hypothetical question: effects on scientific community if global cooling occurs in next 20 years?

Question

now this is simply a hypothetical question: please don't give answers like "it's not possible".

anyways, the question is: if during the next twenty years our climate undergoes global cooling (not necessarily back to the norm -- but down to +.2 or something) how do you think this would effect the scientific community? currently, the vast majority of scientists believe it's real, and this is a community that bases their reasoning on facts and all sorts of fancy technology. if they were wrong, would this damage their credibility/reputation? how? would people be more skeptical of the next enormous scientific theory put forth?

this is assuming human's do not take significant action to help offset global warming.

Answer 1

Reexamine what the scientists claim is real, not what alarmists, especially those here Y!A, distort and falsely claim as scientific findings.

From the IPCC AR4:

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing."
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

"Likely" meaning >66%, the scientists claim that man has probably made a contribution to the warming trends seen on 20% of the globe. NOT the "majority" of warming, just significant enough of a contribution to measure. This is not exactly going out on a limb - it's almost clinging to the trunk.

Look at the rest of the report, especially the break down of human attribution in table SPM-2. There is a vast difference with what alarmists and scientists claim.

If there is a backlash against the scientific community it will not be as deserved as the backlash that should come against the alarmists who have knowingly misled the public.

Answer 2

We're pretty sure about the current state of the climate---in other words, there is a coherent explanation of the current worldwide temperatures given the current measure of the various forcings. That explanation requires that most of the warming in the past 30 years is anthropogenic.

Predicting the future, however, is a different matter, and I don't think any scientist would argue that our understanding of climate is such that our ability to predict future temperatures is 100% accurate. There are many uncertainties in these predictive models.

The reason for the current alarm about GW is that most of the current models predict the *possibility* of danger if we continue to burn fossil fuels. The greatest areas of uncertainty seem to be in the complex feedbacks between warming and the release of greenhouse gasses by natural causes. There is some chance that enhanced natural sequestration of CO2 will eliminate the whole problem.

So there are really two contingencies in your hypothetical:

1) The climate begins to cool, but there is a clear reason why it begins to cool (soot from some volcanic event, an unprecedented plankton bloom in the Antarctic Ocean, etc.) that is consistent with our current understanding of climate forcings.

2) The climate begins to cool for no apparent reason, indicating that the theory behind the calculation of the Earth's temperature is wrong.

The first case would simply be an unexpected favorable event consistent with our understanding, the second would be an indication of a flaw in our understanding. The first case would have little effect on the scientific community: we warned you that something bad might happen, but then it didn't, due to a fortunate change in circumstances. The second might result in some kind of scientific revolution (or possibly even the overthrow of the scientific method itself: God appears in the sky and says he's been miraculously taking care of it all for our own good). Hard to say what would happen without knowing the details.

One difficulty here is that the public chronically misunderstands scientific complexities. Witness the absurd exaggerations about the "predictions by the scientists" of an ice age in the 1970s. The situation is exaccerbated by the nature of the statistics, and the public's lack of understanding of statistics. Global warming proceeds at 0.02 degrees per year, while random forcings superpose a natural variation of 0.12 C. So it is, in fact, a near statistical certainty that there will be 5-year periods where the annual average world temperature actually declines---this is essentially a certainty, even if the worst GW scenarios are true. But how likely is it that such a decline would not be treated by the press and the public as a failure of science?

Answer 3

Since you understand the term "hypothetical" you'r eprobably worth answering! :)

First--the question of error ("if they were wrong"). In the context you suggest, that would not occur (this is one of the things the "skeptics are counting on people not to understand). Here's why: in its initial stages, any scientific investigation is going to be notable for a lot of unproven suggestions (hypotheses)--and some of them will be wrong. But--the scientific community does not arrive at a consensus until all the hypotheses have been tested--repeatedly and by many different methods. So--by the time a consensus is reached, there' s no chance of error.

But--what if the earth cooled anyway, instead of continuing to warm as is expected? That is NOT "impossible"--though it is so unlikely that it's pretty close!

But here's what would have to happen: something would have to change. It's that simple, really. Some factor or factors--CO2 emissions, a supervolcanic eruption, etc.--to so drastically change the existing conditions as to cause the cooling. (Better hope we DON'T get tha tsupervolcano--or there goes human civilization--poof).

But--in spite of all this--what woudl happen if the scientists just flat-out blew it? In the current political climate, where questions of scientific accuracy are debated as political issues--which is absolutely asinine in the first place--there would be some short-term damage to scientific credibility. In the long run, however, there would be no real discrediting of science per se.

