Climate Change Is Harming U.S. Economy report says

[artvscommerce]

See below.



Prove as in advance it beyond a theory or early hypothesis into law.

I just got the impression that you don't understand what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense of the word.

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

 

[artvscommerce]

This is a misunderstanding of science. For example, gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Etc. Laws do not describe why or how things occur, they simply describe repeatedly observed phenomena. In fact, theories are generally considered to be a higher form of understanding than a law as they describe not only a mechanism but the principles behind that mechanism.

Almost everything you use on a daily basis and the science behind almost everything we do today is based in a large part on theories. You are asking that we apply a different standard to climate change science than we apply to literally every other scientific field that exists.

this.

i love the gravity example. 🙂

 

[werepossum]

From the OP:



Furthermore, the term "climate change" has been used to mean man-made climate change since at least 1988 (when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created).

But keep on insisting that "climate change" is just a political word game.

Well, "climate change" is just a political word game in the sense that every climate event and climate change is put forth as evidence of man-made climate change even while climate models remain suited only for predicting things that have already happened.

Generally speaking, models that are accurate except for everywhere they can actually be tested are not models that continue to be supported by science.

 

[artvscommerce]

Well, "climate change" is just a political word game in the sense that every climate event and climate change is put forth as evidence of man-made climate change even while climate models remain suited only for predicting things that have already happened.

Generally speaking, models that are accurate except for everywhere they can actually be tested are not models that continue to be supported by science.

When did climate scientists use specific climate events as evidence for climate change?

 

[werepossum]

When did climate scientists use specific climate events as evidence for climate change?

I don't think it's climate scientists so much as their laity. Nonetheless, one cannot experience a hurricane or drought or flood without hearing the accompanying dirges of "climate change."

 

[artvscommerce]

I don't think it's climate scientists so much as their laity. Nonetheless, one cannot experience a hurricane or drought or flood without hearing the accompanying dirges of "climate change."

So isn't that point totally irrelevant then? Who cares about the evidence being presented by lay people? Especially when that "evidence" is ignored by the scientists researching climate change...

I'm not sure I understand your second point either. Even though the accuracy of the model is continually improving, because you find it to be limited in its current state you're suggesting we disregard it altogether?

 

[mrjminer]

This is a misunderstanding of science. For example, gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Etc. Laws do not describe why or how things occur, they simply describe repeatedly observed phenomena. In fact, theories are generally considered to be a higher form of understanding than a law as they describe not only a mechanism but the principles behind that mechanism.

Almost everything you use on a daily basis and the science behind almost everything we do today is based in a large part on theories. You are asking that we apply a different standard to climate change science than we apply to literally every other scientific field that exists.

Good points, and you are correct here. A flaw of my poor wording and non-scientific background. So, I change my wording to moving it from early stages of a hypothesis to theory, presuming these are the appropriate stages. Still, it is impossible to do.

Even though you claim it has a high probability, that itself is a gigantic leap because the problem isn't the really the presumption, or the claim. The problem is that the data is grossly insufficient to see any claim whatsoever as having any validity above opinion status. A 0.0001%, or whatever the actual laughable percentage used as a representation of the full history of the Earth the available data represents, used to draw any conclusion whatsoever is a conclusion that is in no way able to be proven.

 

[artvscommerce]

Good points, and you are correct here. A flaw of my poor wording and non-scientific background. So, I change my wording to moving it from early stages of a hypothesis to theory, presuming these are the appropriate stages. Still, it is impossible to do.

Even though you claim it has a high probability, that itself is a gigantic leap because the problem isn't the really the presumption, or the claim. The problem is that the data is grossly insufficient to see any claim whatsoever as having any validity above opinion status. A 0.0001%, or whatever the actual laughable percentage used as a representation of the full history of the Earth the available data represents, used to draw any conclusion whatsoever is a conclusion that is in no way able to be proven.

I think the evidence may carry more weight than you realize.

