# At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 20, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473 "2013-03-20T17:52:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 13
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/101 "2013-05-21T18:51:17Z")
Can I ask what experts are saying individuals can do to help decrease?
What steps have you zealots on the issue taken to help decrease your carbon footprint?
What steps have those very scientists taken to ensure their carbon footprint is smaller?
And lastly, what can I do to significantly reduce my own carbon footprint because I kind of fall into Chief Pedants arena (in that i’m interested in helping as long as it doesnt significantly hamper my ability to live my life as I want)
I think most people will fall into that category.
---
### Author:  [@TommyzNR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyzNR)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/102 "2013-05-21T18:54:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Actually this shows lots of ignorance, if you think you are correct you should be able to easily find a cite that shows that climate science is not recognized as that or not mainstream.
> And this also shows that you did not check the last link, at the basic level, most scientists in the 70’s reported that the world was going to warm thanks to the GWG released, while at the same time the popular press cherry picked what the researchers said and told many people that it was going to get cold. Time showed that most of scientists were correct, and currently even more data has been obtained to declare that what you are saying here is just more ignorance.
Bite me on the ignorant comment. What is it that you are blinded by? Mature science is that which gives you absolute answers. I did not say climate science was hocus pocus. Nobody has repeatedly formulated a future outcome using any known formulas. Yes some people have had some limitted success. No science has to be mature to be legitimate.
You are so stuck in argument mode that you cannot acknowledge that we have a long way to go.
---
### Author:  [@TommyzNR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyzNR)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/103 "2013-05-21T19:16:52Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> No, you can’t. There are still very complicated situations in mechanics, such as the three-body problem, that the theory of gravitation cannot answer “exactly” because they’re analytically unsolvable. But this doesn’t mean that the theory of gravitation is still an “infant”, or even a “preschooler”.
>
> In fact, the Newtonian theory of gravity was pretty much universally accepted among scientists within about fifty years after its publication, even though it took much longer to work out “exactly what would happen” for certain gravitational problems. Predicting the mechanics of lunar motion, for example, didn’t get reliable results within the limits of observational precision until the 20th century, and physicists are still tinkering with the lunar-orbit model.
>
> So no, a scientific theory is not required to achieve 100% predictive success in answering **every** question before it can be regarded as being out of its infancy. The science of climate change, like the science of gravity, should definitely be subjected to continuing study and further refinement, but we don’t have to wait till it’s completely perfected before accepting it as valid.
> I think you may be misunderstanding the basic nature of climate-system physics. Climate, like the three-body problem in mechanics but even more so, involves chaotic dynamical systems whose behavior it’s theoretically **impossible** to predict exactly. Climate science is **never** going to produce deterministic predictions of chaotic events, no matter how “mature” it gets.
>
> Climate science definitely can (and has, as **GIGObuster** points out) predict lots of things about climate, but AFAIK it’s never going to be able to answer questions like “how many hurricanes will there be next year”. Not because the science isn’t good enough, but because the system it’s modeling simply isn’t deterministic in nature.
You are way over analizing what I am saying. But yes I can exactly tell you when you will hit the ground when you walk out of a 2nd story window given the proper data.
Hence the problem with climate science. As you stated gravity took 50 years to be accepted and it is the easy one.
Nobody expects to know how many huricanes will happen next year after all “thats weather”. However, tell me about sea levels and global average temperature and where I can plant crops etc. That is climate and that is what nobody has been very accurate on.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/104 "2013-05-21T19:42:17Z")
> [@TommyzNR](#):
>
> Bite me on the ignorant comment. What is it that you are blinded by? Mature science is that which gives you absolute answers. I did not say climate science was hocus pocus. Nobody has repeatedly formulated a future outcome using any known formulas. Yes some people have had some limitted success. No science has to be mature to be legitimate.
>
> You are so stuck in argument mode that you cannot acknowledge that we have a long way to go.
And once again, it should be easy to find good sources to support what you say here also, the reality is that statisticians, physicists and other experts that look at the science being done report that climate scientists are doing a very good job already.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/105 "2013-05-21T19:57:53Z")
Once again, the straw is showing, climate scientists are indeed talking about what is in store for the future average climate one can expect, you are actually requesting that they tell you what to do about the extra dangers or where to plant crops, they are not making predictions about that yet, so give it up, what they are telling us is that the danger of warming world will do to regions of the world, the gamble in reality is for the ones living in the regions affected, the logic is that it would be hard to expect something different locally on average, possible, but unlikely.
> **[Comparing Global Temperature Predictions](https://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html)**
>
> At this point in the Lessons from Past Climate Predictions series, we're running out of global temperature predictions to evaluate, so now may be a good time to summarize what we've seen thus far. So let's just get right to the good stuff:
> [@](#):
>
> If we continue on a business-as-usual path, the IPCC AR4 projects that we are most likely on track for 4°C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. We will surpass the ‘danger limit’ of 2°C warming above pre-industrial levels by the mid-21st Century. Even in Scenario B1 we pass the danger limit, but by a much smaller margin. This is pretty strong evidence that we need to take action very soon to steer away from our current business-as-usual emissions path.
There is more on the link showing how the most basic prediction is ongoing, and how the critics so far are complete failures at this.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/106 "2013-05-21T20:00:56Z")
> [@TommyzNR](#):
>
> You are way over analizing what I am saying. But yes I can exactly tell you when you will hit the ground when you walk out of a 2nd story window given the proper data.
