Statistical data can be used to support theroies...but that's statistics, and not the scientific method any longer. Use of computer models has a serious flaw - that it can't account for an unknown natural cause of warming. They are just attributing the warming to greenhouse gases. But what if we are in a natural warming cycle which has been going on the past 200 years. CO2 emission only grew rapidly starting in WWII. The IPCC claims 2,500 scientists...but there's only a few hundred climatoligists in the world. The rest are computer modelers and meterologists who have no business calling themselves scientists. There are no facts in science. Science is about formulating theories and testing them out. It's not about finding a coorelation and saying that's proof. That's not how it works. Experiments can only disprove a null hypothesis, not proof the hypothesis. Anyone who knows science understands this. You and otto there are claiming something else. That your brand of science can prove climate change. That's simply not possible. The scientific method can only be used to try to rule out the possibility that global warming is caused by something other then CO2 emissions. And the science will never be "settled". I don't advocate doing nothing...I am just disturned at how easily people believe something. That's religion, not science.
Actually, there is nothing statistical about the uncertainty principle at all. It's a factual statement that you can't know both the percise position and velocity of any particle or particle behaving energy simultaneously since the act of observing one changes the other. I just don't like people using the word "science" casually. Science is a very defined method, and it's not a discipline based in probability like statistics. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference, but good luck to you in believing whatever reality makes you happy.
The uncertainty principal is a mathematical formula in which two of the variables are the probability distribution on velocity and probability distribution on location: http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm The common layman's simplified definition is the statement that you've given, but Heisenberg didn't just pull some 'rule' out of the air. It is a result of the mathematical proof relating to variables describing probabilities.
A question for NewYorker. Do you believe that Evolution, Continental Drift and the Big Bang are legitimate scientific theories?
It seems like you are insinuating that your experience is exemplary of most scientists. At least half of my friends are scientists, and their take on global warming and experiences w/ fellow scientists in their labs are quite contrary to your experience.
My point is that it's not some theory based on correlations of two data sets. The formula is derived from the Scheordinger's Equation. And it's been tested through experiments designed to not only address that equation, but all the other implications that such a principle would have in relation to time and energy. My physics may be rusty since quantum was never my forte and i switched careers many many years ago - but there's a difference between doing a linerar regression and science. You know it.
Absolutely. They are proven out by many many other effects that were predicted by the theories and have been validated via experiments. For example, the Big Bang theroy was developed to explain doppler shifts, and then was later verified by experiments conducted by Hubble. Then, later, one of the effects of the Big Bang would be a certain wavelength of background radiation, and this was verified as well (for which a nobel prize was awarded). Same with Continental Drift. Same with evolution. Evolution (natural selection) has been recorded and witnessed in human populations in many instances. But let's return to climateology. Which is backed by what? Correlations in Co2 and temperture increases???? That's not a theroy, that's just a hypothesis. So yes, the planet is warming, but how do you know Co2 is the cause? One correlation. And you call that science? And compare it to the Big Bang and Continental Drift? I mean, how much are the increases in temperture from the last glacial period a result of human activity? How much from natural flucuations? Is it CO2 the cause, or Methane? Or is it something else. All you have is a correlation in the last 50 years of Co2 and temperature increase. And no one has even address if temperature increases may be driving CO2 increases as well...thus is Co2 a result or cause? I just don't think the "science" of climate change is tight, not anywhere near the level of the items you bring up. Really, it's shocking to me that you would compare theories that have been tested multi multiple ways to what you ahve in climate change.
If you look around I think you will find that the evidence is not limited to corelation of two data sets. I still disagree with you for the stated reasons. Lets leave it at that.
And there is data being collected that shows that matches predictions of the theory of man made global warming. Sone earlier posted something in this very thread about that. Except though those theories also rely on correlating various independent data sets and are not iron clad either. For instance the Big Bang while based on studies of doppler shifts and background radiation is still heavily based on theoretical mathmatics that aren't fully proven and impossible to experimentally prove. In regard to Evolution just read some of the Evolution threads to get a sense of all of the questions out there about it. In all of these situations though correlation has still been used to validate the theories and they've stood up. I will agree though that the theory of man made global warming hasn't been around as long as those theories but the methodology of formulating the theory is in no way unscientific even while there are still many questions to be answered about it.
i would love to see evidence beyond correlations or computer models. I'm not arguing that global warming isn't happening, it clearly is. I'm talking about proof that it's caused by man.
Co2 and temperature changes are highly coorelated for the past 600,000 years. However, Co2 increases FOLLOW the temperature increase - not vice versa. While C02 is a greenhouse gas, it's role in global warming is not clear. Water vapor is actually the number one greenhouse gas and accounts for over 90% of what keeps earth warm enough to be inhabitable. Co2 levels have shot up dramatically in the warming period after each ice age. We're in an interglacial now, and compared to history - we're actually ina relatively cool one. It is not know how the positive feedback loops work and how much of a role co2 plays. A warmer earth (say from a positive feedback loop involving water vapor), will naturally drive up CO2 concentrations (from a warmer ocean and melting of permafrost). Also, volcanic/meteroric actitive can lead to warming trends by increasing water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. It's not know whether man-made CO2 contributes to the warming trend or if it's part of a natural cyclical phenomen. It's not know how much of the warming trend (which has been going on for 300 years now - preceding the industrial revolution)....is caused by changes in the earth's orbital motion, which can not account for all the cooling and warming trends we've seen in the history of the planet - yet is highly coorelated to that. So the evidence is just not there yet.
