Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#987189 - 02/05/2011 21:04 Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law?
liberator Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/11/2010
Posts: 227
Loc: Kyabram
I'm curious to ask readers and posters this question, where do you see AGW, as a Hypothesis, Theory or Law? To my mind and based on the definitions below, its still a hypothesis. Computer models plugged with various data, which predict possible outcomes through our actions. Currently I do not believe there is concrete "proof" that CO2 will cause catastrophic overheating of the Earth, There are computer predicted models but is that proof? – The CO2 it may increase temps but what will the consequences be? I probably won’t be around to see the consequences of our CO2 emissions - I just hope the predicted outcomes don’t happen, I just know we need to look after Earth, after all it the only one we have and that is paramount to me and our future generations.

I like this statement:

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.



Definitions from

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

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

Top
#987196 - 02/05/2011 21:47 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: liberator]
Rorschach Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3772
Thanks Liberator... smile

A couple of weeks ago I made this post on Naz's "Developing and Understanding..." thread:
linky

where I tried to bring up the issue of inductive and deductive reasoning as applied to Climate Science. And indeed I mentioned similar examples.

Quote:
Well if you want to make this climate specific, you have to mention the role of the inductive method of forming hypothesis and Bayesian probability methods of validation

The core hypothesis of AGW/Climate Change is based on a deductive methodology – i.e. A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere (all things being the same) will lead to @1C warming. However, the argument / theory that this will result in catastrophic warming (via feedbacks / amplification) is inductive – as are of course most of the counterarguments...

...I think that the "consensus" Global Warming hypothesis is very much inductive - just look at how each pronouncement is justified by some probability statement. We also have the weakest inductive argument regularly used: "There is nothing else that can explain it... "


http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

I would also note that Judith Curry has a tremendous amount of posts on the methodology of science and how it applies to Climate Science - but in particular this post is a good read on the deduction / induction issue:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/25/the-pr...m-of-induction/
http://judithcurry.com/?s=scientific+method
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#987197 - 02/05/2011 22:06 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Rorschach]
Loopy Radar Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 837
Loc: Lismore NSW
Neither. It is political propaganda under a corporate umbrella. And absolutely nothing else. I'd stake my family and house (if I had one) on this one.
_________________________
One thing is certain with conspiracy theories and global warming. There are just as many idiots on both sides.

Top
#987207 - 02/05/2011 23:05 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Loopy Radar]
Rorschach Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3772
LOL LR

We do know that for example the late Steven Schneider considered Climate Science filled with:

Quote:
“deep uncertainties,” uncertainties in both probabilities and consequences that are not resolved today and may not be resolved to a high degree of confidence before we have to make decisions regarding how to deal with their implications


to the extent that:

Quote:
The climate change debate — particularly its policy components — falls clearly into the post-normal science characterization and will likely remain there for decades, which is the minimum amount of time it will take to resolve some of the larger remaining uncertainties surrounding it, like climate sensitivity levels and the likelihood of abrupt nonlinear events...


http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Policy/CliPolFrameset.html

Now whilst I'm relatively open-minded - I'm sorry but stuff like post-normal science is a bunch of bovine excreta... well and trully out there with most of the pseudo-sciences of note.

[Post-normal (as opposed to Kuhnian "normal") science is science where particular directions in scientific and social inquiry should be favoured because of their ostensible positive social, political, and environmental outcomes. And it goes downhill from there.]

And this is why scientists like Stephen Schneider belive that advocacy is apropriate - and acceptable, where:

Quote:
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.


I am sorry - but there is no decision to be made. To even THINK that you can be something eles other than honest is beyond the pale if you want to consider yourself a scientist. Science is about brutal honesty - and Schenider certainly has that right in the below famous quote (in red):


The Schneider quote in full otherwise I'll be pilloried :
Quote:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.


But he is way out of line for even thinking that there is a role for the second (in blue)... in whatever degree. That is not science.

And this is why "climatescience" is very often a but of jokes. And why it is failing to get its message across.

_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#987228 - 03/05/2011 07:53 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Rorschach]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations.

His research included modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and "the relationship of biological systems to global climate change." Schneider was the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers and other publications. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and was engaged as a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the time of his death. During the 1980s, Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming.
Early work

Schneider grew up in Long Island, New York. He studied engineering at Columbia University, receiving his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1966. In 1971, he earned a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and plasma physics. Schneider studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. At the start of his career he briefly put forward the proposal that the earth could be facing an ice age.


