The importance of understanding a scientific theory

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

And, what, exactly, is the "basic global warming theory"?

15 April 2012

The good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature strongly supports the link that is predicted from basic global warming theory.

Global Warming in a Nutshell

02.23.10

That feeling of numbness in your toes, even inside your thickest boots, is not lying to you. It’s been very cold so far this winter in most of the U.S. and many places at middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Washington, D.C., London and Seoul have already shoveled themselves out from major snowfalls. And over the course of 2009, average temperatures across some parts of the U.S. were cooler than the average temperature for a baseline period of 1951-1980.

To many people’s confusion, these weather events happened against a backdrop of increasing man-made greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere that are gradually warming the planet. But scientists stress this weather does not mean that those gases are no longer exerting a warming influence. Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...ther-2009.html

Why not just ask Google?

Or look it up on Wikipedia?

Seriously, in this day and age, how can anyone not just look something up?

Try the greenhouse theory of climate change, another term for basic global warming theory

Since both NASA and the top climate blog in the Universe both use "basic global warming theory" in articles, it certainly must have an extensive article on Wikipedia. and thousand of hits on Google

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

15 April 2012

Global Warming in a Nutshell

02.23.10

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...ther-2009.html

Why not just ask Google?

Or look it up on Wikipedia?

Seriously, in this day and age, how can anyone not just look something up?

Try the greenhouse theory of climate change, another term for basic global warming theory

Since both NASA and the top climate blog in the Universe both use "basic global warming theory" in articles, it certainly must have an extensive article on Wikipedia. and thousand of hits on Google

Now, we're getting somewhere.

The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change:
A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment

Though Basic is not really what I would call that. The First time I heard about Global Warming that was the first document that was dropped on my desk.

[-FX-]

Full text of the paper

Gale - Product Login

[LarsMac]

Hmm, I suppose dropping the PDF here would violate some copywrite stuff and get everyone into a tizzy.

Perhaps an admin could clear that up?

I'm trying to fine a follow up to that 34 year old paper.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Full text of the paper

Gale - Product Login

Okay, you've linked.

Say why?

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Now, we're getting somewhere.

The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change:
A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment

Indeed. We are up to 1988 now

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Okay, you've linked.


Say why?

Well, while it may seem obvious that the two of us are referring to the same document, and it seems that there may be no Public version of it, which would make it difficult for other folks to see what is being discussed.

And this doc appears to be ground zero, or very close to it, of the whole Climate change/warming discussion.

here is an interesting discussion on it, Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
but still, seeing the actual data can be quite useful.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Now, we're getting somewhere.

The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change:
A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment

Though Basic is not really what I would call that. The First time I heard about Global Warming that was the first document that was dropped on my desk.

I'd be curious if you find any reliable paper that disproves this one in the last 30+ years. Darwin's On the Origin of Species is over 160 years old, and that "basic theory" is still correct.

Not sure why you're bothering to engage. One of this particular denier's tactic is to use popular science texts and explanations to "prove" that people don't understand the science.

Yes, of course I don't completely understand the science. It's extremely complicated, but I understand some of the "basics" and rely on actual experts to know the details. If I were ever in a position to need to form a policy on global warming, I would get input from actual experts.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Indeed. We are up to 1988 now

Well, then, here is something to chew on. Global Climate Projections

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

And this doc appears to be ground zero, or very close to it, of the whole Climate change/warming discussion. .

Okay, but the basic physics of the theory was laid out and climate projections began to be made from the model way back in 1896:

Originally posted in Wikipedia
Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5–6 degrees Celsius.[...]
Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to a warming energy imbalance. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO2 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity.
[my emphasis]

Is that what -FX- is trying to establish here though? It doesn't seem to fit with the opinions he's been posting.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'd be curious if you find any reliable paper that disproves this one in the last 30+ years. Darwin's On the Origin of Species is over 160 years old, and that "basic theory" is still correct.

Not sure why you're bothering to engage. One of this particular denier's tactic is to use popular science texts and explanations to "prove" that people don't understand the science.

Yes, of course I don't completely understand the science. It's extremely complicated, but I understand some of the "basics" and rely on actual experts to know the details. If I were ever in a position to need to form a policy on global warming, I would get input from actual experts.

OF course, but it it seems that those who are in a position to need to form a policy on global warming all seem to have been ignoring the actual experts for going on four decades, now.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Now, we're getting somewhere.

Nah, you still haven't found "basic global warming theory", much less the modern version of it. Which means you don't know the first thing about global warming.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Nah, you still haven't found "basic global warming theory", much less the modern version of it. Which means you don't know the first thing about global warming.

I see. Well, by all means, Please do enlighten me.

[-FX-]

First, do you agree there is no entry on Google or Wikipedia that explains the basic global warming theory?

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

First, do you agree there is no entry on Google or Wikipedia that explains the basic global warming theory?

I could agree to that.
In fact, you are the only human with whom I have ever interacted that I can recall ever uttering that particular phrase.
After seeing that post, my first act was to go to those places and search for " basic global warming theory"
Hence, my question.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I could agree to that.
In fact, you are the only human with whom I have ever interacted that I can recall ever uttering that particular phrase.