Yes, but that’s not all you were claiming. You claimed you could tell “exactly what will happen in regards to gravity for any given object”, which is simply not true for nondeterministic problems involving gravity.
And that’s relevant because climate science deals with a lot of nondeterministic problems, so you need to know whether what you want to predict is even theoretically predictable.
[QUOTE=TommyzNR]
Nobody expects to know how many huricanes will happen next year after all “thats weather”. However, tell me about sea levels and global average temperature and where I can plant crops etc. That is climate and that is what nobody has been very accurate on.
[/QUOTE]
What _specific_ question are you looking for a prediction on? Saying “use climate science to tell me where I can plant crops” is a bit like saying “use physics to tell me what the final score will be in the Red Sox-White Sox game tomorrow”.
After all, everything that happens in baseball is at bottom just physics, so according to you somebody should be able to predict all the physical events that will occur in the game, “given the proper data”.
Of course, the problem with that is that a baseball game is too complicated to be predicted in detail, no matter how good your classical mechanics theory is. Likewise, details of nondeterministic global climate systems are inherently unpredictable. But if you have a _particular_ question that you want a climate-science prediction on, state it and we can see whether such a prediction is available and if so how precise it is.
---
### Author:  [@TommyzNR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyzNR)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/107 "2013-05-21T20:09:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Once again, the straw is showing, climate scientists are indeed talking about what is in store for the future average climate one can expect, you are actually requesting that they tell you what to do about the extra dangers or where to plant crops, they are not making predictions about that yet, so give it up, what they are telling us is that the danger of warming world will do to regions of the world, the gamble in reality is for the ones living in the regions affected, the logic is that it would be hard to expect something different locally on average, possible, but unlikely.
>
> [Comparing Global Temperature Predictions](http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html)
> There is more on the link showing how the most basic prediction is ongoing, and how the critics so far are complete failures at this.
Thank you for finally coming over to my side. 🙂 We have a long way to go.
But you know that it is not true that “they” have not attempted to predict exactly what I am talking about. The fact that climate models exist is proof of that.
---
### Author:  [@TommyzNR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyzNR)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/108 "2013-05-21T20:28:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> After all, everything that happens in baseball is at bottom just physics, so according to you somebody should be able to predict all the physical events that will occur in the game, “given the proper data”.
>
> Of course, the problem with that is that a baseball game is too complicated to be predicted in detail, no matter how good your classical mechanics theory is. Likewise, details of nondeterministic global climate systems are inherently unpredictable. But if you have a _particular_ question that you want a climate-science prediction on, state it and we can see whether such a prediction is available and if so how precise it is.
That is just plain wrong. You know nothing about baseball if that is your analogy. Baseball is a game of skill and strategy that uses physics to make it fun. There are thousands of descisions to be made during the course of a game that are based on statistics and just plain luck and have zero to do with physics.
The previous links provided are pretty good in showing what I am looking for. I guess that I am more optimistic that there are fewer nondeterministic elements to climate than others seem to expect.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/109 "2013-05-21T20:31:03Z")
> [@TommyzNR](#):
>
> Thank you for finally coming over to my side. 🙂 We have a long way to go.
>
> But you know that it is not true that “they” have not attempted to predict exactly what I am talking about. The fact that climate models exist is proof of that.
Of course, but even if one is not that precise as you like it, the reality remains, currently there is already evidence that continues to support the point that GWG are the steroids of the atmosphere.
> **[News | NCAR & UCAR News](https://news.ucar.edu/)**
Even by not being that specific it is folly to not realize that climate scientists already have a lot figured out, a lot that is very important to not to ignore and we have to control our emissions.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/110 "2013-05-21T20:36:15Z")
> [@TommyzNR](#):
>
> Baseball is a game of skill and strategy that uses physics to make it fun. There are thousands of descisions to be made during the course of a game that are based on statistics and just plain luck and have zero to do with physics.
Meh, the brain chemistry of decision-making is also physics. Similarly, influences on climate also depend on human decisions and choices (Exhibit A: ozone layer), so I think the two situations are a lot more analogous than you admit.
---
### Author:  [@TommyzNR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TommyzNR)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/111 "2013-05-21T20:59:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Meh, the brain chemistry of decision-making is also physics. Similarly, influences on climate also depend on human decisions and choices (Exhibit A: ozone layer), so I think the two situations are a lot more analogous than you admit.
OH Please…:smack:
Thats exactly how I won at rock paper scisors when I was a kid, everybody thought they knew what I was going to do…without success.
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/112 "2013-05-21T21:51:31Z")
> [@TommyzNR](#):
>
> Thats exactly how I won at rock paper scisors when I was a kid, everybody thought they knew what I was going to do…without success.
Kind of my point: the myriad human and non-human inputs into climate systems are a LOT more complicated even than some kid deciding among rock, paper and scissors.
Still, there are general patterns in climate that **can** be predicted, and AFAICT the models are doing pretty well at that, although of course there’s still lots of room for improvement.
---
### Author:  [@Orb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orb)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/113 "2013-05-22T02:46:21Z")
OP:
Debates tend to be solved either when a solution is met or when the problem ends prematurely.
Will the problem of combating climate change meet a wide-held solution? Or, will the problem end prematurely?
The latter is impossible unless there is a divine miracle (along those lines). I personally see that the main resolution has already been reached: to choose to combat and reduce. Now the question seems to be on exactly _how_ to combat and reduce climate change.
How do you suppose we settle on that? Is there one, resolute solution?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=5)