Edited by Simmosturf (03/05/2011 07:54)
Edit Reason: being bold

Top
#987233 - 03/05/2011 08:43 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Loopy Radar]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 13647
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Originally Posted By: Loopy Radar
Neither. It is political propaganda under a corporate umbrella. And absolutely nothing else. I'd stake my family and house (if I had one) on this one.


My take on it exactly. It is the largest con job ever attempted with those at the core of it knowing full well that if they get get caught nothing will happen to them.
_________________________
Sept 2mm
Best Rain 18th Feb 265mm
YTD 942mm
Twitter name: Grumpy old wombat.
Dyslexics luRe! Australia's most sedentary cyclone chaser.



Top
#987237 - 03/05/2011 09:08 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Simmosturf]
Spatch Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/01/2011
Posts: 360
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations.

His research included modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and "the relationship of biological systems to global climate change." Schneider was the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers and other publications. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and was engaged as a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the time of his death. During the 1980s, Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming.
Early work

Schneider grew up in Long Island, New York. He studied engineering at Columbia University, receiving his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1966. In 1971, he earned a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and plasma physics. Schneider studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. At the start of his career he briefly put forward the proposal that the earth could be facing an ice age.


Just adding in some important parts of the bio on Stephen Schneider that you left out

In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a 1-d radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.


Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was lower than other estimates by a factor of about three, as noted in a footnote to the paper.

The story made headlines in the New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

Top
#987244 - 03/05/2011 09:41 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Spatch]
Rorschach Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3772
We're straying away from the point of the thread - which is whether AGW as per climatescience is a theory, law etc. And that's partly my fault. sorry.

But I had to bring up the points I did as calling or defining something that by it's own proponents is considered something else other than "normal" science as laws hypotheses and theories as defined by normal science is tricky.

To fully explore this we need to bring up Popper Kuhn and obviously Ravetz. We also need to look into the politically inspired IPCC and the critical role of the usually ignored UNFCC that guides the outcomes from IPCC and the literature that is commissioned and provided for it....
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#987314 - 03/05/2011 14:18 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Rorschach]
SubtropicalCyclo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 06/03/2011
Posts: 51
Loc: QLD Australia
i Hope its true i think warmer climate will be great for me at least..

Top
#987595 - 04/05/2011 20:36 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: SubtropicalCyclo]
jocelyn Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/01/2011
Posts: 90
Great question!

AGW is a theory.
I'd say the basic theory of AGW states: burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide that traps infrared radiation in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the earth and causing sea level rise.

Based on the definition you've provided:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."
AGW does summarise a group of hypotheses that can be supported with repeated testing.

These hypotheses are:
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide - tested
Carbon Dioxide (and other GHG) trap heat radiation - tested
Trapping heat radiation increases temperature - tested
Increasing temperature causes ice to melt and water to expand - tested
Melting ice and expanding water increase volume/water levels - tested.

So AGW summarises these proven hypotheses and puts them into a global context. The AGW scenario can be tested in small scale experiments and hold true. In the global context a number of external forcing variables come into play, "climate is complex," so the predictions of the theory are not as easy to make as in a closed experimental situation. But this complexity does not mean the laws of chemistry and physics cease to exist - the theory will hold, but the exact magnitude of it's effect may be increased or decreased by other factors.

"A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. "
There is evidence of increasing use of fossil fuel, increasing carbon dioxide concentrations, increasing global temperatures and increasing ice melting. If a scientist came up with evidence to dispute the theory, then it would be disproven, as plenty of scientific theories have been before. smile It's the way science works. Alternatively, another theory could be proposed that explains the observations more effectively, but so far this hasn't happened.

It is interesting to note that AGW is widely criticised by the general population for its lack of certainty and correction of elements as better information is discovered, something seen as a positive for a scientific theory.
"Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if -It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
AGW perhaps best fits into the "theory" schema under the concept of "theory as model."

****
DISCLAIMER for the easily excited: This section looks at SIMILARITIES between two theories. This does not mean that I am implying they are EXACTLY THE SAME.
****

As a thought experiment, I'd say in many ways AGW shares a lot of similar features with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Both theories:
-have evidence made up of changes impossible to observe on a daily/immediate basis,
-are forced to infer evidence from the distant past,
-can only make predictions about what will be seen in the fairly distant future,
-are complicated by external and uncontrollable variables
-upset the status quo of the population,
-are massive topics of public debate...

