show it could be "falsifiable" is not a matter of proving it false. It is whether we can imagine some phenomenon that would disprove the hypothesis.

Falsifiability says nothing of whether the hypothesis is actually false. Asking the question about whether or not a hypothesis is falsifiable is nothing more than determining whether that hypothesis is a question for which science can offer any answer at all by methods of scientific inquiry.

So...let's look at the theory that human activities are effecting global climate. How would I go about disproving it? I could observe one defined geographical area and see whether human activity has impacted that region and compare it to historical data. I'm not a climate scientist and don't pretend to be.
Human activities do affect climate, at least as you say regionally. It's measurable, predictable, and falsifiable in stuff like the urban heat island effect. It meets the criteria of the scientific method.

To the extent it can be measured there's no worry of global catastrophe. Human influence can warm slightly with added greenhouse gas, or cool with particles causing sun blockage. You can measure the effects. Some of it qualifies as actual pollution, and should be dealt with.

However without a postulation of catastrophe it's little more than interesting phenomena requiring study. We should maybe be shaking our fingers a bit at the Chinese and Indians over the pollution thing - smog clouds and such. If you are not postulating global catastrophe from non-pollutants like CO2 though, then what's the problem? There is nothing requiring the massive outflows of cash, or changing of political structures proposed by the proponents of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis, or it's descendants (ie. climate disruption).
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 08-01-2012, 04:04 PM
mlurp's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flatlands
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,487
Thanks: 19,199
Thanked 10,923 Times in 8,519 Posts
Default Re: 'Heat Dome' Linked To Greenland's Biggest Melt In 30 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
Senate Plans Two Symbolic Votes On Taxes That Won't Change Anything : The Two-Way : NPR





A lot of ice melting in a very short amount of time .....
So someone else is saying the same thing as me, great!
__________________


Improvise - Adapt - Over Come...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mlurp For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
biggest, dome, greenland, heat, linked, melt, years

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0