[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The point I did make is the cornerstone of global warming rests on a model.
You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. I mean NONE, at all.
Unfortunately typical for a believer of Global Warming.
I never said I was a believer in “global warming”. In fact I said I opposed the politicized environmental wackos just as much as you. Why you keep trying to brand me as one is beyond me.
Actually observation is the basis of the scientific method. Should have been in the first chapter of your textbook. If the experiment cannot be replicated then the theory is a belief not a legitimate theory.
First a question: May I ask where your knowledge and experience of science comes from? Are you a working scientist of some sort? Do you have formal education in science? Or, is your acquaintance with science only from high school science classes and popular books on the topic?
I ask this–and yes it’s relevant–because while it is true that “actual observation is the basis of the scientific method”, you do not seem to understand how this basis fits into the larger development of theories nor how complex these things are.
You continually use the word “model” ambiguously, often referring to “THE global warming model” or some nonsense that like. There are of course many mathematical models that have been developed in an attempt to track major climate changes, and these models of course make use of initial conditions and depend on our current understanding of the climate. Whether or not these sort of grand models should be taken seriously is, as you say, a matter of simple observation. If we have a model and we put in the correct initial conditions and then see what what the model predicts is not what is observed, then we should disregard the model as no good.
The point that you have seemingly been missing is that these sort of grand models are not the sum and substance of climatology… Understanding whether or not human activity is having an impact on the climate is not so simple as looking at one of these models and seeing whether its predictions are right or wrong. There are of course other sorts of data that we can collect, other more specialized models and things we can develop. For example, given the complexity of our planet’s climate is it very hard to develop the sort of grand models you take as the substance of climatology, but it is easier to study the effects of changes in isolation. So we develop models and theory about what happens when you raise CO2 levels by x percent, all other variables being equal. These sorts of models, given their limited scope, are generally more reliable.
Thus the question of human induced climate change does not come down to simple questions about whether some grand climate model is right or wrong… it rather comes down to questions like, “all else equal, what will the effect be of increasing C02 levels by x%?”. It is my understanding that these sorts of questions have well accepted and well understood answers. Our current output of GHGs like CO2 does have a measurable impact, all else being equal. Of course in the “real world” all else isn’t equal, and we have things like solar activity that can swing the climate one way or another. This fact though doesn’t mean shouldn’t care about our own effects on the climate. The sort of argument you seem to be advancing–“Oh, we shouldn’t care about the impact we have on the climate because the current solar activity is just canceling it out anyway”–is a ludicrous argument against environmental control policies.
As a further comment, it seems that if we were to judge, say, physics by the same standards you want to judge climatology, then physics would be a gigantic failure as well. If we judge physics by the most grand sort of overarching models it has–the cosmological models–then we would have to conclude that we understand very little about physics. Of course this is nonsense though, and do understand a great deal about physics. Asking the question of “what effect does human activity have on the climate” is analogous to asking something like “what happens when I lunch this ballistic projectile at angle X with speed Y?”. Answer neither question requires appealing to the grand models of the science, nor does refuting the grand models of the science matter much for their answers.
Clearly based on this thread it is you who don’t seem to have a grasp on the basics of the argument. Your point is that you are the only one “smart” enough to understand, unfortunately you have been able to prove your case by anything you posted.
Whatever.
Try this on for size: The total percentage of carbon right now in the atmosphere is about 370/1000000. The increase in the last 100 years, or so of the industrial age has added about 10 - 20 parts per million. A HIGH estimate of the effect of mans effort would put it at 0.000025% added. This small increase according to the believers affects the other 99.999975%. It affects it so much that we must cripple our economy based on the speculation that it does and that this minute increase in temperature is a bad thing, despite the evidence throughout history that it has been a benefit to mankind.
Assuming your figures are correct–really I have no idea, and neither do you–you’re simply begging the real question, which is what affect is our increasing the level of C02 having? Here you are merely assuming that because the amount is so low that it cannot possibly have a significant effect. This though is nothing but a blind, unsubstantiated guess. It is also a very good example of the sort of limited modeling that a climatologist is really interested in. Just what is the effect of adding that much C02 to the air? Well, to answer that question we need a specialized model, that holds other variables constant. This question has nothing to do with the sort of grand climate modeling you have been attacking… I’ll say it again, your silly argument to the effect that “ah ha! the grand models are wrong, therefore we don’t understand what effect our C02 output has, therefore it must not be anything at all” is ridiculous.
On another note, you are again presenting false dichotomies… You act as if our only option is to wreck out economy, when probably the more sensible people like myself are against plans like cap and trade that wouldn’t have much environmental impact and would seriously hurt prices. [/quote]
Suffice to say I have sufficient education to discuss this issue. Nice try belittling your perception of my formal education. Doesn’t seem very scientific of you…smacks of academia. You are simply going to have to do better then to say others are not qualified to discuss the issue. That seems to be a persistent problem of the GW crowd.
Whether or not you are a believer you have adopted the tactics of the GW crowd and in this thread you dismiss those with a different viewpoint. Hardly the ethics of a scientist and again quiet typical among the current crop of believers. Let me ask you this do you really believe a model, that holds variables constant, is a proper model to measure climate? The wind, clouds, solar flares and ocean temperatures surely would not be cooperative holding constant for the next 100 years would they? Wouldn’t an accurate model account for the variances of these systems over time. I’d argue many a climate scientist, seeking to justify a conclusion, would dismiss the results out of hand if they dispute his viewpoint or suppress them.
I hardly think you want to lay claim to false dichotomies at this point since the basis of your argument seems to be nobody can understand a complex problem other then yourself. But do you really think excessive tax upon industry in this country, while the rest of the world remains unburdened, would be beneficial for our economy and lead to prosperity?
