Science of environment?

Question

If climate change is a very important issue, which I believe it is weather its occuring right now or not, what is preventing scientists from thoroughly understanding it. I know that the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere is complex, but It doesn't seem right that todays scientists are unable to understand the determining factors of climate well enough to reach a conclusion (within the scientific community) on how the climate would/will change under specified conditions. Is there actually a detailed, widely accepted theory on climate change.

Answer 1

Good question.

There's a ton of science on global warming, and some uncertainties.

One thing that's not uncertain is that it is "mostly" man made greenhouse gases that are causing it. The "signal" (statistical jargon) from man made greenhouse gases is very strong, and clearly greater than the uncertainties. Theories that say man made greenhouse gases are the major factor work numerically, theories that it's natural don't.

The biggest uncertainties are how much warming will occur when? The reason is the uncertainties about feedback mechanisms. There can be positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks.

A sample positive feedback: Ice on land melts, exposes darker land, which absorbs more sunlight, warming gets faster.

A negative feedback. More upper level clouds shield the sun, less warming. (Clouds are a very complex subject, they can also cause positive feedbacks.)

So how much will happen when is uncertain. The IPCC report did not include feedback in detail. Most scientists think positive feedbacks will cause warming faster and stronger than the IPCC report predicts, so the IPCC predictions are actually conservative.

In lay terms the uncertainty is "Will this be bad, very bad, or really really bad." "Not bad" is not a possibility.

A lot of very smart people are working very hard to reduce the uncertainties. And, of course, we get more data every day.

Obligatory scientific proof of man made global warming, from the Source below, not somebodies "logical" or political opinion.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 2

It is hard because weather is best described by the mathematics of chaos. This is where a long series of computations can give totally different results if you make an extremely small change in one number. For example, add 2 and 2 to get 4. Now add 2 and 2.0000001 to get 4.0000001, which is pretty close. That is simple and not chaotic. But if you instead use 2 and 2 in some long complicated series of calculations to get 4, and then try the same series of calculations with 2 and 2.0000001 and get 98.324513, that is what is called a chaotic system. Weather and climate are like that. This is the butterfly effect and was in fact discovered by meteorologists. In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenerio.

Answer 3

The most detailed and widely accepted theory that I know of came out earlier this year, it was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. Theirs was a global effort to figure out where we are, where we're going, what the outcomes are, and how to avoid the majority of the problems with minimal economic impact. The IPCC report on Climate Change seems pretty well accepted, a search on the web should get you more details.

But, that said, this study is tricky. One giant hurdle is the fact that there's a lot of factors, and with those factors changing your theories and projections also have to change.

If you try to use old patterns to determine future outcomes, and the old patterns just cannot hold true given present conditions, you cannot predict future outcomes as easily.

The best explanation I've heard is for long-range forecasts. It goes as such: You're golfing, and you're putting close to the hole, your putts will vary less because you are so close to the hole, most of your putts will be fairly close to the hole, and if you take more than one shot they'll all get in very close together because it's such a small distance. This is like a short-range forecast, and illustrates how accuracy is higher in the short-run. Weather forecasters for example are more accurate doing short-range forecasts than long-range.

To think of long-range, again we go back to golf. This time you're teeing off. Now no matter who you are, because it's long distance, the variance is huge. Some shots will go really far, others will only go a short distance, all at different angles, all with different conditions(such as a breeze or added heat from different times of day). Now where your balls would've been close together when you were putting near the hole, here they're several feet apart, a huge distance. This is comparative to long-term forecasting, change the variables even a tiny little bit and you have a huge difference in outcomes.

This is what makes it hard to predict climate change impact.

The current models used are actually based on many many many predictions, all with different variables. Like teeing off many many many times and taking the average distance of them all and using that as your figure.

But again that's not going to be accurate, just an educated guess. It is however the best method so far to get a possible prediction.

Answer 4

I don't know if you understand this, but most scientist operate on their best guesses, which are called theories until proved or not. Millions of theories are disproved.

But a real no brainer is that if the north and south poles are melting, this most likely will affect the atmosphere and the magnashere as well. Literally, our place in the universe.

Yes, most scientists strongly agree climate change needs to be addressed now.

Answer 5

The consensus is the global warming is man made and happening.

Answer 6

There is as much credible evidence of impending doom from invasion from another planet as there is for impending doom from global warming.

About as many people seem to believe both.

Possibly pretty much the same crowd.

Answer 7

and that's why I don't buy into the global warming agenda