Is global warming a reactionary science?

Question

We always hear events being blamed on man made global warming.

Floods are caused by global warming
Droughts are caused by global warming
Ice is melting at the edges, but growing in the center is consistent with the theory of man made global warming.
Warm is because of man made global warming and the cold can be explained by global warming as well.

It seems like we can only look back to explain things that already happened to show man made global warming is happening.

If we know this much about the climate, why are we unable to know what global warming will do in our near future? Wouldn't this be a good test of the computer models?

Answer 1

Yes - "Scientist" see what has already happened, then determine that it was because of "global warming".

I've even heard that the higher number of touchbacks in the NFL was because of "global warming" (warmer air is thinner air, and the ball travels further because of low resistance)

But no one can see any event that will occur a month from now. Anything said is just a guess.

Imagine. We can calculate how to shoot Voyager around several planets accurately, but don't have the knowledge to know what the climate will be this winter.

Science isn't guessing.

Answer 2

Waco and JS. You both prove that a little science, like a little knowledge can be dangerous. Just because you cite studies doesn't mean you have the facts. It means you have interpretation of facts. Go check out a weather discussion for any major city during a complex weather pattern. A forecaster looks at the raw data and tries to figure out what it all means. Even a local weather forecast is highly sophisticated, now you multiply the effects of climate and weather by a factor of millions and pretty soon, a definitive prediction becomes very elusive. Oh, I wish some of you knew as much as you think you do. Any good scientist will draw conclusions but he is making judgments based on minutia. It is an educated guess.

Answer 3

If we had really good computer models then it really would rain every time the TV weatherman said it will, and it really would be clear every time he said it will. But the models are not so good and we cannot predict the weather very well. Climate is actually a little easier to predict, because it is just talking about averages for the world and not detail about one day or one city. But still, I do not trust the models. Especially since the people who write the models take care to make them not show results that seem unreasonable. And what is reasonable is opinion, so the model reflects the author's opinions as much as anything else. There is just not enough hard information to put in the models. There are only so many weather stations in the world measuring temperature and humidity and so on, and there are billions of places in between those stations with no data. Even if there were a weather station every 10 feet, we would still lack data for the 9 feet between them all. And in theory, even a 1/10 degree change in one temperature on one square foot of Earth can change to whole world's weather, after a long enough time. It is called the butterfly effect and it makes weather prediction impossible.

Answer 4

there is a way to test computer models, it is called hind-casting (as opposed to forecasting). You put in the figures from the beginning of 20th century and run the programme and see if it accurately tracks what we know to have happened throughout the century. Not one of the models has even come close. Not one of them showed the warming that took place in the first couple of decades, not one of them showed the cooling that took place during the fourth to seventh decades, they all exaggerated the amount of warming that took place in the last three decades and not one of them showed the El Nino, a major climate event that has taken place every few years throughout the century.
This is why one of the climate modellers said that computer models are useful tool to help us learn about the climate, but they are nowhere near good enough to say anything about the future.
The problem is that the political activists get hold of these climate model speculations about the future and present them to the public as scientific fact, when they are nothing more than guesstimates

Answer 5

The theory of Global Warming was first proposed in 1895 by a Swedish scientist. His hypothesis stated that if we continue to burn ancient carbon (fossil fuels) we will increase CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing the ability of the green house effect, thus making the earth warmer.

Answer 6

Don't confuse climate with weather.

No particular weather event can be attributed to GW.

Nevertheless, the slow change in the Earth's climate fits the GW computer models very well.

Answer 7

actually it is politics and not science at all. None of the current computer models show any accuracy at all. Global warming is a naturally occurring event every 1500 years.

Answer 8

Mick is right about one thing: hindcasting is a good way to evaluate climate models. But he's wrong that models cannot successfully hindcast the 20th century: in fact they can and do, and have been doing so for years. Here's one example (of many):
http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~suerigby/GEP/GEP%20precis%202/Climate%20forcings%20in%2020th%20century.pdf

Take a look at figure 2 and you'll see that models are in fact quite good at hindcasting observed 20th century temperatures. Now take a look at figure 1 for a 21st century forecast, assuming modest abatement of the CO2 growth rate.

Answer 9

It is actually more precisely reactionary politics using science (their version of it) to further their agenda and confirm their world view. In their world, humankind is thought of as a distructive force and generally industry and corporations are blamed for nearly everything bad. It has very little to do with science. To demonstrate a proof, ask someone who believes in that humans cause global warming to give some potential benefits. It is a bit like asking a devout Christian to say some nice things about the devil.

Answer 10

If it's not a beautiful 70ºF day outside, that is used as evidence that evil humans are destroying the planet.
Any unfavorable weather is due to GW. 99% of scientist agree on this, so don't question the science. Accept your disgrace and give up your greedy lifestyle so the good guys can save the planet.