But more importantly, if it cares more weight than the contradicting view it's certainly more than an "opinion"... in my opinion. 😉

 

[fskimospy]

Good points, and you are correct here. A flaw of my poor wording and non-scientific background. So, I change my wording to moving it from early stages of a hypothesis to theory, presuming these are the appropriate stages. Still, it is impossible to do.

Even though you claim it has a high probability, that itself is a gigantic leap because the problem isn't the really the presumption, or the claim. The problem is that the data is grossly insufficient to see any claim whatsoever as having any validity above opinion status. A 0.0001%, or whatever the actual laughable percentage used as a representation of the full history of the Earth the available data represents, used to draw any conclusion whatsoever is a conclusion that is in no way able to be proven.

Did you realize that in scientific polling we routinely achieve statistically significant results utilizing approximately .0003% of the US population?

 

[piasabird]

Correlation is not cause and effect. I studied statistics. If scientists knew how the environment worked they could control the weather. Since they cant control the weather, they must not know much about weather.

 

[mrjminer]

Did you realize that in scientific polling we routinely achieve statistically significant results utilizing approximately .0003% of the US population?

No, I didn't know that, but I would venture to say that conclusions drawn from such significance are held with that scrutiny in mind. Or, at least, the results are testable and repeatable when necessary.

 

[piasabird]

Knowing that weather changes all the time, often in cycles, all that gets us is uncertainty.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I didn't know that, but I would venture to say that conclusions drawn from such significance are held with that scrutiny in mind. Or, at least, the results are testable and repeatable when necessary.

Well significance means broadly the same thing regardless of what field you're looking at. For example, when you see a polling result along with the margin of error, we are 95% certain that our result represents the true view of America as a whole, despite asking only about .0003% of the population.

The point of this all is that a layman might look at a poll and say "you only asked 1,000 people. How can that be an accurate representation of what 315 million Americans think?" The answer is time honored mathematical principles along with a great deal of research. The same goes for other science as well.

 

[piasabird]

There was a report that based on the GPS measurements that the land mass in the Antarctic has been growing in elevation over the last 10 years. For some reason the Mantle is pushing the continent of Antarctica upward. When they talked about the ice melting in the Antarctic did they mention this?

Here is something interesting from 2013. The Mantle and continent of Antarctica is growing and also moving sideways. East Anatarctica is heavier and west Antarctica ice shelf is shrinking. The Mantle of the continent is moving.

 

[PokerGuy]

Did you realize that in scientific polling we routinely achieve statistically significant results utilizing approximately .0003% of the US population?

Did you realize that such an extrapolation is ONLY valid if the sample (0.0003% in your example) is a true random representation of the underlying population? Not that I agree with his point that it's too small of a sample to be valid, just saying that your analogy is incorrect.

 

[werepossum]

So isn't that point totally irrelevant then? Who cares about the evidence being presented by lay people? Especially when that "evidence" is ignored by the scientists researching climate change...

I'm not sure I understand your second point either. Even though the accuracy of the model is continually improving, because you find it to be limited in its current state you're suggesting we disregard it altogether?

For the first, it's relevant because whatever policies are put in place using climate change as justification will be put in place by lay people, not scientists. For the second, I'm not suggesting that we disregard it altogether, I'm just saying that we shouldn't run around screeching about the sky falling based on climate models that fail to model the climate* as actually measured. If your model does not work where it can be verified, your model does not work, period.

*Here I'm taking climate to mean weather integrated geographically and temporally. If you're one of those people who profess that climate and weather are two distinctly separate things, then climate models are not falsifiable and any is as good as any other since we have no way to measure climate.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you realize that such an extrapolation is ONLY valid if the sample (0.0003% in your example) is a true random representation of the underlying population? Not that I agree with his point that it's too small of a sample to be valid, just saying that your analogy is incorrect.

Of course I realize that, it's what I work with every day. Did you realize that there are statistical methods to compensate for a biased (ie:nonrandom) sample?
His point was that the data was invalid due to its representation as a percentage of a whole. There are many cases where that is not correct.

