Climate Change Hypothesis... what's in a name
01/11/09 23:54 Filed in: Personal
You know, one of the most surprising things that hits me in the news these days is how it is reported that (man made) climate change is a "theory", which quite clearly it isn't.
More over, climate change is directly a result of 'rising' CO2 is a theory, it is not either.
And these are not distinctions that are going un-missed within the scientific community, to which I can personally attest.
It's all down the difference between a conjecture, hypothesis and a theory.
Let me explain.
A conjecture is an open statement of question to the proved, test and/or otherwise examined. So I could put forward a conjecture that there an infinite number of prime numbers. This is clearly something that cannot be tested. But there are certain parameters and so forth we can put forward to support or dispute it. But the statement itself, the question if you like, that's a conjecture.
Next up on the scientific scale of certainty we have a hypothesis. Now a hypothesis is an explanation of proposition to explain or resolve something. This is something that can be essentially tested, in particularly, in the way it can be disputed. It can be either agreed with or proved false (at which point another hypothesis should be created.... more on this later). Essentially, a hypothesis is an educated guess.
Finally, we have a theory. A theory is a scientifically tested statement that gains huge support, either in terms of a scientific proof or considerable and widely accepted by the scientific community. I'm talking about there being universal appear of the reality that this particular description is both proven by results and/or demonstrates itself.
So... back the Climate Change and the concept that it is man made.
Can it be proved beyond doubt that man is the driving force behind climate change?
Well, it's PROVEN in the scientific records, both ice core and dendrochronology that the have been considerable variation in the Earth's climate within the most recent quaternary era. Extremes of both high and low temperatures have occurred as ice ages both advance and receed. No one single theory for ice ages exists at present and, but a number include both solar output, distances and atmospheric issues. Not to mention plate tektonics. One thing that is clearly not included is the idea that "man" is responsible.
As for the supporting evidence TO man made global warming. I'm afraid that despite suggestions to the contrary, the whole science understanding is that we don't have enough evidence to support the fact and the reality is that climate change theory is actually a climate change hypothesis (at best) and some would argue that it should be de-listed, as it were, down to conjecture.
Fact is that models proposed as evidence by the IPCC since it's original report have year on year failed to match those of predicted output. In fact, in recent reports the IPCC has had to admit that climate change may be taking a 10 (or 20 year, depending on source) year break as a result of changes to the output of the sun.
But wait... wasn't it the IPCC that downplayed the output of the sun as a reason for climate change. How very odd then that they should then leap on the idea of blaming solar activity for the lack of results.
The reality is that it's a lot worse than we imagine. Because effectively what the IPCC, the UK Met Office et al are saying is that OUR THEORY IS RIGHT and it's the weather and Sun that's got it wrong.
On a side note, a friend of mine was telling me about a Foreign and Commonwealth Office (open) meeting where David Miliband stated that "climate change was a fact". Well, he's not going to get an argument from me on that. Of course the climate changes... we are on a third bloody atmosphere as it is!
Anyway, when he was questioned on the subject of it not being a fact, it was theory he stated that "99.9% of ALL scientist know it's true". After half the audience laughed at his statement, clearly made up on the spot, he moved onto another subject quickly. The interesting thing is that when the transcript of the meeting hit the FCO intranet, the "99.9%" had been removed a totally different statement was posted in it's place. I've subsequently had this verified independently.
Now, clearly David Miliband was flustered by the sudden question on a subject I can appreciate he's not educated to answer (he studied Philosophy and Political Science), but it's a good example of the "make the stats on the spot" that helps support the who concept.
Look, my point is this. The climate changes... it ALWAYS has. Get over it.
Now any advances we can do towards efficiency, lowering polution and recycling what we use are ALL fantastic ideas. But we have to appreciate and understand what each causes.
Lets take the idea that if we all switch to electric cars it will be a "significant drop in polution".
1. The battery packs used in the cars require some of the most environmentally distructive mining on earth. Not to mention that carrying a stuffing great battery around when your not using it, as in hybrid cars, wastes more energy.
2. Where is this electricity coming from? I guess that would be power stations. So children, what's the most environmentally destructive process in the UK at present, in terms of CO2?
Anyone?.. I'll tell you... it's ENERGY GENERATION. Yep, that's right. It equates to nearly DOUBLE the amount of CO2 pollution than road transport.
If we have to double the demand on the system, then it means we are going to have to increase our demand on the Energy Generation system. And it's not going to be filled by wave turbines and fluffy windmills. Not in the short term. No, coal only energy plants will need to operate at higher outputs... pushing the already high 37% towards 50-55%. Which means that it's WORSE environmentally to use an electric car.