What makes me sure of that? Answer is simple: because it's happened before--and people who know that also know that science is extremely reliable. And--those who understand even the basic methods and operation of science know that in a case like global warming (or your hypothetical cooling) the chances of such an error are effectively zero--there's never been a "goof" on that scale and probably never will be.

But here's an example of a flat-out error that scietists made--jsut to show that they/we don't pretend to be perfect--and to show why that won't happen with global warming:

Decades ago, geologists knew that all geological processes were slow (in human terms)--and so rejected the notion that feature slike the Arizona crater were caused by sudden events like meteor impacts. A maverick geologist (Shoemaker) proved them wrong--no ifs, ands, or buts.

Why won't that happen with global warming? The answer lies with WHAT the scietists are basing their prediction on. In the first case, the geologists inadvertantly took a general rule of thumb (geologic change is slow) and assumed it ALWAYS was slow--their paradigm was based on an unproven assumption that just wasn't valid.

With global warming the situation is different. The assertion: the Earth is getting warmer" isn't a matter of assumptions--it is, literally, jsut a summation of endless measures of a very simple thing: temperature. No possibility of error or misunderstanding. The other key element is that the polar ice is melting. Again, ther's no possibility of error--if anyone doubt's it, they can put on a parka and go watch it melting!

So scientists won't be wrong about that. They could be wrong on some things--how fast global warming will progress, how much sea levels will rise, etc. But not on the basics--those are simply observed facts.

Okay-I'll sut up now! :)

Answer 4

Good grief. 3DMs claims that the findings of global warming science have been distorted is true - for him.

Here's the actual relevant quote from the very source he cites:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”."

"Very likely" is defined as 90-95%. "Most" of the increase means more than 50% is man made. 3DM makes it sound as if the anthropogenic finding is weak, when it is in fact very strong, reflecting the increase in data and certainty from the last report. Phooey.

In fact the scientists finding is even stronger. The scientists draft said "virtually certain", ie 99%. Policy types from the US and China insisted on reducing that to "very likely". The change is not large, but it's in the wrong direction for deniers who falsely claim that the concern about global warming in the reports is increased by political edits. In fact, it's almost always _decreased_.

Getting back to your question. You might as well ask what would be the effect on the anti-war people if Iraq suddenly comes together as a real democracy and the killing stops. In both cases the people involved would heave a large sigh of relief and move on.

It's not as though climatologists want to be right about global warming. They'd be overjoyed to be wrong.

They'd also be extremely surprised.

Answer 5

I prefer to stick to the facts rather than answer hypothetical questions, but here goes. News headline circa 2009: All science is now questionable. A new study shows that Al Gore and the scientific community have duped us again. Recent studies confirm a cooling trend and dispels that awful information that the scientists have tried to force on us. In other news....

Answer 6

I hear you, but scientists already warned us about global cooling in 1975 (see link). Then the temperature went up, presumably from better testing methods and record keeping. Now they've compared current data with the oldest data and came up with the conclusion that "See? The world is getting warmer.". The truth is that they don't even know.

Scientists don't like predictions that don't fit neatly into their world view. Think about it, in all of human history, it's a pretty recent that we've agreed that the earth is round.

I hope that the world does get warmer. If it stays the same or gets cooler, they'll take the credit for making it happen.

Answer 7

No reaction at all, in the sense that you mean. It would have explainable causes -aerosols, human intervention, solar changes, etc. It does not affect the current events. It is completely possible (although very unlikely) that this happens. It will not show any fault in the current theories, just an added (or highly altered) factor.

The public would, in some cases, be a different matter.

Answer 8

It would depend on what causes the cooling. If it's some unforeseeable cause, like a series of volcanic eruptions, or a sudden drop in the Sun's output, the effect on the scientific community would be negligible.

If it's some cause that is foreseeable in climatic models but not well understood -- like some cloud feedback effect, for example -- a lot of people would have egg on their face.

Answer 9

Scientists should be hung and publicly executed. The name and picture of every single scientist that went along with this hoax should be posted on a web site along with the dangers their global warming theory could have been for civilization. We should use them as examples for generations about the misuse of authority and science. All the news and articles should be collected and displayed in a memorial (similar to what they did for holocaust victims) so that we never forget that such a big hoax was perpetrated on human civilization. We will never forget how Nazi Propaganda Tools were used to get the world under a Catholic Church of Global Warming to mass control the populations of the Holy UN Empire.

Answer 10

I don't think it would damage their credibility much. Of course, there would be the round of "I-told-you-so's" from people on the political side of it. But scientists realize that they can be wrong just like anyone else. If anything I think they would be happy that the world is not in peril and take this experience as a wake up call the we need to take better care of the earth.