 

[Paul98]

No, I didn't know that, but I would venture to say that conclusions drawn from such significance are held with that scrutiny in mind. Or, at least, the results are testable and repeatable when necessary.

Have you figured out what part of the basic science behind man made climate change you don't agree with? Do you agree CO2 and others are greenhouse gasses? Do you agree on the energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy? Do you agree that humans are contributing to the increase of many of these greenhouse gasses much more than nature? Do you agree that recent solar activity has gone down and temperature has increased?...

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you figured out what part of the basic science behind man made climate change you don't agree with? Do you agree CO2 and others are greenhouse gasses? Do you agree on the energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy? Do you agree that humans are contributing to the increase of many of these greenhouse gasses much more than nature? ...

Yes to everything, why did you stop short of the big question?

Do you believe that humans are responsible for the majority of the observed warming of the 20th century?

Answer: No.

Reasoning: The temperature of the 1900-1940s matches the trend of the 1950-1990s. The two long term trends appear identical. Their occurrence and duration MATCH the two ocean cycles, PDO and AMO, where ocean heat content dramatically changes in distribution. We understand from El Nino what significant global impacts that can have.

Climate Sensitivity is exaggerated by the IPCC, as demonstrated by their failed Climate Models. It is possibly as low as 0.3C per doubling. That would mean only 0.2C in man-made warming when we reach 600ppm.

Requirement: The temperature trend should remain relatively flat until 2030s, with a 0.1C rise due to an expected 0.3C Climate Sensitivity. Any increase above that is likely a human signal of greater Climate Sensitivity.

The next 15 years will validate one side or the other.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Uh show us this paper describing these trends.

Meanwhile: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/faking-it/#more-17268

 

[GaiaHunter]

Have you figured out what part of the basic science behind man made climate change you don't agree with? Do you agree CO2 and others are greenhouse gasses? Do you agree on the energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy? Do you agree that humans are contributing to the increase of many of these greenhouse gasses much more than nature? Do you agree that recent solar activity has gone down and temperature has increased?...

How much is the energy imbalance and how is it being measured?
How much does the temperature increase per CO2 increase?
The temperature has increased?

Why the talk of heat hiding in the oceans if the temperatures have actually increased in the recent years with accelerating CO2 emissions?

 

[Jaskalas]

Uh show us this paper describing these trends.

You can look at temperatures yourself.

Or if you need some help to compare the two time periods.

 

[shira]

Correlation is not cause and effect. I studied statistics. If scientists knew how the environment worked they could control the weather. Since they cant control the weather, they must not know much about weather.

This is just an astonishingly stupid statement. It's possible to have perfect understanding of a system, yet be totally unable to control the system because the it's too large or the variables beyond our ability to control. Or do you think that a "perfect understanding" of the physics of our sun would allow us to control the behavior of the sun?

Another huge error in your statement is that you confuse having a very good but imperfect understanding of something with having no understanding. Science has a very, very good understanding of nuclear fusion, but we are unable to create a continuing fusion process in the laboratory because controlling fusion on a human scale is much more complex than how the sun controls it on a star scale. According to your logic, we don't understand fusion at all.

And since your premise is hopelessly erroneous, your conclusion is nonsensical. In effect, you're arguing that if humans can't play God with the Earth's climate, we don't understand the Earth's climate at all.

 

[shira]

Knowing that weather changes all the time, often in cycles, all that gets us is uncertainty.

The classic stupid argument about climate.

Weather <> climate. Weather is a short-term; climate is long-term.

Medical science can't predict which specific humans will get lung cancer. According to your reasoning, that means epidemiology is worthless. But epidemiologists can accurately predict how many cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed each year, and can accurately predict cancer rates for various sub-groups within the population.

 

[IGBT]

&#8220;Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration&#8217;s version of &#8216;Global Warming,&#8217; &#8216;Climate Change,&#8217; &#8216;Climate Disruption,&#8217; or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,&#8221; they continued.

&#8220;This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,&#8221; the skeptics wrote. &#8220;As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.&#8221;

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/skeptical-scientists-debunk-white-house-global-warming-report/