Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Laws, Theories and the nature of science

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
We now have tools that can split apart the molecules in the air and determine whether they came from cars, volcanoes, etc. by their chemistry composition. And the verdict is that most of them are CO2 from cars, so it's pretty hard coded in the science of what's happening....

Carbon dioxide is two oxygen atoms attached to a carbon atom, and there is no direct way to distinguish the last place any such molecule came from. They are - with the exception of isotopes ([SUP]13[/SUP]C instead of [SUP]12[/SUP]C, for example) - identical. If you can capture the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] at the source, you can look for relative amounts of the isotopes that give you clues to their origin. However, this is not possible in the open atmosphere due to the mixing of gases that occurs.

What we do have that allows climate scientists to state accurately the percentages of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from various sources is a vast array of global monitoring from satellites and from the surface. We can, with greater precision than ever before, show how much is coming from geologic sources, from energy production, and from the burning of forests. We can also measure how much is being sequestered by plants and by the ocean. We also have more precise measurements of the changes to the land and water than ever before, largely due to satellite measurements.
 
@Skotty,

Your approach makes sense to me but I'm already in the camp of "there seems to be a problem here". It seems to me that people who think that there is no problem won't find this approach convincing.

Thanks,
Alan

While I don't necessarily want this to devolve into another AGW debate, I really feel what Alan is saying here. For me, it comes down to a matter of throwing away everything controversial and seeing what's left. Measured CO2 rates are rising. At a certain concentration, CO2 becomes fatal to humans. Clearly at some point, rising CO2 concentrations become a problem, and it might be long before they are so high that people start dying just from breathing it in at too high a concentration. Of this, it should be possible to convince pretty much everyone. It's just a question of when it becomes a problem, and how big of a problem. And this is a critical concern, because we have only 1 atmosphere and only 1 currently livable planet within our reach (though Elon would like to increase that to 2 someday, but that's a long ways off). This far everything seems pretty much undeniable.

Who or what should we turn to to get an idea of when CO2 concentration changes become a problem, and how big of a problem it will be? And how long can we hold off to collect more data without unnecessarily increasing risk? This is where the real debate is. Hard as I try to come up with some other answer, the best answer I can come up with is the consensus findings of climate science. It's not a perfect answer. It just seems to be the best answer. It's a better answer than no answer. Isn't it? To those who disagree, where does this line of argument go wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, @SwedishAdvocate,

My (a) amounts to, "convince me that I'm wrong to be concerned about AGW".

I find your observations at the Climate Change / Global Warming thread to be at least mildly encouraging, insofar as you suggest that a few people have indeed changed their minds.

Thanks,
Alan


Am I the only one who doesn’t really understand what Pollux means by his (?) (a) below?...

Anyways…

The Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion thread is now more than two and a half years old. If you were to go through that thread from the beginning, you would find several TMC members that are still around on TMC that 2+ years ago challenged AGW, but who no longer post in that thread. You would also find that at least some of them have indeed altered their way of thinking about AGW.

Two+ years ago a few members also regularly posted misinformation in that thread. Since – and I don’t remember how long back – that doesn’t happen anymore. Why? I think that’s because they know that their misinformation will be shredded to scraps.

That thread also has ~171,147 views. Who knows how many who have used the arguments and the information posted in that thread to sway family, friends and acquaintances away from a misinformed viewpoint?

Sincerely,
Claes

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, @ggies07,

Could you please supply a citation? First I'm hearing of this.

Thanks,
Alan

This is quite a fascinating topic, so please continue with the theory talk, but......

We now have tools that can split apart the molecules in the air and determine whether they came from cars, volcanoes, etc. by their chemistry composition. And the verdict is that most of them are CO2 from cars, so it's pretty hard coded in the science......I'm not sure how others can deny what's happening......

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks, I'll look into this one.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, @astrothad,

Could you please point me to a pie chart or similar breakdown?

Thanks,
Alan

Carbon dioxide is two oxygen atoms attached to a carbon atom, and there is no direct way to distinguish the last place any such molecule came from. They are - with the exception of isotopes ([SUP]13[/SUP]C instead of [SUP]12[/SUP]C, for example) - identical. If you can capture the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] at the source, you can look for relative amounts of the isotopes that give you clues to their origin. However, this is not possible in the open atmosphere due to the mixing of gases that occurs.

What we do have that allows climate scientists to state accurately the percentages of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from various sources is a vast array of global monitoring from satellites and from the surface. We can, with greater precision than ever before, show how much is coming from geologic sources, from energy production, and from the burning of forests. We can also measure how much is being sequestered by plants and by the ocean. We also have more precise measurements of the changes to the land and water than ever before, largely due to satellite measurements.
 
To me, this is the fundamental difference between faith and science. Faith doesn't change since it claims absolute truth based on some infallible source. For faith, change means that the source was wrong which is pretty catastrophic. Science is just trying to build better and better models, so a change is of no more consequence than adjusting your side view mirror.