You have endeared yourself to me, with an honest response. Being short on time at this exact moment, I am going to give the short answer.

CO2 theory = another name for the basic global warming theory
SW = short wave
AGW= anthropogenic global warming
LW= long wave

"CO2 theory says CO2 controls the earth's climate, increasing the SW radiation budget, which raises the global temperature as levels increase, and lowers global temps as it reduces. It's the feedback that allows small changes in solar insolation to change the global climate. AGW is the theory that the man made increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in drastic warming, due to a water vapor feedback effect from a small increase in LW radiation. The effect (enhanced greenhouse effect) will be observed more over land than oceans, more at high latitudes, at night more than the day, and in winter more than summer. Further feedbacks from albedo changes due to warming will increase the warming by changes in the SW radiation budget."

I'm the author of that paragraph.

A big stumbling block in searching the interwebs is that "the theory" has so many many names.

The other big problem is so much about it ends up going down the memory hole. And Wikipedia is shit for learning about the theory.

| American Scientist
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/...cle/news/48293

[ceptimus]

Any 'basic theory' is most probably too basic to be of much use - because weather and climate are chaotic and have lots of positive and negative feedback effects. But I'll take a shot at setting out the basics...

I think the usual starting point is to look at energy inputs and outputs to/from the 'whole Earth system'. Everyone accepts that if the total energy input is greater than the output, the temperature will rise - the rising temperature results in greater output, and eventually a new balance is achieved.

The Earth has its own internal heat source, partly left over from when it formed, partly from radioactive decay, and a small amount from internal friction generated by tides and plate tectonics, earthquake movements and such. All these internal heat sources added together are calculated to be about 50 milliwatts per square metre of the Earth's surface. Of course, in some spots, such as the caldera of an active volcano, the figure is much greater than that - but about one-twentieth of a watt per square metre is the average.

The heating effect on the earth of starlight from remote stars and galaxies is almost too small to measure - much less than a microwatt per square metre.

That leaves us with energy from the sun. Above the atmosphere, the energy coming from the sun is about 1360 watts per square metre. Of course, half of the earth is always facing away from the sun. If you divide the circular area that the earth presents to the sun, by the total surface area of the sphere, you get the average figure of solar energy arriving at the earth - about 360 watts per square metre.

Total solar energy, hitting the earth, is about 174 petawatts. Some of that reflects immediately to space. But it doesn't matter how much reflects immediately and how much is absorbed and later given out again in another form (probably infra-red) - if the total output is less than 174 petawatts, the earth will be getting hotter, and vice versa.

After that, it starts to get nuanced and complicated...

[LarsMac]

Sll of that is well and good for some speculating, but I generally start with the data collection from people who know how to do that.

Increase in atmospheric methane set another record during 2021 | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

A Warming Ocean | NEEF

[ceptimus]

Yes, but those are facts, not theories.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Yes, but those are facts, not theories.

True enough, but I seem to remember my High School Science Teacher saying something about Theories generally being based on facts.

[ceptimus]

The trick is to try and find a theory, based on accepted scientific principles, that fits the known facts.

Or maybe you need some new scientific principles - but that is hard to do and Nobel-prize worthy if you manage it - because those new principles have to not contradict any other known facts - including those from vastly different fields of study.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The trick is to try and find a theory, based on accepted scientific principles, that fits the known facts.

Or maybe you need some new scientific principles - but that is hard to do and Nobel-prize worthy if you manage it - because those new principles have to not contradict any other known facts - including those from vastly different fields of study.

You mean, perhaps, something like this: The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment

[fragment]

Possibly unpopular opinion:

"Theory", "hypothesis" and similar terms don't have constant, unambiguous meanings in science; and the common explanation of "how science works" that pretends they do is inaccurate and counter-productive.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

Possibly unpopular opinion:

"Theory", "hypothesis" and similar terms don't have constant, unambiguous meanings in science; and the common explanation of "how science works" that pretends they do is inaccurate and counter-productive.

Sidetrack from the topic. A good sidetrack, but still, go start your own topic lol

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by fragment

Possibly unpopular opinion:

"Theory", "hypothesis" and similar terms don't have constant, unambiguous meanings in science; and the common explanation of "how science works" that pretends they do is inaccurate and counter-productive.

I do disagree.

I was taught repeatedly a consistent definition of both hypothesis and theory. I can’t remember hearing people in the labs that I spent a couple of years volunteering in ever using the terms incorrectly. Also the terms were used consistently in my bio classes.

So in my bio science classes and in bio science labs, your statement is untrue in my experience.

A theory is a framework of understanding built of facts, laws and other theories that makes falsifiable predictions.

A hypothesis is a potential and falsifiable explanation for some phenomenon based on available evidence.

People using those words with other definitions are rarely scientists in my experience


On the other hand, I also got into an argument with my gen chem professor who said that theories grow up to become laws, so yeah, there isn’t 100 percent consistency.

I think in general, the problem is more that theory(and to a lesser extent hypothesis)’s colloquial definition is at odds with its jargon definition, so people not well versed are likely to get it wrong.

But like I intimated, as a microbiologist, I could have an atypical view as I think biology is special for having a central unifying theory and most scientists don’t have creationists saying that their work is just a theory.