"bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > > > > 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.
Ok, so you are backing down from your objections to climate science, fine, but it shares the features you grant to cosmolgy. I submit that there are thousands of observations possible in the earths ocean/atmosphere that confirm or refine climate theories, I don't know if there a million visible nebulae, but surely a thousand would be ample material for study. Every field has its differing challenges, there is no fundamental principal of scientific investigation that rules out climate for proper study and understanding. > 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. I find the performance of the models in hindcasting the last century convincing enough for policy decision for the next century. You seem to believe the basic conclusion of large and dangerous change. What more do you need as a non-climate scientist? > > > 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. Uncertainty in risk management is not a source of reassurance when possible outcomes are severly bad. There is alot at stake (you seem to agree with this) so any claims of greater uncertainty in the degree of consequences are claims that the problem needs to be taken more seriously. Would you get on an airplane if the mechanic said, "you know, I just can't know for sure if this wing will fall off or not". Would you get on if he said "Don't worry, there's only a 5% chance it will crash"? > 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. IMO, this is the only interesting point you are making so far. But you have done vitually nothing to support it. How do you know that reconfiguring the global energy infrastructure will not generate as much positive economic actiity as it will consume? There are quite a few historical precedents that indicate such forced change actually results in net economic gains. I am thinking of leaded gasoline, CFC's, the 70's clean air act. > 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. Who here has disagreed with this? > > > 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? You should have answered me first. The methods behind that reconstruction clearly show it is of zero value in understanding trends of less than a few million years. Holding this single hand-drawn graph above all the current science behind the IPCC assessment is ludicrous. If you can't admit that then you can not pretend to be interested in serious discussion! But, to answer your question about IPCC critiques, I am familiar with a quite a few political attacks, a number of clearly garbled scientific attacks and a very few reasonable scientific criticism of different aspects of the TAR WGI IPCC report. I am also familiar with the widespread and nearly unanimous endorsement of its conclusions by national academies and relevant scientific institutions all over the globe. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for extraordinary evidence to suport the extraordinary claim that they are all political hacks or dupes of Greenpeace or intellectual prostitutes looking for their next grant. > 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. Citations need to support your point. You did not demonstrate that many things in your list are "ignored", much less all of them. Nor have you made any point as to how this should concern non-climate scientists. You need to pick a factor, provide evidence that it is not included, explain how you think this affects the model result and make a case for what policy implications this implies. For example: carbon cycle feedbacks are not included, we agree and you did show evidence to that effect. This will most likely increase GHG levels for any given scenario, potentially by a significant amount. This is supported by recent findings of siberian permafrost melting and findings of carbon release from warming soils. This implies that policy decisions should be even more ambituous in emmissions controls. Try that for methane release due to species extinctions or the "absolutely stupid ghg value that is used for long term methane", or plant species growing far better in higher CO2 atmospheres. Coby --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