This point cannot be stressed enough. Science welcomes (methodological) falsification and paradigm shift. Dogma of any sort does not. This is generally your best test of whether someone is speaking from the viewpoint of science or the viewpoint of belief - ask the question, "what evidence would help change your mind?"

It also gets close to the heart of one of my biggest pet peeves, which is the argument that scientists used to say this and now they say that, so science is not to be trusted. As was mentioned here, there is rarely (if ever) a suggestion of how to replace the model, so it's an argument based in a lack of understanding. I try to always engage in that situation and explain why it's acceptable, and even preferable, that science does "change its mind."
 
This point cannot be stressed enough. Science welcomes (methodological) falsification and paradigm shift. Dogma of any sort does not. This is generally your best test of whether someone is speaking from the viewpoint of science or the viewpoint of belief - ask the question, "what evidence would help change your mind?"

It also gets close to the heart of one of my biggest pet peeves, which is the argument that scientists used to say this and now they say that, so science is not to be trusted. As was mentioned here, there is rarely (if ever) a suggestion of how to replace the model, so it's an argument based in a lack of understanding. I try to always engage in that situation and explain why it's acceptable, and even preferable, that science does "change its mind."

If science didn't change its mind, it'd be because there isn't anything new to learn. And if there isn't anything new to learn, then you'd already know it all. I don't think I've yet met anybody who liked know it all's, if for no other reason they've stopped learning - they have nothing more to learn.
 
Carbon dioxide is two oxygen atoms attached to a carbon atom, and there is no direct way to distinguish the last place any such molecule came from. They are - with the exception of isotopes ([SUP]13[/SUP]C instead of [SUP]12[/SUP]C, for example) - identical. If you can capture the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] at the source, you can look for relative amounts of the isotopes that give you clues to their origin. However, this is not possible in the open atmosphere due to the mixing of gases that occurs.

What we do have that allows climate scientists to state accurately the percentages of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from various sources is a vast array of global monitoring from satellites and from the surface. We can, with greater precision than ever before, show how much is coming from geologic sources, from energy production, and from the burning of forests. We can also measure how much is being sequestered by plants and by the ocean. We also have more precise measurements of the changes to the land and water than ever before, largely due to satellite measurements.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, @ggies07,

Could you please supply a citation? First I'm hearing of this.

Thanks,
Alan




Thanks,
Alan

I remember reading about it in the Climate Change thread almost two years ago. Posts #572 and #575 by Raffy.Roma:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion - Page 58
 
...mathematics is not a science. Mathematics is formalized logic and as such is a tool of science. Nothing is measured in mathematics. In mathematics you have a proof. In science you have a widely accepted theory.

... You can always sow doubt. Gravity waves have never been detected. Do we throw out general relativity? If we do, then many things that depend on the theory for accurate calculations get thrown out with it and science actually goes backwards. ...This attitude is just plain sad.
i agree with all of this. It seems to me that lack of basic science education is at the core of most science denial. Ignoring the plethora of examples it seems most often that several highly specific words are not understood:
'Theory' is one such word. Few people seem to realize that a theory can only be formulated through providing evidence. Much of the evidence supporting scientific theory is presented with mathematics, thus exacerbating the odd idea that somehow mathematics IS science.
The entire subject of 'global warming' is classical, in that sound bites simply cannot express the issues adequately. The very idea of changing ocean currents, reduced mountain snowfall, increased severe storms, heat waves, colder weather in some areas, extreme draught and extreme floods are all related to the same topic. In sum "...global warming is not real, we have had the coldest winter in years" becomes plausible to non-scientifically literate people.

The worst face of the ignorance is the readiness of these people to use GPS, the latest smartphone, PET imaging, touchscreens and so on, while insisting that all of particle physics is "only theory". It is hard to understand why people reject evidence in most scientific areas, from Astronomy to Zoology without even a cursory examination of evidence. Thus the great mass of people are perfectly content to live in "fact-free zones" where faith in something provides certainty, while established scientific theory is rejected out of hand. Still, they want their smartphones, GPS and microwaves while totally rejecting the basis for their existence.

I recall from my first course in the History of Science learning the Scientific Method. Strange that people imagine that an hypothesis itself requires keen observation and rigorous logic if the hypothesis is to be testable. The colloquial use of the word 'theory' infuriates me, but in recent years I have given up trying to discuss the subject rationally. Sadly, among the most ignorant are some medical doctors and others who have lots of degrees. The departure from comprehensibility begins with the question of 'when life begins' among other things. How people can possess MD's and not understand cell division is one of my persistent questions.

I shall stop bleating now...
 
i agree with all of this. It seems to me that lack of basic science education is at the core of most science denial. Ignoring the plethora of examples it seems most often that several highly specific words are not understood:
'Theory' is one such word. Few people seem to realize that a theory can only be formulated through providing evidence. Much of the evidence supporting scientific theory is presented with mathematics, thus exacerbating the odd idea that somehow mathematics IS science.
The entire subject of 'global warming' is classical, in that sound bites simply cannot express the issues adequately. The very idea of changing ocean currents, reduced mountain snowfall, increased severe storms, heat waves, colder weather in some areas, extreme draught and extreme floods are all related to the same topic. In sum "...global warming is not real, we have had the coldest winter in years" becomes plausible to non-scientifically literate people.

