What are the unproven assumptions of the global warming theory?

Question

Theories are usually assumption based. Once all the assumptions have been proven to be valid the thoery ceases to be a theory and becomes fact. Global warming remains a theory so i wish to know how many unproven assumptions remain and what they are.

Answer 1

Coral bleaching- There has been no conclusive link between coral bleaching and GW. The truth is that they don't know exactly why this occurs, but GW "may" be a factor. Therefore they assume it must be GW causing the damage because they can't find any other explanation

Answer 2

You are incorrect--but its a common mistake.  The term "theory" in science does not imply that the idea is unproven; a "theory" is a set of statements that explain observed facts.  Those statements begin as hypothesis (which are NOT proen); once all the hypotheses that make up a theory have been tested and shown to be correct, the theory is validadated.

Not that we still refer to Newton's "Theory of Motion" or Einsteins "Theory of Relativity"--despite the fact that al their essential hypotheses (assumptions) have long been verified.

And that is the case with global warming.  To begin with it was not an established theory--and indeed did have many untested assumptions.  But that was 20 years ago.  All of the assumptions have been tested and the theory is now an established one.

The fact that some people who, for political motives, continue to dispute this is as irrelevant as a witch doctor's insistance that "evil spirits" cause illness in the face of medical science and "germ theory."

Answer 3

The average person who only gets his information from the mass media would never know that the GW concept is actually debatable,

There are several unproven assumptions when it comes to global warming.  This is because we are looking at small scale patterns.   The earth has been warmer than it is today, there have been 7 major glaciations. CO2 levels have been high than they are today.  The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years on average since the last ice age, when most of North America and Europe were covered with glaciers.  Over hundreds of millions of years the earth has gone through periodic cycles of warming and cooling without the help of humans.

http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.c...

For the comment below, it is not a truly established theory as it is still widely debatable.  Read some scientific journals (recent ones) on the topic and you will see that global warming isn't such an agreed upon topic.  Its about 50/50 for those that see it as a real issue and for those that see it as a natural cycle.  Most will agree that global warming is something that needs more research and time.

Answer 4

Not too many unproven assumptions. There is a problem with extrapolation. There is a separate problem one could call "turbulent forces are mathematically intractable."

Answer 5

The theory states that increases in co2 will cause temperature to rise.  The survey from the ice core samples were they studies the relationship found out the opposite.  Changes in temperature cause co2 levels to change and with a 600 to 1000 year lag.  Why?  There are different theories, but no theory has been proved.

Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas.  People claim that a minor increase in temperatures will increase water vapours, a major greenhouse gas, which will increase temperatures even more.  But increase evaporation will also increase clouds, a major cooling effect.  This effect has been ignored.

The burning of fossil fuels also increases sulfates, which has a cooling effect.  This is also ignored.

Then you have the projected increases in co2, that is also based on theory.

Rises in temperature will cause increase severe weather happenings.  According to the theory temperatures will rise more in the poles that in the centre.  Severe weather is caused when hot and cold air collide.  So the incidence of severe weather should be less, not more.  Statistically, all over the world it is less.  One bad hurricane season in North America is not proof.

Increases in temperature will cause more water evaporation, which should cause more precipitation, not more draughts.

They claim there should be an increase in Malaria, because mosquitoes can not survive in cold weather climates.  But some of the worst cases of Malaria have been in Russia a cold weather country.

The 1990 was not the warmest decade in the last 1 000 years. The assumption that temperatures were constant for a thousand years and shot up during the 20th century is false.  (The hockey stick graph)  It ignores the medieval warm periods and little ice ages.  

Then there is the assumption that temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees celcius during this century.  We do not know how they arrived at this figure.  When asked how he arrived at this figure the author, P. D. Jones  answered:  "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I

make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and

find something wrong with it."

(Jones’ reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. February 2005;

confirmed by Jones when asked by Von Storch)

If the increase in temperatures is caused by greenhouse gases then the rises in  temperatures should be higher in the atmosphere than on the ground.  But that is not the case.

For more info check out this lecture  http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.p...

Answer 6

People can have their opinions, but the scientific data shows global warming is real and mostly caused by us.  And so, the vast majority of scientists accept that.

Three reasons, with solid support, most important first.

There's an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed scientific data that says that.  Short and long summaries.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater...

There's a large number of people who agree that it is, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy".  Just three examples of many:

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Good website for more info:

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

About the consensus:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist." -gavin

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics". -Deltoid, ECOS Letter

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA