Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chaos theory would apply if I'm attempting to model the exact trajectory of airflow in my house after I turn on the furnace. However, I don't need chaos theory to predict that my house will probably warm up after I turn on the furnace.
My point: yes, there is a lot of uncertainty in trying to predict exactly how weather patterns might change in response to higher global average temperatures. But it's virtually certain that the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is warming the planet.
Yes. Virtually certain. Atmospheric modelling is just that ... modelling. It's based on science but there is no neat tidy theory that can be proved or disproved which is why intelligent people recognize that it's an unfinished work. That doesn't mean you dig in your heels and deny the preponderance of the evidence just because there isn't 100% certainty. That's the mentality of someone who is not objective and is determined to stick with a preconceived conclusion.
Here's a simple mental model that might help non-scientific folks gauge the yes/no/maybe of the issue - Consider the atmosphere as a system bounded by the earth's surface/oceans and their interface to the lowest layer of the atmosphere (troposphere) and extending upwards to the edge of space (exosphere). In terms of atmospheric content of greenhouse gasses this not a completely closed system but it is close. The carbon cycle which breaks down C02 (yes there are other greenhouse gasses) has to do with its interaction with the soil, the ocean and plants. That cycle occurs at a pretty slow relatively constant rate which has been going on for a long time. At the system's boundary with space we aren't losing any C02 so that isn't a factor. What goes into the 'closed' system must be removed by the carbon cycle to maintain equilibrium otherwise the amount of C02 in the system increases.
Consider that the C02 emissions from burning fossil fuels is not part of the closed system. It's an external input. Think of the oil within the earth as something that exists outside of the atmospheric closed system and until recently it has had virtually no effect on it. One hundred fifty yrs ago we began reaching outside of the system's boundaries by drilling for and then burning oil which releases CO2. This amounted to an external input of CO2 into the system. If you have a closed system in equilibrium and you begin driving it with large external inputs you are going to change the system's behavior. There's no other way. We are changing our system by pumping in greenhouse gasses which drive a well understood scientific mechanism known as the greenhouse effect which traps heat. The temperature of the system is going to go up. How much and how fast depends on the real nasty subtleties that are the subject of the numerical modelling effort but the bottom line is that it's not logical to believe that we aren't heating up the system with our external CO2 inputs.
The temperature of the system is going to go up. How much and how fast depends on the real nasty subtleties that are the subject of the numerical modelling effort but the bottom line is that it's not logical to believe that we aren't heating up the system with our external CO2 inputs.
I think most agree with that. But where there is disagreement is the extent of man's CO2 impact. Is it huge? Is it moderate? Is it miniscule? Is it even measurable? If so, can anything be done about it without negatively impacting billions of people? So that's where modeling comes in and also where politics come in. AGW has become a political issue, not a scientific issue, and lots of people are making billions of dollars off this issue.
But the libs just keep telling us to worship at the feet of government scientists because everyone else is too stupid to understand issues like AGW. So they say the science is settled hoping that will stifle disagreement. But the rest of us know that science is never settled. Here is a good example.
-----------------
The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.
Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained for the next five million years before venturing further afield.
But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.
Look, science is never settled in the same way that we understand the gospel to be settled. There's not an amendment process for the 10 commandments. But the thing with science, it can be settled in the same way that the constitution is settled. It's true until proven otherwise, essentially.
The data that we had suggested the humans evolved in Africa. A recent discovery finds that maybe it was in Europe. This is how science works. We test things, and find things, and continue to actively test. The best data we had showed that humans evolved in Africa, and now, we have to rethink that. This is fine. Here's the thing though, until that new data was found, it does not make sense to believe something else.
Climate change is no different. There's a damn near universal consensus among scientists that man made climate change is happening. It's not monolithic though. What we can expect to happen, when, exactly how much humans are involved; there's disagreement. There is uncertainly. But a level of uncertainty does not invalidate the entire idea. And yeah, tomorrow we could discover that man made climate change is bull**** but until that discovery is made, we can't assume that it is. It does not makes sense to accept a hypothesis to be true only on the basis that it technically could be.
I think most agree with that. But where there is disagreement is the extent of man's CO2 impact. Is it huge? Is it moderate? Is it miniscule? Is it even measurable? If so, can anything be done about it without negatively impacting billions of people? So that's where modeling comes in and also where politics come in. AGW has become a political issue, not a scientific issue, and lots of people are making billions of dollars off this issue.
Actually, it isn't all models. Very few people would go to all the work involved in building a world-wide climate model and then not bother to ground-truth it. There's plenty of on-going measurements that are being compared with existing models.
I'm hardly competent to deliver a detailed and specific critique of a given model, so I don't. But ocean temperatures are rising, and they are rising in line with many models, or even faster.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
