Re: How science is not done


"Quadibloc" <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8f333ea0-fd50-4519-a566-69613b408a1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 6, 5:46 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Quadibloc" <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Also, since there is a simple mechanism by which carbon dioxide causes
temperature increases, noting that carbon dioxide seems to *lag*
temperature in the geological record does not refute global warming.
It just says that global warming triggers a cooling process that
outweighs continued (slow, natural) increases in carbon dioxide...
which, involving drastic climate change, is just as likely to be
disastrous as the polar caps melting. For example, the course of the
Gulf Stream could shift, triggering a new ice age. Obviously, we don't
want *either* of those things to happen.

****************************
So present climate models cannot predict the future temperature, because
they cannot predict things like the Gulf Stream shifting? And you are
therefore giving me reasons why current climate models are wrong? Does this
also explain why the have been wrong in the past, as well?

Well, the point there is - we don't want anything bad to happen.

To make it possible for the climate to continue within a very narrowly
constrained range of temperatures similar to that which we enjoyed
during the rise of human civilization, we have to avoid tampering with
the world system by supplying it with inputs that are outside the
range of those which it received during *that period*, not geological
time going back to the dinosaurs.

********************************
So you say. But in order to justify this statement as true, you have to
assume that AGW is real, which is exactly what I dispute. Like so much else
in climate "science", it is a circular argument.

You don't have to assume that the latest and greatest climate model is
true.

That carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared, thereby keeping places
from radiating heat into space at night, thereby increasing the
Earth's equilibrium temperature... is not open for dispute.

Natural processes that sequester part of the carbon dioxide people
produce are open to dispute. It's being claimed that those processes
are getting saturated, and so carbon dioxide levels will start rising
faster, but this is a new and highly technical result.

________________________
So if this is true, then all existing and previous climate models are wrong? Pity. Can we have our research grant money back? Will there be mass retractions published in scholarly journals? Will the scientists admit that their models pre-2009 were all wrong, whilst simultaneously asuring us the post 2009 models are correct?

What changes in wind patterns and ocean currents might be triggered by
a rise in temperature is largely unknown. Scientists are struggling
with climate models to get a handle on this, but their results are not
consistent.

_______________________________
So, the theories do not match each other, let alone experimental evidence?


But the basic fact that rising carbon dioxide levels will, in
themselves, increase the Earth's temperature - until something else
happens to counteract this - isn't open to dispute.

_____________________________
So it is correct unless it is false? The temperature will rise unless it falls?


It is a very
simple scientific fact, based on the same elementary principles that
let real greenhouses work, or explain why it is helpful to wear
heavier clothing in the winter. If the Earth is wrapped in a blanket
of carbon dioxide, it won't cool off at night.

______________________________________
More than simple, simplistic.


Sure, a modest rise in temperature could trigger some process that
will compensate. But there is no reason to be confident that this
process won't have bad results for some people.

____________________________
So the models might be false, but the reason they are false might also be bad?


So, basically, I am saying - if we're doing something that has the
*potential* to change world climate on a large scale, we should not be
doing it. (Unless, that is, we know _exactly_ what changes we're
causing, and they're changes that are desirable - beneficial to all
humanity and to Earth's delicate web of life.)

____________________________
Agriculture has the potential to change world climate. So by your principle, we should all return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles?


Anything else is risk-taking behavior, which is the very definition of
insanity.

____________________________
So, are you refusing to buy commercially grown foods, on the principle that it would be insane to continue large scale agricultural production on the basis it has the capability to alter the earth's climate?



Of course, that last statement could be argued. After all, "faint
heart ne'er won fair maiden", the saying goes, and scientific studies
of adolescent behavior seem to bear this out. Or we could go
anecdotal, and look at the history of the Kennedy clan.

But when you gamble with the future of humanity itself, there are no
second chances.

Wait a moment. Wouldn't cutting back drastically on energy use condemn
millions to starvation? Wouldn't the more politically aware
democracies be the first to cut back... perhaps leading to dictators
achieving their dreams of world conquest, dooming humanity forever
just as certainly as any changes in winds and weathers might?

Fortunately, we don't really have those choices to worry about,
although you'ld never know it talking to an environmentalist.

Two words. Nuclear power.

Don't fight against awareness of global warming. Fight for the right
solution! And we'll never be short of energy again!

John Savard

___________________________________
If you are worried by the possibility of AGW, then nuclear power is an obvious solution. It is a very good idea even if you aren't a believer in AGW. However, much popular support of AGW is largely driven by an anti-science, anti-big business agenda, they are not interested in reducing CO2 emissions as such - hence their typical immediate and knee jerk reaction against plans that reduce CO2 whilst not forcing lifestyle changes - like their attitudes to carbon sequestration and nuclear power.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Specially for the Slow Man
    ... an apology for his actions regarding global warming. ... Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." ... temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An ... When there is more carbon dioxide, the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: CO2 - Cause or Effect?
    ... concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the climate criminal ... climate change levy introduced supposedly to further these demands are ... time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... temperature in the geological record does not refute global warming. ... It just says that global warming triggers a cooling process that ... So present climate models cannot predict the future temperature, ... That carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... climate suitable for dinosaurs instead of people, ... Celsius rise in temperature. ... since there is a simple mechanism by which carbon dioxide causes ... It just says that global warming triggers a cooling process that ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: who killed the electric car
    ... pattern of "global" surface temperature change over the last 100 years ... temperatures preceded increases in carbon dioxide. ... The IPCC's fixation with judging modern climate ... inadequate period over which to assess global climate change. ...
    (rec.autos.tech)
Loading