ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Geology & Atmospheric Science

Is Global Warming real Science?

Updated on May 6, 2013

Climate change...is it based on Science?

I am not going to argue with anyone as to whether global warming is occurring or not, because I don't think the data is available yet to draw the conclusion. One of the truths behind global warming is that the evidence can be skewed relatively easy by the computer model algorithm that draws a different conclusion. My heartbreak is the fact that when the data didn't necessarily support global warming theory, they changed the theory to "climate change".

You can draw the simplistic model of global warming, by inferring since the ice age billions of years ago...yes the earth has been on a warming trend since then. But the science behind the theory is that the earth is warming due to man made materials altering the climate. That is the real question here. If I copy from Wikipedia, "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them." As you can see, a hypotheses claiming global warming is caused by man made carbon dioxide or Co2, the research to be conclusive, must show evidence that this in fact, is what could be causing the increase in temperatures.

Yet, none of this evidence has been conclusive that Co2 is actually causing this. When you look at the data from the mid 1920's and 1930's, the warmest temperatures recorded in the U.S. were during that time...before the industrial revolution. So what is the answer? Do we have science here, or is it that the Co2 level is higher than it was 30 years ago, therefore any increase in temperatures must be caused by this increased Co2 levels? With too many other variables at play, I would think this is a difficult hypothesis to support, but is there any other explanation that could be causing this.

My concern is that the evidence was not always there and scientist were puzzled by inconsistent data, which obviously makes the theory void. So instead of "global warming", the new terminology was "climate change" which is more difficult to prove because there are always going to be unusual climate patterns, with science this would not be conclusive evidence. The fact that the science behind the Co2 as the cause and effect is somewhat cloudy, because it was a "consensus" that derived the theory, I am wondering what ever happened to real science.

As someone who grew up in the 1970's when Time magazine had a cover story regarding the coming Ice Age, I wonder if we can really prove if we are in a warming phase or a cooling phase. Most climate changes appear to be cyclic in nature, so while claiming a global warming event, and during the 12 month cycle you set several below average temperature records...what is the conclusion? I think real science would start to look for other "causes" to the warming, but since there isn't any real science to support this, it has led to confusion and for many people, they don't take the climate change being man made very seriously.

You would think that a hypothesis would be able to find supporting data if this was the reason for any change in the global temperature, because that is what the basis for scientific theory is. Although there may be evidence of glaciers melting, and other phenomena that is unusual, the course of science has the burden to PROVE that Co2 is causing this. I don't think you can support this theory quite honestly, because of too many other variables. What could the variables be? The earth is a rotating similar to a gyroscope, and we could be experiencing gyroscopic precession which locate the earth closer to the sun in some areas. It could be sun spots which have been reported to be more active in the last 20 years..and the sun intensity cannot be controlled. Is it the Ozone? Wait, we tried that and nothing could be conclusive with that either, so the Ozone is just fine now.

The truth is the science isn't enough to support global warming theory, climate change, with the cause of Co2 as the problem. I am not saying the climate isn't warming, or that it isn't changing, but so far science isn't proving this to be the case. Taking a look at the Co2 levels, the rise isn't such that it would cause air to warm at an increased rate, the challenge is for you to form your own opinion. I strongly recommend your own research on the Co2 levels, the cause and effect of Co2 on climate, and I think you will agree that it is a source that won't have you a believer very long. That is why you will find during your search, a lot of words like "scam" will surface, because some scientist that have tried to prove this theory have been caught either admitting they don't know why the earth has been cooling recently, or have put bogus numbers into the computer models to continue with the theory.

Another variable is the measurement devices used to collect this data. Too often the "controlled experiment" has been tampered with to show the theory is correct. However, if this was correct then we would be experiencing a constant increase in temperatures with slight variation over the years, and that has not been the case. The scientist are puzzled as to why we haven't had this occur, but will point out the rising oceans or melting glaciers as proof. Although the physical evidence is available to SEE this melting, the explanation does not conform to the cause, so until that is a scientific conclusion, we cannot with confidence, say that man made Co2 is causing this phenomena Especially when you consider water vapor INCREASING in the atmosphere will cause visible moisture (clouds) which, without the sun's direct rays of frequency, will warm at a much slower rate. Throw in the cooling caused by evaporation in the atmosphere, and it is hard to conclude what the earths temperature will look like in 20 to 30 years.