I'm pretty sure there never was a "hypothesis of evolution" because it's not something you can test neatly with an experiment due to the length of the timescales involved. However, when broken down into it's component hypotheses, the factors involved in the theory of evolution can be tested. Because they involve long time scales in their very existence, it is unlikely either will ever become "laws."
(And of course there are those that argue neither evolution or AGW exist at all.)

Top
#987602 - 04/05/2011 21:54 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: jocelyn]
Rorschach Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3772
Jocelyn, first google Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. This is the basis of science.

You will then immediately realize what is wrong with this statement:
Quote:
So AGW summarises these proven hypotheses


I repeat - there is no such thing as a "proven" hypothesis.

To your points:
Quote:
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide - tested
Carbon Dioxide (and other GHG) trap heat radiation - tested
Trapping heat radiation increases temperature - tested
Increasing temperature causes ice to melt and water to expand - tested
Melting ice and expanding water increase volume/water levels - tested.


Fine... Let's play and see what we can agree? OK?

I agree with it all.

This follows the Stephan Bolzmann law for radiative absorption. No dispute. So let's really take what you have logically demonstrated. A doubling of CO2 will lead to about a degree C increase in global temps. The increase is logaritmic - such that each doubling is far less than the previous. (I'm on the phone so difficult to put up pretty pictures but there's ROMs post from Motl somewhere.). This means that we have had about 0.7C increase so far, and we would therefore expect about another 0.4C more to 560 ppm CO2 - by about 2100 at this rate.

All this can be shown deductively and supported by empirical observation.

Do we agree? We have "proved" that we only face less than 0.5C increase to the end of the century at our current rates of GHG emission based on current trends. Do we have a CONSENSUS?
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#995239 - 14/06/2011 08:45 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Rorschach]
jocelyn Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/01/2011
Posts: 90
I'll change it to "accepted hypothesis" or "supported hypothesis" if it makes you happier.

But it doesn't change the fact that AGW is an accepted scientific theory. Those who want to fight against it's validity are playing the same game as those who continue to disbelieve the theory of evolution.

I wouldn't agree with any increase that uses simplistic methods without even attempting to account for the massive feedback that can occur with even a minor rise... and there have been plenty of papers published on these.

Top
#995247 - 14/06/2011 09:37 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: jocelyn]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Whenever I've invited people to investigate alternatives to evolution I've been met with contempt, stubbornness and arrogant refusal to engage the issue. So I won't push it here. But linking people who differ from the 'consensus', based on the views some 2000 odd scientists and excluding the views of thousands of others who disagree (do the search; the numbers are out there), with anti-evolutionists, is really drawing a long bow, especially when it's also clear that reference to disbelief in evolution is yet another thinly-veiled effort to exceed that contempt. And if it's a game, why are we referring to science here?

Just be careful..using pejorative terms isn't a very smart way to get a decent discussion...unless the intention is to shut down detractors.

Top
#995257 - 14/06/2011 10:32 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: jocelyn]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

I will show that it is just a theory that is not consistent with the Stefan Boltzmann equations.

First, Stefan Boltzmann are the fundamental physics equations governing energy levels and temperature in the Universe. It is has been shown to be valid across the entire Universe in everything that we have ever looked it. It is even used to figure out how much the 33C greenhouse effect really is and it is why everything in climate science seems to be quoted in watts/m2. (but then the science abandons it and uses a different assumption instead).

Another close-to-home example - the Sun's surface is 5778K and this temperature generates (an astounding) 63,200,000 watts/m2. If you take this value and apply it to the inverse square law for the distance from the Sun to the Earth, one gets 1366 watts/m2 of solar energy hitting the Earth's atmosphere - which is exactly the measured value to the watt.

---------------------

Let's use this equation then.

The Pre-Industrial Surface Temp C = (386 watts/m2/0.0000000567)^.25 - 273C = 14.25C

Today's Temperature C = (390 watts/m2/0.0000000567)^.25 - 273C = 15.0C

----> up 0.75C not surprisingly

Doubling Temperature C = (402.4 watts/m2/0.0000000567)^.25 - 273C = 17.25C

----> up 3.0C

[put that formula into a spreadsheet so you can use it whenever you want to].

-------------------

To increase temperatures by 3.0C from the Pre-Industrial, the climate needs to add an extra 16.4 watts/m2 (402.4 less 386.0). Doubled GHGs are supposed to add 3.71 watts/m2. Where does the extra 12.69 watts/m2 come from - feedbacks?