So tell me this Mr Brown. Why are you not clamping down on the amount of CO2 being produced by the coal power stations. By capturing just 50% of the CO2 produced in Energy Production, we could SAVE as much CO2 as road transport produces!
More over, climate change is directly a result of 'rising' CO2 is a theory, it is not either.
And these are not distinctions that are going un-missed within the scientific community, to which I can personally attest.
It's all down the difference between a conjecture, hypothesis and a theory.
Let me explain.
A conjecture is an open statement of question to the proved, test and/or otherwise examined. So I could put forward a conjecture that there an infinite number of prime numbers. This is clearly something that cannot be tested. But there are certain parameters and so forth we can put forward to support or dispute it. But the statement itself, the question if you like, that's a conjecture.
Next up on the scientific scale of certainty we have a hypothesis. Now a hypothesis is an explanation of proposition to explain or resolve something. This is something that can be essentially tested, in particularly, in the way it can be disputed. It can be either agreed with or proved false (at which point another hypothesis should be created.... more on this later). Essentially, a hypothesis is an educated guess.
Finally, we have a theory. A theory is a scientifically tested statement that gains huge support, either in terms of a scientific proof or considerable and widely accepted by the scientific community. I'm talking about there being universal appear of the reality that this particular description is both proven by results and/or demonstrates itself.
So... back the Climate Change and the concept that it is man made.
Can it be proved beyond doubt that man is the driving force behind climate change?
Well, it's PROVEN in the scientific records, both ice core and dendrochronology that the have been considerable variation in the Earth's climate within the most recent quaternary era. Extremes of both high and low temperatures have occurred as ice ages both advance and receed. No one single theory for ice ages exists at present and, but a number include both solar output, distances and atmospheric issues. Not to mention plate tektonics. One thing that is clearly not included is the idea that "man" is responsible.
As for the supporting evidence TO man made global warming. I'm afraid that despite suggestions to the contrary, the whole science understanding is that we don't have enough evidence to support the fact and the reality is that climate change theory is actually a climate change hypothesis (at best) and some would argue that it should be de-listed, as it were, down to conjecture.
Fact is that models proposed as evidence by the IPCC since it's original report have year on year failed to match those of predicted output. In fact, in recent reports the IPCC has had to admit that climate change may be taking a 10 (or 20 year, depending on source) year break as a result of changes to the output of the sun.
But wait... wasn't it the IPCC that downplayed the output of the sun as a reason for climate change. How very odd then that they should then leap on the idea of blaming solar activity for the lack of results.
The reality is that it's a lot worse than we imagine. Because effectively what the IPCC, the UK Met Office et al are saying is that OUR THEORY IS RIGHT and it's the weather and Sun that's got it wrong.
On a side note, a friend of mine was telling me about a Foreign and Commonwealth Office (open) meeting where David Miliband stated that "climate change was a fact". Well, he's not going to get an argument from me on that. Of course the climate changes... we are on a third bloody atmosphere as it is!
Anyway, when he was questioned on the subject of it not being a fact, it was theory he stated that "99.9% of ALL scientist know it's true". After half the audience laughed at his statement, clearly made up on the spot, he moved onto another subject quickly. The interesting thing is that when the transcript of the meeting hit the FCO intranet, the "99.9%" had been removed a totally different statement was posted in it's place. I've subsequently had this verified independently.
Now, clearly David Miliband was flustered by the sudden question on a subject I can appreciate he's not educated to answer (he studied Philosophy and Political Science), but it's a good example of the "make the stats on the spot" that helps support the who concept.
Look, my point is this. The climate changes... it ALWAYS has. Get over it.
Now any advances we can do towards efficiency, lowering polution and recycling what we use are ALL fantastic ideas. But we have to appreciate and understand what each causes.
Lets take the idea that if we all switch to electric cars it will be a "significant drop in polution".
1. The battery packs used in the cars require some of the most environmentally distructive mining on earth. Not to mention that carrying a stuffing great battery around when your not using it, as in hybrid cars, wastes more energy.
2. Where is this electricity coming from? I guess that would be power stations. So children, what's the most environmentally destructive process in the UK at present, in terms of CO2?
Anyone?.. I'll tell you... it's ENERGY GENERATION. Yep, that's right. It equates to nearly DOUBLE the amount of CO2 pollution than road transport.
If we have to double the demand on the system, then it means we are going to have to increase our demand on the Energy Generation system. And it's not going to be filled by wave turbines and fluffy windmills. Not in the short term. No, coal only energy plants will need to operate at higher outputs... pushing the already high 37% towards 50-55%. Which means that it's WORSE environmentally to use an electric car.
So tell me this Mr Brown. Why are you not clamping down on the amount of CO2 being produced by the coal power stations. By capturing just 50% of the CO2 produced in Energy Production, we could SAVE as much CO2 as road transport produces!