|
bounty44 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/9/2016 9:27:38 AM)
|
am going to post another "this should be end of the comrades thinking they have all the answers" article, hoping against all odds that it might do some good:
(apologies on the formatting)
quote:
"Why do we argue about climate change? settled science isn't necessarily so..."
by John Christy
The reason there is so much contention regarding "global warming" is relatively simple to understand: In climate change science we basically cannot prove anything about how the climate will change as a result of adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. So, we are left to argue about unprovable claims. That's really what it boils down to.
Now, we can measure and prove that greenhouse gases are increasing. And, in the laboratory, we can measure and prove that adding greenhouse gases to a jar of air will lead to further warming. We don't argue about these results. But when it comes to how the actual climate system might respond to extra greenhouse gases, there is no "proof" to offer because the climate's complexities are innumerable and poorly understood.
Climate science is a murky science. When dealing with variations and trends that might be influenced by humans, we do not have an instrument that tells us how much change is due to humans and how much to Mother Nature. Measuring the temperature change over long time periods is difficult enough, but we do not know why these changes occur. So, we argue.
Now, it is a fundamental characteristic of the scientific method that when we finally understand a system, we are able to predict its behavior. One way to check our predictive capability is to test computer simulations. Unfortunately, even the most advanced climate model simulations don't deliver much confidence. I analyzed the tropical atmospheric temperature change in 102 of the latest climate model simulations covering the past 35 years. If greenhouse gases are warming the Earth, this is the first place to look. All 102 models overshot the actual temperature change on average by a factor of three. Not only does this tell us we don't have a good grasp on the way climate
varies but the fact all simulations overcooked the atmosphere means there is probably a warm bias built into the basic theory--the same theory that we've been told is "settled science."
As important as models can be, we have a long way to go. It is troubling to realize that current policy is based on these computer models, none of which has been validated by formalized, independent analysis.Others might look to climate anomalies and convince themselves humans are the cause. I often hear claims that extreme weather is getting worse. Now, here we do have direct evidence. Whether it's tornadoes (no changes in 60 years), hurricanes (no changes in 120 years), or western U.S. droughts and heat waves (not as bad as they were 1,000 years ago), the evidence doesn't support those claims. So, we argue.
One avenue many folks latch onto is the self-selected "authority." This "authority" does the thinking for them, not realizing that "authority" doesn't have any more direct evidence than they do. Other avenues follow a different path: Without direct evidence, folks start with their core beliefs (be it political, social or religious) and then extrapolate an answer to climate change. That's scary.Then, there is that time-honored, media-approved, headline-grabbing source of truth - the opinion poll. The poll can be of scientists, non-scientists, or anyone with a smartphone. Think about this: If no one has direct evidence to substantiate any claim of the impact of greenhouse gases on climate, what will an opinion poll provide besides entertainment, or worse, justification for one's agenda?
If you give this polling tack some thought, it's relatively clever. Without evidence to prove or refute the claims of a climate poll, the poll becomes a way to support whatever claims are being made. With enough attention, a poll's climate claim morphs into "settled science." So, we argue even more. Nearly the entire world has decided to continue to burn carbon to provide affordable energy for their people. There is no argument that energy enhances the quality and length of human life (this is provable). So, when you consider the human cost of raising energy prices by demonizing carbon (based on unprovable claims of climate change), this becomes much more than a murky scientific issue, and why the stakes, and thus passions, can be so high. So we argue.
[please note especially the information below comrades]
(John R. Christy is the distinguished professor of atmospheric science at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the Alabama State Climatologist. Dr. Christy also served as a lead author on the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.)
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/why_we_argue_climate_change_se.html
but please---all you "settled science" people and the other guilty parties mentioned above, feel free to write john Christy and tell him how he's got it all wrong...
|
|
|
|
