<div>What I thought you meant was that the science behind examining anthropogenic global warming could <strong>not conduct a "test" on the Earth's whole climate system's response to human impacts, but could only examine single variables ("some aspect of the theory")</strong> responding or not to increases in atmospheric CO2, and other human impacts. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the computer models that have been used since the 1970s to study the potential consequences of human impacts on climate <strong>attempt to model the Earth's climate system as a whole,</strong> to determine the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2, and other variables. Thus the theory is being <strong>scientifically examined considering the simultaneous interactions of numerous variables in the climate system,</strong> as much as this is possible with a computer model. The outcomes of the computer models might be considered a single virtual "test" of the theory in total.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the most striking predictions of the earlier computer models was the rapid deterioration of the Arctic. While the observed decline in Arctic ice cover and rapid increases in Arctic temperatures vindicates these earlier computer models predicting human impacts on climate, <strong>some critics have emphasized that some of the computer models must be significantly in error,</strong> <strong>because the decline in the Arctic has been occurring much faster than predicted. </strong>Maybe the computer models mathematical accuracy is in question. Maybe other variables are not given due consideration. Some argue solar variables. Recently in the media there was a lot of hype about underwater volcanoes warming the Arctic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I also thought you might have meant that <strong>repeatable and controlled</strong> <strong>laboratory (a cornerstone of much "hard" scientific research) tests</strong> <strong>on the Earth's climate system as a whole, relating to anthropogenic warming, are impossible,</strong> given we would need numerous Earth's under controlled conditions to experiment on, adding CO2 to the atmosphere to test the outcome numerous times. A similar argument, I think, is used to criticize the social sciences, given you cannot take entire societies and put them in "test tubes" to conduct repeatable controlled experiments on the outcomes of changing conditions. Some would argue that the social sciences are a "soft" science due to this limitation, ditto for climate science. However, the lead melting temperatures on Venus (900 F.) do offer an example of the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 (Venus's atmosphere is about 96 percent CO2) on the climate of a planet.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Computer models used in climate science are a means to virtually conduct repeatable tests on the Earth's climate system's response to changing variables. <strong>Whether relying on computer models to accurately predict the Earth's climate system in the future should be considered "hard" or "soft" science can be debated, but the science behind anthropogenic warming also relies on accurate paleoclimate data gathered by scientists,</strong> that one of the world's leading climate scientists, NASA's James Hansen, has pointed out is more important than computer climate modeling. He states the Earth's climate history is the most important basis for climate science:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080805/james-hansen-how-science-works">http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080805/james-hansen-how-science-works</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>James Hansen</div>
<div>
<p>Our understanding of the Earth’s climate, in particular, depends foremost on the Earth’s history: how past climate changed in response to changing boundary conditions. I rate observations of ongoing climate change and processes today, processes on the ice sheets, in the oceans, etc., as the second most important source of knowledge about climate change. Climate models rate only third, in my opinion. Models are a tool that helps us understand the other two, i.e., climate history and on-going climate phenomena. Models are a representation of reality, one that helps us combine different factors, evaluate relative importance, and try to understand interactions. As we make progress we add more processes to the models and improve representations of others. </p>
</div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/5/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Campbell</b> <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>All I meant was that you couldn't do a single test on the thesis, not that it was unsupported by evidence.<br><span class="sg"><br>Joe Campbell</span></div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_12079dd7e0491594_3">
<div><br>On Apr 5, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Ted Moffett <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br> </div>
<div></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Joe Campbell wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-April/062709.html" target="_blank"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-April/062709.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-April/062709.html</a></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It isn't as if you could test global warming anyway. Any tests would have to be done on <br>some aspect of the theory and I imagine such tests are being done.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Campbell<br><br>---------------------</div>
<div>Do you wish to retract your statement, given your rather puzzling assertion that "It isn't as if you could test global warming anyway." assuming you accept the validity of the scientific information presented below from NOAA on the scientific efforts regarding "testing" global warming theory, that have been ongoing for decades? There is a compelling reason that the IPCC issues definitive statements regarding the future impacts of anthropogenic climate change: The theory <strong>has</strong> <strong>been tested</strong> for decades. I am astonished that an academic of your standing would write such an irresponsible statement about one of the most important scientific issues of our time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div>---------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html" target="_blank"><font color="#551a8b">NOAA 200th Top Tens: Breakthroughs: The First <strong>Climate Model</strong></font></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Testing the Notion of Global Warming</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Two scientists from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Drs. Syukuro Manabe and Kirk Bryan, published the model results in 1969. By the 1970s, general circulation models emerged as a central tool in climate research. Dr. Manabe and Mr. Dick Wetherald later used this original model to simulate the first three-dimensional experiment to test the notion of global warming. Their groundbreaking results were published in 1975. </div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The First Climate Model</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html" target="_blank"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html" target="_blank">http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html</a></a></div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/GFDL_HPCC.html" target="_blank"><img title="computing infrastructure that can hold 2,000 terabytes" height="168" alt="computing infrastructure that can hold 2,000 terabytes" src="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/GFDL_HPCC220.jpg" width="220" border="0"></a>
<p>To accommodate growth in the size of model outputs, NOAA has invested in a computing infrastructure that can hold 2,000 terabytes (or two million gigabytes) of data. With this capacity, scientists now have the ability to store global climate data on a weekly or even daily basis to investigate climate change.</p>
</div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/Obstrends.html" target="_blank"><img title="Observed trends in surface air temperature from 1960-1990" height="220" alt="Observed trends in surface air temperature from 1960-1990" src="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/Obstrends220.jpg" width="220" border="0"></a>
<p>Computer models have long predicted that the climate change will affect Arctic and subarctic regions earlier and more dramatically than other parts of the world. Recent studies show marked increases in temperature and many other climate variables across much of the far north. Observed trends in surface air temperature from 1960-1990 (shown above in degrees centigrade) demonstrate "polar amplification,” with largest temperature increases (shown in red and magenta) occurring near the North Pole.</p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div></div></blockquote></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br>