Even the IPCC AR4 report says the total net feedbacks are only about 2.2 watts/m2.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-8-14.html

----------------------

The theory cannot even do its basic math right using the fundamental physics equation governing energy levels and temperature in the Universe.

They got stuck using a shortcut from Hansen in the early the 1980s and have been trying to defend it to this day.

---------------------

Let's redo the math.

Doubled Temperature C = ((386 + 3.71->GHGs + 3.1->water vapour increasing at 4.5%/C->actual-response-to-date + 0.2->Albedo feedback)/0.0000000567)^.25 - 273C = 15.54C or 1.3C above the pre-industrial.

And +1.3C just so happens to be the exact track that temperatures to date have taken given the increased watts/m2 of GHGs.



Edited by Bill Illis (14/06/2011 10:33)

Top
#995265 - 14/06/2011 11:39 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: jocelyn]
windyrob Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/12/2007
Posts: 478
Loc: Hawthorn,Vic, MTD 72mm, YTD 13...
Originally Posted By: jocelyn
Great question!

AGW is a theory.
I'd say the basic theory of AGW states: burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide that traps infrared radiation in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the earth and causing sea level rise.

That is way too simplistic.
The CAGW theory which is being debated clearly states the following
1/Humans are responsible for the CO2 increases due to the burning of fossil fuels and
2/The greenhouse warming caused by CO2 is the dominant cause of the climate change seen over the last century, and
3/It will lead to a large and dangerous warming due water vapour positive feedback that
4/will cause climate related negative impacts that can justify banning the cheapest forms of energy!

Each one of these point is unproven and in the case of water vapour positive feedback has shown to be falsified.

Now here is question for you.
If CO2 caused global warming, why has the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 15 years been associated with an increased energy loss to space?

Top
#995340 - 14/06/2011 19:35 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: windyrob]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Has anyone ever seen any video of an experiment showing proof that CO2 warms the atmosphere??? I would like to see it please!

Top
#995351 - 14/06/2011 19:56 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: Simmosturf]
-Cosmic- (naz) Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 5408
Loc: Woodside, Adelaide Hills, SA
The difference is that someone puts C in front of AGW.

CAGW and AGW are two different things.
_________________________
-To be kind to oneself is to be kind in all situations.


Top
#995545 - 15/06/2011 18:58 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: -Cosmic- (naz)]
mobihci Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 09/05/2009
Posts: 486
Loc: Brisbane
ipcc dont propose agw, they propose cagw. most people mean cagw when they say agw. its amazing how distorted meanings have become for the sake of selling the story. eg global warming, climate change, climate disruption, carbon pollution and so on.

truth is, the less clear it is, the better it is for shysters selling the cagw story to the politicians, so i dont expect eg our csiro chief to come out and describe the difference between cagw and agw. with debate supposedly being over, it doesnt matter what the debate is about. ie agw=cagw=global warming=climate change=carbon pollution. all these terms have been forced to be one.

Top
#997512 - 25/06/2011 23:36 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: mobihci]
-Cosmic- (naz) Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 5408
Loc: Woodside, Adelaide Hills, SA
It’s kind of ironic really. Anthropogenic global warming is an inductively deduced notion which contains some theoretical elements and some hypothetical elements which have theoretical potential. The evidence suggests there is potential warming going on due to carbon dioxide emissions, but it is only one greenhouse gas. There is such a focus on this one gas that it is quite easy to lose sight of the potential warming contribution from other GHGs. It also fairly obvious that there is direct and indirect evidence of other influences impacting on the climate, everything from solar flares and cosmic rays to particulates raining down on us from volcanoes and restricting rainfall. People seem to be looking for more certainty, but perhaps the fact that there isn’t enough of that to go around illustrates the reality of the situation.


Edited by -Cosmic- (naz) (25/06/2011 23:37)
_________________________
-To be kind to oneself is to be kind in all situations.


Top
#997531 - 26/06/2011 08:39 Re: Global Warming, Hypothesis, Theory or Law? [Re: -Cosmic- (naz)]
Rorschach Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3772
Yes Naz... I agree.
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
10 registered (Azzad, Thunder Front, joesk, Stormy3, mitasol, Mike Hauber, Things, 3 invisible), 119 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
narcotic
Forum Stats
28066 Members
32 Forums
22577 Topics
1312025 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image