The worst face of the ignorance is the readiness of these people to use GPS, the latest smartphone, PET imaging, touchscreens and so on, while insisting that all of particle physics is "only theory". It is hard to understand why people reject evidence in most scientific areas, from Astronomy to Zoology without even a cursory examination of evidence. Thus the great mass of people are perfectly content to live in "fact-free zones" where faith in something provides certainty, while established scientific theory is rejected out of hand. Still, they want their smartphones, GPS and microwaves while totally rejecting the basis for their existence.

I recall from my first course in the History of Science learning the Scientific Method. Strange that people imagine that an hypothesis itself requires keen observation and rigorous logic if the hypothesis is to be testable. The colloquial use of the word 'theory' infuriates me, but in recent years I have given up trying to discuss the subject rationally. Sadly, among the most ignorant are some medical doctors and others who have lots of degrees. The departure from comprehensibility begins with the question of 'when life begins' among other things. How people can possess MD's and not understand cell division is one of my persistent questions.
Excellent post.

I went back to college to study marine bio in the 80s, just because. I'm no scientist, but a huge fan and use scientific principals in virtually every aspect of my business life. We were talking about global warming and the slowdown of the Atlantic conveyer and the resulting climate instability then, with fervor and, although difficult to explain back then, it seemed to be easier to speak with people about such topics. The growth of chosen ignorance and faith-as-fact since then has really been amazing.

Props to the OP for starting this thread.
 
The departure from comprehensibility begins with the question of 'when life begins' among other things. How people can possess MD's and not understand cell division is one of my persistent questions.

I'm not so sure that is an easy question. Is a virus alive? It replicates but lacks cellular structure. How about prions? The problem with the question is that it often steps on many areas outside science such that a rational discussion is impossible.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...................
 
We should, to be scientifically accurate, refer to "climate change" and not simplistically "global warming". Our oceans, and therefore marine life, are being affected by a (measurable and proven) change in acidity levels that has nothing to do with global warming per se but plenty to do with rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Rising sea temperatures do causally affect weather patterns (El Niño anyone?) which in turn can lead to extreme changes either hot or cold depending on where you live.
 
We should, to be scientifically accurate, refer to "climate change" and not simplistically "global warming". Our oceans, and therefore marine life, are being affected by a (measurable and proven) change in acidity levels that has nothing to do with global warming per se but plenty to do with rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Rising sea temperatures do causally affect weather patterns (El Niño anyone?) which in turn can lead to extreme changes either hot or cold depending on where you live.
Technically, global climate change is a symptom of global warming. But it's MUCH easier to explain.
 
Even though this thread's topic is the fundamentals of science it's clear that its raison d'être at this point in time is the problem of anthropogenic climate change and perhaps in particular the phenomenon of widespread systematic denial of scientific theories with nowadays overwhelming empirical evidence to support them (to the point of becoming scientific facts or put bluntly: true).

Anyway, one thing I've thought a lot about recently are the different strategies used by the climate deniers in order to influence the public and society with the goal of sowing doubt and delaying necessary action to combat anthropogenic climate change. When focusing on the science illiterate, the uneducated etc. the strategies are quite rudimentary: appeal to emotion, straw man arguments, outright lies and portraying political initiatives as threatening to economic and personal freedom and things of that nature.

The more intelligent and science literate see through these types of arguments quite easily. The strategy that however too often seems to work though, when addressing this part of the population, is the appeal to general scepticism and the "underdog perspective". By this I mean the deniers are playing on that notion that most of "us smart people" have that we prefer to "think for ourselves" and that we like to "keep an open mind". Spice this up with furtive and shrewd theories that tickle a scientific mind (but are fundamentally wrong, baseless or at least not supported by empirical evidence) and you have a strategy that can lead even the most intelligent and science literate person astray for quite some time.

There's also the psychological tendency for people to not want to take in very uncomfortable truths, regardless of if it's strong signs of your significant other cheating or humanity digging itself in to a hole that might be hard to get out of.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, @ggies07. An interesting argument. Raffy.Roma cites no sources, though. While his argument about changing atmospheric 13C/12C ratios due to fossil fuel burning makes sense to me, the text he writes/cites presents the ratio change as an observed fact without explaining where the data come from and how reliable they are.

I remember reading about it in the Climate Change thread almost two years ago. Posts #572 and #575 by Raffy.Roma:

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion - Page 58
 
Disagree on the exclusivity of that statement. I gave the example of ocean acidification which is not a symptom of global warming, but is a symptom of rising CO2 levels i.e. climate change.

[/pedanticism]
LOL [pedanticism++]
Note "a symptom" not "the symptom" ;) Not ascribing exclusivity to either side of the equation (warming v. change).
[/pedanticism]