> > Science in this instance is a lil bit less developed than you give
> > it credit for (probably somewhere between you and me). In this
> > instance, there are no controls in place, no replication capabilities,
> > no ability to vary 1 variable while holding others constant, no real
> Considering the impossibility of what you are demanding, you must therefore
> believe that no earth science can ever be well developed and advanced. You
> surely also reject cosmology and evolution and a host of other sciences
> where controled experiments are very limited or impossible.
Not so.
cosmology has the ability to test predictions, the CMB being a
case in point. also, there's a lot of sky, if you want to observe the
behavior of nebulae, there are millions of them available for
observation. However, when the news piece of the day says "flat
universe" I don't put much stock in it because cosmology is also a
pretty poorly developed science and tomorrows news piece is pretty
likely to say "closed universe"
Evolution has literally billions of experimental subjects, and can
be replicated by any competent dog breeder. When the connection with
genetic sciences becomes better fleshed, it will take it's place with
newtonian physics as fully understood.
Some earth sciences can be tested in the lab. a good bit of
atmospheric chemistry (although any chemical engineer will tell you
that things work different in the factory than they do in the lab), a
large number of geological process can be simulated on a centrifuge, a
lot of biological responses can be replicated in the lab with
reasonable effectiveness. it's tying them all together that's the hard
part.
Climate science is going to be a bit. I'd feel better about the
models if they didn't have a predicted uncertainty greater than their
predicted change. I'd also feel better about them if they were able to
replicate the real world climate with any decent accuracy over any
given 150 year period of history.
> > understanding of the system as a whole, and no idea what feedback
> > mechanisms might come into play that are not observable at out current
> > temperature range, no testing on it's predictive abilities. There is
> > too much trust placed in incomplete "black box" models.
> There is certainly alot of truth in this, but it frankly speaks *far* more
> to the "alarmist" argument than it does for the "que sera sera" people.
> Uncertainty is not your friend if you advocate not doing anything about this
> problem.
Uncertainty is exactly neutral. except that it casts the
validity of the test into doubt.
One thing to be considered here is that the proposed cure and the
projected disease aren't that different in scope. if it were easy to
prevent, I and I am sure a vast majority of other people would be all
over it, but it isn't, it's tens of trillions of dollars, and a
complete reallignment of the world economy, that just isn't that
different from the projected consequences of doing nothing.
For my money, that means do what you can to prevent it, and
simultaeneously do what you can to get ready for it, but don't either
sell all your worldly posessions and move to tibet to accomplish either
thing.
> > At best, the IPCC represents the sum
> > total of the current "science" of climatology. At worst, it represents
> > a picked political body with an axe to grind. Either way, I'll take a
> > 500 million year history over IPCC compilations of research papers any
> > day of the week and twice on Sundays.
> This is clearly ludicrous. You are here just to provoke it seems. Have you
> even read the methods section concerning that graph?
> http://www.scotese.com/climate1.htm
Have you read the critiques of the IPCC? Yes, I never said the
thing was gospel, nothing is in my book. In my book, very few things
are certain, 2+2=4, inertia, the standard model of quantum mechanics(as
far as it goes), classical relativity (as far as it goes), to be beyond
dispute, it must be tested, if you can't test it, never stop
questioning it, if you can test it, return to it every few years and
test it again.
> > Even under the best cases of IPCC credibility, their conclusions
> > are based on models which ignore a very great deal of very important
> > climactic considerations. Among them, cloud feedbacks, surface level
> > albedo changes, spectrum responses, solar variations, long term cycles
> > of all stripes, plant species responses (some plant species grow FAR
> > better than the current mix under high co2 conditions, expect to see
> > those plants becoming more prevalent), methane release due to melting
> > permafrost, methane release to to species extinctions, and the
> > absolutely stupid ghg value that is used for long term methane (it has
> > an atmospheric half life of 1-2 years, after which it decomposes into
> > CO2 and water, the stupidity is that in most climate modeling, they
> > pretend that the water stays in the atmosphere, as though it were
> > separate water not subject to rain) and that's just the ones I, a
> > layman can think of offhand.
> There is a bit of difference form thinking of something offhand and
> determining it is true. You clearly prefer to just make this leap without a
> second thought, not very impressive...
Well, the fact that I could find citations for almost every one of
them in the TAR, seems to be anecdotal evidence that my offhand memory
is perhaps a little more reliable than you would like to admit.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