My conclusion to this post, are we looking at our atmosphere from a scientific point, or is it a claim that is unsubstantiated at this point. Because weather is so hard to predict, and when I say weather, I mean weather is interrelated to climate, the fact we cannot forecast the high and low temperatures of the earth in the next 5 days to the exact degree, how can we forecast the temperature of the earth 100 years from now? I think most would agree that if we approach climate change or global warming as a science, most come to the same conclusion and that is...show me the empirical evidence to support this, and I am all in, otherwise leave me alone!

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • SidKemp profile image

      Sid Kemp 4 years ago from Boca Raton, Florida (near Miami and Palm Beach)

      Hi Larry: Yes, I see the uncivility in my not being aware of an entire class of people, of which you are a member. It was unintentional, and, having already taken two steps back, I'm happy to apologize.

      And yes, I am glad you are out here calling it as you see it.

      As for my link, I'm happy to acknowledge your points and review relevant material, but I'm not going to do your research for you. I encourage everyone to dig in and learn and decide for himself or herself.

      Signing off respectfully, Sid

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Sorry, Sid. Naked links do not qualify as evidence. As I predicted, you cannot name even ONE prominent climate realist blogger who's on the payroll of 'evil' Big Oil. That's a far cry from your initial sweeping claim about "Every." I was only requesting two words: a first name and a last name. Is that unreasonable?

      You also expressed concern about "... uncivil dialog - flaming, hostile personal attacks ..."

      There's an old proverb about pots and kettles. How does that go? Can you say, "double standard?" Can you say, "hypocrisy." Sanctimonious today, aren't we.

      Apparently you think that you can get away with maligning an entire class of people, which happens to include yours truly. And when I call you on the BS, you take one microscopic step backward, and then attempt to change the subject.

      Can you admit that your broad-brush, ad hominem attack on an entire class of people was not only 100% dead wrong, but uncivil and hostile as well? Psychic Larry predicts that you cannot.

      Oh, wait a minute. You also said that you're not going to reply unless my post is "respectful." I'm guessing that in your little world, "respectful" does not leave room for climate realists to call a spade a spade.

      Grow up!

    • SidKemp profile image

      Sid Kemp 4 years ago from Boca Raton, Florida (near Miami and Palm Beach)

      Hi Larry: Check out the this article from the Yale Alumni review about climatologist Michael Mann. Look up the list of people who have attacked him, and what he has to say about their credentials: http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3648

      Please also read this forum: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/112495 . You continue what sounds to me to be uncivil dialog - flaming, hostile personal attacks that have offer no benefit here or in genuine inquiry.

      Unless your next post is respectful, I will not reply.

      May we all keep growing and learning.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Hi Sid,

      I've given two specific counterexamples to your invalid generalization. Here are two more: Jo Nova (Australia) and Steven Goddard. Of course, some climate realist bloggers are smarter than others.

      Now I'm putting the monkey on your back. Name ONE specific example of a prominent climate realist blogger who is in the pocket of Big Oil. And provide evidence to back up your claim. I might learn something.

      However my educated guess is that you won't, because you can't. Wet Blanket Larry is calling your bluff.

    • SidKemp profile image

      Sid Kemp 4 years ago from Boca Raton, Florida (near Miami and Palm Beach)

      Hi Larry. Thanks for letting me know about the others. You might note that I have not offered my own opinion about whether global climate change is a result of human activity. I have merely encouraged each person to look at the evidence for himself or herself.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Sid,

      I am not the first--meaning earliest--exception to your invalid generalization. I became skeptical of Climate Alarmism only in 2008. The shrill doomsday rhetoric is one thing that aroused my initial suspicion.

      Nor am I the biggest exception to your invalid generalization. What About Anthony Watts?

      Anthony's blog has been voted Best Science Blog at least once. (If I remember correctly, it was a Bloggies award.) I am NOT saying that one should take every climate realism article at wattsupwiththat as the Word of God. However I am saying that WUWT gets substantially more traffic than realclimate, for example. It would be difficult to exercise due diligence before making broad-brush claims about undue Big Oil influence, without at least being aware of WUWT.

      And yes, Anthony is a scientist. He has a degree in Meteorology. He worked for many years as TV meteorologist. My understanding is that these days, Anthony writes and sells computer graphics programs for other TV meteorologists. He also invents and sells weather gadgets for amateur meteorology buffs. I do not remember if Anthony has written any books.

      Anthony does not accept money from 'Big Oil' (or other related biased interests).

