Why make this comparison?

Question

Why do people try to prove the validity and scientific certainty of global warming by comparing it to gravity? Don't they know that gravity is one of the most compelling and mysterious things in physics? Scientists are still searching for a quantum explanation of gravity, and nobody knows what it really is, how it's generated, or why it's so weak compared to the other 3 forces. To me comparing global warming to gravity not only hurts the case for the validity of global warming, but shows the true scientific ignorance of most people, and i'm offended by it. You might as well compare it to dark matter or wormholes which would probably be better since those things are science fiction just like global warming.

Answer 1

You're right, that's a bad comparison.

It's more like the validity of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, or that we actually did go to the Moon.  Some "skeptics" doubt those things also, even though the data is overwhelming.  So is the data supporting global warming.

"If in the past temperature increase preceded increases in co2 and methane, doesn't that suggest that a rise in co2 is because of temp?"

No, this is actually PROOF that, this time, global warming is mostly caused by us.

CO2 can either cause warming (greenhouse effect) or be an effect of warming (warm ocean water releases CO2.

IN THE PAST, CO2 went up after temperature, because it was mostly an effect.  THIS TIME, CO2 and temperature are going up TOGETHER, because it's mostly a cause.

More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

It's not a runaway effect because the radiation of heat from Earth goes up fast enough (after a while) that further increases in CO2 don't cause more warming.

Honestly, don't you think that scientists think about the things you say?  And still:

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 2

because they're not entirely sure about climate change, as with the mystery of gravity

Answer 3

I think the only time people compare it to gravity is when they're trying to debunk the whole "theory" terminology.  There are lots of people that believe that if something is called a "theory" then it's speculative without good data to back it up.  So when some skeptic says that global warming is "just a theory," then people point to the theory of gravity as something that's called a theory but well-accepted.

Your question would have been better if you didn't include the throw-away line at the end dismissive of global warming.

EDIT: Well, I don't think there's any need to "explain" what gravity is in order to believe the theory.  Our gravity calculations work extremely well, whether we "understand" what it is or not.

As for why things ever change if there's a feed back loop for greenhouse gases, you've got to remember there are other things in play too.  For example, solar output does change over long time periods and as the Earth's orbit precesses.  An increase or decrease in volcanic activity can change things independently.  Biological contributions to the CO2 balance can change as the climate changes (forests may get covered with ice).  There are lots of things that may kick it from one state to another.  If you want a better answer I'd consult with a paleoclimatologist.  Check out "The Glacial World According to Wally" by Wallace Broecker, that might give you some answers. (That's available online as .pdf, and is technical.) http://cfellows.org/wally/GlacialWorldAc...

Answer 4

I too made this point once.  I mentioned that if they could explain exactly what gravity was, I might be more convinced that they knew what caused global warming.  Of course they didn't provide anything.  I think the concept went over their head.

Answer 5

It took particle physicist to explain how matter interacts with the universe. They basically dumbfounded the cosmology view point. What makes people think that a grandiose speculation can't have the same intrinsic values? This applies not only to GW but gravity as well. Maybe a area that should be left open until concepts become self explanatory.

Answer 6

Oh, I think it is all just part of the Rush Limbaugh inspired 'consensus isn't science' flap, people are just looking for examples to illustrate consensus in the scientific community more than comparing GW & gravity.  What I don't get is why the deniers/skeptics draw comparisons between AGW proponents and flat earthers, that's totally illogical.  Geez though...this whole category is getting downright banal.

Answer 7

Oh, I don't know, I've used the comparision myself.

The idea is to:

a) Show that scientific theories can still have 'holes' in their proofs or the exact understanding of the mechanisms involved and yet be generally accepted and used as if 100% true when creating solutions to real world problems (e.g. someone designing an elevator doesn't worry too much about whether the graviton has been observed or not...)

b) Show that some theories are difficult to lab test and/or run control experiments on

c) Show that consensus is not relevant to truth: things didn't float around in free fall until Newton came up with his laws...

Yes, like all analogies, if you stretch them too far, they break down. However, point of using an analogy is to aid in communication and understanding. The way I saw it was that those for whom the analogy was useful would not have hte knowledge to see the faults in the analogy and those (like yourself, perhaps?) who could see the faults did not need the analogy hence were neither helped nor hindred by it.