Can science predict the future?

Question

A prominent answerer in this section says

"AGW is not science, as science cannot predict the future. No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder 5 years from now and show you how they came to this conclusion."

Do people feel this is true? Can't science predict the future at least to some extent? As Lorenz and others showed, there are limits to predictability, but doesn't that mean that science can predict the future within those bounds? Didn't NASA predict the flight of the Phoenix lander to Mars using science? Isn't that the point of science, to determine physical laws such that the outcome of an experiment can be predicted from those laws?

Answer 1

Meteorologists can predict weather patterns; they're not 100% accurate, but they're surely >50% accurate, meaning that they are able to "predict the future" to some extent.

Same with climatology.

If all or most of the variables known to affect the outcome are measured, then one can certainly predict the outcome fairly accurately. If the global temperature for a given epoch was 15 C, and (hypothetically) I were to know solar output would double over the next billion years (all of this hypothetical), I could reasonably extrapolate the next epoch would be much warmer.

Answer 2

Science can predict lots of things. It can predict eclipses hundreds of years in advance.

But Science can't predict everything. In fact, quantum mechanics says science can't even know everything as it is right now. All it can do is predict probabilities.

So is the probability that human activity has become great enough to cause detectable climate changes now greater than the uncertainty inherent in climate science? Most real climate scientists say yes. And I don't much care what politicians and Dr. Jello say.

Answer 3

NASA didn't 'predict' the flight of the Phoenix, they calculated exactly where it would be by using the mathematical laws of physics dealing with the natural laws of gravity.

And NASA did not depend on a 'consensus' to determine where the craft would land, just one man who used proven formulas was all that was required.

No - predicting the future weather you use chicken bones or a super computer is just a game of mysticism.

It may very well be an educated guess, but it's still a guess.

No one can show you how they came to their conclusion, no one can "prove" that it will be warmer, 10 people will give you 30 different answers, it's all a guess and guesses aren't science.

Answer 4

It's amazing that people don't know the difference between predictions and calculations, math and guesses.

We know the flight path of the Phoenix because they follow the laws of gravity.  This is the same reason why we can calculate the exact time the sun and moon will rise and set, and when we'll experience a eclipse of the sun or the moon.  These aren't predictions.

We are familiar with weather patterns to take a good guess about what the weather will be this weekend, however we do not know enough to predict the climate 10 years from now.

Consensus science has been wrong so often I wonder why anyone gives it any attention any more.  It's sad to see that we don't learn over time.

Answer 5

no, only church Preacher's can do that

Answer 6

Yes science can be used to predict many things.

If we use the physical properties of CO2 as calculated using repeatable scientific experiments, we can demonstrate with some confidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 will not cause measurable global warming.  

If we don't use science and instead use concensus of committees, carefully chosen data, climate models that are just function fits to historical data and data obtained by methods that are not publically disclosed, then we can obtain some pro-AGW retoric.

Answer 7

Science has been a very poor predictor of the future. Especially when it is based on models which are shown to be wrong time and time again.

Answer 8

Of course it can, but to a certain degree or accuracy. That is why its called a prediction.  Everyone can make predictions but I am sure scientists's predictions would be more credible than any Tom d**k or Harry's.

Answer 9

no

Answer 10

Predictability is one of the key aspects of science.  If a theory is  any good, it's demonstrated by the prediction of something that should occur or should have occurred in the past.  When further research finds the prediction correct, that strengthens the theory.

Science can predict with a statistically significant accuracy how long a person will live.  Science can predict eclipses, comet paths, and numerous other space related events.  Science can predict, with statistically significant accuracy, the long-term trend in the global average temperature of our planet.  Science can predict, with statistically significant accuracy, the flood level of the rivers in Iowa.  Etc., etc.

Answer 11

The problem is that the answerer in question doesn't understand what a prediction is.  He says that the landing of Phoenix was 'calculated', not 'predicted'.  He doesn't understand that scientists make predictions (like future warming) based on calculations.

For example, before I drop a tennis ball, I can predict how long it will take to hit the ground through physics calculations.  Of course, contrary to what this answer believes, I cannot predict the falling time exactly.  I don't know if a wind will pick up while it's in midair, if the fuzz on the ball will create air resistance, if a gnat will fly underneath the ball, etc.  All I can do is predict (a.k.a. calculate) within a certain margin of error approximately how long it will take.  My prediction of this future event is based on a calculation.  Just because I can predict the time to high accuracy does not mean it's not a prediction.

The problem with this particular answerer is that he thinks if a calculation is too hard for him to understand, it's worthless.  Fortunately, in reality the laws of physics don't rely on gelatinous mental capacities.

Oh, and for this answerer to say the Phoenix landing was calculated by one scientist is completely ludicrous and again illustrates how poorly he understands how the scientific community works.

