5 ms·

I think you are misusing the term scientific method here. Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests. Global warming science is based on something

I think you are misusing the term scientific method here. Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests. Global warming science is based on something else entirely. Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies. My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.

fghtr 8y ago
On what is it based then? There are computer simulations ("hypotheses"), which scientists compare with available data ("verifications"). Then verified simulation tools are applied to predict what happens depending on our behavior. The latter part is a hypothesis without a test, but if it turns out to be true, we are in trouble. It's better to trust it and take action...
- gadders 8y ago
  Obligatory Dilbert Cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14 http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    Of course, one must consider that the climate models that have gotten ignored over the years have generally been ignored because they were too pessimistic, despite those ones turning out to be the more accurate ones.
ForHackernews 8y ago
So you don't consider astronomy a science?
- fghtr 8y ago
  We have a lot of measurements in astronomy, which often proove or disprove our hypotheses.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    The same is true in climate science. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we're currently conducting a global scale experiment (though without a control Earth) that is already showing results.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      In astronomy one aberrant observation is enough to completely revolutionize the field or destroy a previously esteemed view. It's not based on melting pot models and so a single mistake indicates something is wrong, perhaps fundamentally wrong. Consider that decades before relativity was discovered we knew very well that something was very broken because Mercury's expected orbit was off by 1/100th of a degree per century. By contrast, how would you propose falsifying a climate model? Each decade or so we gain another chunk of data we can use to try to trial predictions of the past and, to date, they've done quite abysmally except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. In a science that was more heavily dependent upon testing, this would be a ground-shaking event. But it's effect on climate science has been relatively minimal. [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...
      - ForHackernews 8y ago
        I mean, all that really proves is that climatology is more complicated than orbital mechanics.
        User23 8y ago
        Formal reasoning, scientific or otherwise, is all about reducing a subject to cognitive manageability. If the subject is too complicated to do that, then it shouldn't be considered in the same class as subjects where that is possible.
- User23 8y ago
  Many of the sciences are actually better understood as more or less rigorous phenomenologies. Sometimes actually applying the formal scientific method is grossly unethical or ludicrously expensive. In cases like that the phenomenological approach lets you still develop something of an understanding of the subject matter. From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter if the subject is technically formal science or a rigorous phenomenology, what matters is that you can engineer systems using the knowledge of the field.
wool_gather 8y ago
As opposed to, say, astrophysics? Anthropology? Geology? Marine biology? Neuroscience? Paleontology? There are any number of scientific disciplines that don't have the ability to run the idealized repeatable experiment-in-a-bottle. In fact, I'd wager the number that do is probably smaller than the number that don't. There's more to the scientific method than that.
beat 8y ago
Please clarify. If global warming science is not based on hypothesis and tests, what is it based on? Where are you going with this?
- misterprime 8y ago
  Not OP, but from what I understand a lot of the tests where simulated and the 50' sea level rise they predicted hasn't started happening, etc. The input data wasn't working with the expected results as well, so they came up with a flaw in the thermometers around the world which they used as justification to massage the numbers. I dunno. I don't like pollution, but it's feeling a little hoaxie.
  - beat 8y ago
    Ah, the "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants" argument.
    - misterprime 8y ago
      Is that what I said? Anyway this doesn't seem like the appropriate forum.

fghtr 8y ago

On what is it based then? There are computer simulations ("hypotheses"), which scientists compare with available data ("verifications"). Then verified simulation tools are applied to predict what happens depending on our behavior. The latter part is a hypothesis without a test, but if it turns out to be true, we are in trouble. It's better to trust it and take action...

gadders 8y ago
Obligatory Dilbert Cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14 http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
- crooked-v 8y ago
  Of course, one must consider that the climate models that have gotten ignored over the years have generally been ignored because they were too pessimistic, despite those ones turning out to be the more accurate ones.

ForHackernews 8y ago

So you don't consider astronomy a science?

fghtr 8y ago
We have a lot of measurements in astronomy, which often proove or disprove our hypotheses.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  The same is true in climate science. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we're currently conducting a global scale experiment (though without a control Earth) that is already showing results.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    In astronomy one aberrant observation is enough to completely revolutionize the field or destroy a previously esteemed view. It's not based on melting pot models and so a single mistake indicates something is wrong, perhaps fundamentally wrong. Consider that decades before relativity was discovered we knew very well that something was very broken because Mercury's expected orbit was off by 1/100th of a degree per century. By contrast, how would you propose falsifying a climate model? Each decade or so we gain another chunk of data we can use to try to trial predictions of the past and, to date, they've done quite abysmally except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. In a science that was more heavily dependent upon testing, this would be a ground-shaking event. But it's effect on climate science has been relatively minimal. [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      I mean, all that really proves is that climatology is more complicated than orbital mechanics.
      - User23 8y ago
        Formal reasoning, scientific or otherwise, is all about reducing a subject to cognitive manageability. If the subject is too complicated to do that, then it shouldn't be considered in the same class as subjects where that is possible.
User23 8y ago
Many of the sciences are actually better understood as more or less rigorous phenomenologies. Sometimes actually applying the formal scientific method is grossly unethical or ludicrously expensive. In cases like that the phenomenological approach lets you still develop something of an understanding of the subject matter. From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter if the subject is technically formal science or a rigorous phenomenology, what matters is that you can engineer systems using the knowledge of the field.

wool_gather 8y ago

As opposed to, say, astrophysics? Anthropology? Geology? Marine biology? Neuroscience? Paleontology? There are any number of scientific disciplines that don't have the ability to run the idealized repeatable experiment-in-a-bottle. In fact, I'd wager the number that do is probably smaller than the number that don't. There's more to the scientific method than that.

beat 8y ago

Please clarify. If global warming science is not based on hypothesis and tests, what is it based on? Where are you going with this?

misterprime 8y ago
Not OP, but from what I understand a lot of the tests where simulated and the 50' sea level rise they predicted hasn't started happening, etc. The input data wasn't working with the expected results as well, so they came up with a flaw in the thermometers around the world which they used as justification to massage the numbers. I dunno. I don't like pollution, but it's feeling a little hoaxie.
- beat 8y ago
  Ah, the "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants" argument.
  - misterprime 8y ago
    Is that what I said? Anyway this doesn't seem like the appropriate forum.