Science for dummies
Pursuant to an IM with Pascal, and subsequent email exchanges:
Science consists of two basic things: Facts, and guesses.
Sometimes, the facts change, sometimes what is accepted as scientific fact turns out not to be. But, for the most part, there are some hard facts that can be counted on to stay facts for a long time.
Temperature is one of them. temperature can be affected somewhat by atmospheric conditions, distance above sea level, etc. but for the most part, reading a mercuroid thermometer is a good indication of what the actual temperature is.
Now, let’s say, you want to know the temperature of a room. You can’t get a thermometer in the room, but you know the room contains a relatively active cat, a sedentary human, a steam register which is on 22% of the time, and a window which is open four inches, twenty inches wide, and it’s 34 degrees out the window.
You can just put a thermometer in a similarly sized room, but this isn’t very accurate. You can put the thermometer in the room with a window and a radiator, but that is only a bit more accurate. You can add a moderately active cat and a sedentary human, but that only narrows the margin for error. You can do the absolute best to duplicate the conditions of the room, and measure your mocked up room, but the fact is, there are so many things you don’t know.
Is the subject room insulated more or less than your room? Is the human in that room larger or smaller than yours? is there more or less skin? does the human in the subject room have a disease that makes him colder? warmer? does the radiator transfer heat efficiently, or is it covered in layer after layer of insulating paint? Is the window in the subject room facing into the wind most of the time, or away from it, or at some angle to it?
Even the process of measurement itself can affect the outcome. Like Schrodinger’s cat- if you open the door to the room to check the temperature you introduce potential variation caused by the opening of the door, your own body heat, etc.
The bottomline is, you can only guess. You can narrow the results of your guess, but you can still only guess. Science gives us the ability to generate scenarios that have less and less margin for error, and math allows us to calculate the amount of possible error.
That margin for error is the issue at work here. The past is a room we cannot enter. We can’t go there with a thermometer, so all we can do is measure the things we CAN measure, and compare them to other things we’ve measured. Frinstance: Look at how much CO is in the air now. Look at how much CO is in an air bubble found in an ice floe thousands of years old. That’s one way of guessing. Of course, we don’t know if that correlation is meaningful; it could well be that the CO levels are affected by different things at different times. So it’s a guess. Still, just a guess. Maybe a semi-scientific wild ass guess, but a guess nonetheless.
We cannot base global warming hysteria on guesses. If the planet is warming, we have to prove it by science, and then we have to prove that the warming is a bad thing. I’m not sure either is possible right now, but i know this: I know more than Algore about the scientific process.
10 comments Og | Uncategorized

“34 degrees”… Celsius or Fahrenheit?
But, you are right. Al’s a dick. Nothing scientific about that. Just a fact. Celsius or Fahrenheit, either way he’s a dick.
so true, so true.
It’s even worse than you say.
Air is a fluid, and as such is chaotic in structure. It moves, and conditions of ANY description can only be characterized as purely local.
Your bulb thermometer is capable ONLY of measuring the average temperature of the air molecules which directly contact its bulb. The rest of the air in ANY volume is a great unknown.
It is possible to arrive at a significant average. I don’t know what the percentage of volume you’d have to measure to get a reliable figure for that volume. But I do know this: it is one hellofalot more than a mere 7200 points spread out over the land surface of the earth. (And not — mostly — over the surface of the oceans.)
And, since the “historical” models you mention are based on the conventional wisdom about atmospheric conditions — which is, in turn, based on the “official” record… (In’t THAT a circle-jerk?) … the reliability of such models is, at best, suspect.
I suspect, once it all shook out, that the margin of error will prove to be greater than any fine-grain (i.e., meaningful in a human-scale, public policy sense) phenomena observed. Whatcha call yer basic noise.
And then there’s the question of the accuracy, precision, and reliability of the base of temperature data itself.
All-in-all, I think, a piss-poor basis for deciding who is and is not to have his life to be destroyed by the power of government.
M
I resent that Redneck.
I just read a very interesting article in Discover magazine about a physicist who proposes that some of global warming is due to cosmic rays affecting the amount of cloud formation, which is directly related to the temperature of Earth.
He’s been disparaged by a majority of his colleagues because his findings go against the current fad of CO2 causing our global warming. Funny, considering his studies actually involve fact and have hard results.
Here’s the article, I encourage you all to read it:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
The funny thing about that article is that the physicist found that when the Sun gets hotter and the solar wind picks up, more cosmic rays are blocked and fewer clouds form, reflecting less sunlight, and voila! It gets hotter.
Sun gets hotter, Earth gets hotter. Who’da thunkit?
So…
How many of you guys get to sleep with a hot scientist?
Braggart.
So, with all the hub bub about CO2 and other “greenhouse gases”, the majority of which allegedly are produced by man and or other critters, being the ticking time bomb which will destroy us all. I have a question? Could it be that instead of a major meteor strike causing the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs, could it have been dinosaur farts (or dino out-gassing, for you purists out there) that ultimately did them in??
You may be on to something there, Guy.