      It is difficult to take a 'writer' seriously, when he or she shoots from the hip, and makes sweeping generalizations, without bothering to exhume the pesky facts, which would be necessary to support the glittering generalities.

    • SidKemp profile image

      Sid Kemp 4 years ago from Boca Raton, Florida (near Miami and Palm Beach)

      Hi Larry: You are the first exception to my statement, and, as a scientist and a civil person, I'm happy to revise my statement. In my review of the evidence, plus hundreds of scientists worldwide presenting their evaluations, I have come across only one who is not paid by big oil (or other related biased interests) who has expressed doubt about global warming and climate change. His name is Larry Fields.

      Please refrain from personal attacks. They do not add to either scientific understanding nor to the harmonious effort to face social and global problems.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Larry,

      Yeah, there seems to be a lot of varying opinions on this subject, I myself am not a scientist but find the hard evidence of fact inconclusive.

      Lets just leave it at that for now.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Mike,

      Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I was NOT tooting my own horn for the sake of tooting my horn. Nor was I suggesting that people should hang onto my every word, because of my credentials. It's more basic than that.

      I was simply calling Sid on his BS. He made a generalization about "Every" member of a subclass of scientists. I mentioned some specific details in order to demonstrate that I am a member of that subclass. His claim does NOT apply to me. Therefore it is an invalid generalization.

      Sid is not the brightest bulb in the firmament.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Larry,

      I appreciate your credentials...however, you are the one that has the burden of proof on CO2 and the cause of warming.

      This may be a good opening for the audience to find out what we are talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i3aN4mvcbs

      And this is my point...this isn't a science, there are too many variables unless you SCIENTIFICALLY can prove what is going on...not theory, SCIENCE!

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Sid, you wrote:

      "Please take a deeper look. EVERY scientist in the world who is not funded by the oil companies has, and agree that global warming is real, is the result of added CO2 ..."

      For emphasis, I've taken the liberty of capitalizing the "Every" in your quote.

      News flash! I am a scientist (M.S. analytical chemistry). I am NOT funded by Big Oil. I qualify for Mensa. Focusing my scientific background and my superior intelligence on the issue, I have taken a much deeper look than you are capable of. And I do NOT agree with the claim about global warming and CO2 your quote.

      Therefore your claim is FALSE.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Sid, you wrote:

      "Please take a deeper look. EVERY scientist in the world who is not funded by the oil companies has, and agree that global warming is real, is the result of added CO2 ..."

      For emphasis, I've taken the liberty of capitalizing the "Every" in your quote.

      News flash! I am a scientist (M.S. analytical chemistry). I am NOT funded by Big Oil. I qualify for Mensa. Focusing my scientific background and my superior intelligence on the issue, I have taken a much deeper look than you are capable of. And I do NOT agree with the claim about global warming and CO2 your quote.

      Therefore your claim is FALSE.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Look at the Co2 content level...it could not be the cause.

    • SidKemp profile image

      Sid Kemp 4 years ago from Boca Raton, Florida (near Miami and Palm Beach)

      Hi Mike: Please take a deeper look. Every scientist in the world who is not funded by the oil companies has, and agree that global warming is real, is the result of added CO2, and radically increased starting at the industrial revolution, which began in the 1870s, which is why we see solid effects by the 1920s. Global warming was renamed climate change when we learned that an overall increase in global heat creates local chaotic climate - hotter/colder, wetter/dryer.

      For empirical evidence, see the material from NASA (climate.nasa.gov). I suggest you read it in order, beginning with Key Indicators and Evidence. For visual evidence, see the recent movie Chasing Ice (www.ChasingIce.com).

      The problem is so big, it's difficult to grasp. When I sat down to write about it, I thought I was writing a hub. I wrote eight hubs, and barely scratched the surface. You can check them out by reading my hubs that have "Go Green" in the title.

    • Miks7 profile image
      Author

      Mike Dempsey 4 years ago from Sioux Falls SD

      Larry,

      Enjoyed your web-site, hope that Al Gore will take a look at sometime and re-think his conclusions...but wait, he is making too much money by playing up the problem.

      My hope is that more of the real data will be communicated, but I don't think anyone in the press is interested in the truth anymore, it is more political than anything.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

      Hi Mike,

      You hit most of the bases. Voted up.

      My academic background is in analytical chemistry. However I've done some preliminary investigation on the climate history of the Northern Sierras, in California. For that chunk of the planet, the claim of 'unprecedented' warming does not hold up under scrutiny. I published my work at wattsupwiththat.com, one of the top science blogs.