Answer 12

Predictions of future climate events are couched in terms of statistical probability.  To claim that forming hypotheses and testing them is not science is absurd.  This whole discussion about global warming is just foolish yakking that distracts us masses while the research continues.  And there is no one here at YA who is 'prominent,' especially if they are pronouncing what is science and what is not like some are.  Dear Lord.  Nobody KNOWS what the climactic outcome is going to be, and nobody outside of a few people here think that YA is anything but entertainment for a few malcontents who think they have an inside track on reality.  Notice that I am here and not distancing myself from my own comments...but NOBODY is convincing ANYBODY here of ANYTHING, and nobody ANYWHERE gives a rat's a** what our opinions are, they're just glad we have a little spot of our own to engage in meaningless discussion and stay out of the grownup's hair.  Heck, most of what passes for 'knowledge' here at YA is just googling words and phrases and then parroting whatever is found in the links...without a computer and Google, most people couldn't even win a game of Trivial Pursuit.  I can hardly believe that anyone who announces 'the facts' as if they actually KNOW what is going on with the environment based on watching TV, reading magazines, or surfing the internet gets anything other than 'LOLs' for answers to their queries.

Geez.  Fun, though.

Answer 13

The illusionist got it right.  There have been predictions of gloom and doom since there were predictions.  To suggest that the latest gloom and doomers are suddenly endowed by science to be more omniscient is nonsense in the extreme.   It isn't science to suggest that you can predict things with limited knowledge and technology.  That is simply arrogant ignorance.

Answer 14

Yes and no. Schience can't predict what college your going to get into. But science can predict when the sun will go out and thw world will freeze over and die. Science can predict which way a hurricane can go, or there abouts. Sceice and math are everything. Science can predict which way an apple falls and which end will land where if you give them enogugh tools and iformation. Schience can predict alot of things, but sicience can't predict who your going to marry or when your mother's going to die.

Answer 15

Oh sure.  Countless examples.  Who was it that could predict the eclipse and so had the power of a God?  Our simulations today can predict every eclipse (for a very long time into the future, I'm sure).  

Last I checked the observed temperatures over the last 20 years were well within the predicted range.  And they will be for the next 5 years because the models have proven to be accurate.

edit

"using the mathematical laws of physics dealing with the natural laws"

Yes, this is exactly right.  But nobody can "prove" that the Phoenix will land there, because nobody can ever "prove" the law of gravity.  

We are relying solely on the predictive power of science.  

AGW is based on science...The very same...The one and only... ...It's probably the same guys... Hey wait a minute, isn't that Hansen guy from NASA?...   Whatdayaknow.

edit:

OMG!  The whole world is an illusion!  There have been millions of wrong predictions by scientists!  We can never trust those grant grubbing socialist b******s ever again!  

What will we do?  Hmmm...  Don't fly in a plane, let alone go up in space...Don't drive a car... Don't go over a bridge...  Don't go up in a tall building... Don't take any drugs... Don't drink any purfied water...  Don't eat any hybrid foods... This is getting tedious.

Oh, and thanks to some Chinese crackpots from three thousand years ago, don't set off any fireworks on the Fourth of July!

This type of nonsense would almost be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.  And dangerous.

Answer 16

Yes, of course.  The scientific method consists of making hypotheses based on prior knowledge, making predictions based on the hypotheses, and testing the predictions to verify the hypotheses.  When a hypothesis is found to consistently result in accurate predictions, it becomes a theory.  AGW is now generally considered a theory.

However, the predictions of AGW aren't based on simple calculations and have more room for error than other scientific predictions, because of the many variables involved.  Computer models must be used for making predictions and many people seem to take issue with that.  

EDIT:  Case in point for my last comment, I just read Jello's answer.  Apparently he thinks the use of computers is akin to palm reading or astrology.

Answer 17

There are some serious inadequecies of science.  While we can predict sunrises and tides, we can't even accurately predict the weather more than 24 hours ahead.

We can estimate where a hurricane may go, but are not right much of the time.  We can't even redirect a hurricane.  

Every generation believes their scientists know everything, but look back at how wrong they were.  There was once a consensus among scientists that the earth was flat and I'll bet they thought they were pretty smart back then.

Sadly, most of the wonders of this earth are way beyond us and yet we hate to admit we're so ignorant.

Just for fun, I've listed below some predictions in the past that never happened.  They're funny to read about, but don't forget that those scientists and scholars were dead serious when they made these predictions.

1) in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

2) Also in 1969, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

3) In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

4) In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.

5) Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them."

6) In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

7) Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

8) Going even further back in time:  In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.

9) In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.

10) In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

11) in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, is that there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

and on and on, etc etc.

I'm sure there are millions of wrong predictions, it's just most people only like to talk about the predictions that come true.  Kind of like a psychic only tells you the 3% of the predictions they got right as proof they are soothsayers.

In closing, our scientists are very good these days, but they'll be the first to say they don't know everything.