[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <4voe74$75l@condor.ic.net>,
All locked up and nowhere to go <cage@critech.com> wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>>This is where I continue to disagree with you. We know
that
>>we are changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>However, we don't know if it will keep increasing in
>>concentration...
>
>What, are you saying that because the fossil CO2 dumped into
>the atmosphere over the last 50 years has in large
proportion
>remained there, that we "don't know" if further additions
will
>also largely remain there? Do you expect the sun to rise
>tomorrow morning?
Many people already admit that a carbon balance on the
atmosphere indicates that some of the carbon is being
absorbed by something, presumably the oceans (some carbon is
missing in the balance). If we don't know how this mechanism
works, how do we know that it can't bring CO2 concentrations
to a new equilibrium level?
>
>You've said some ridiculous things in the last few weeks,
>but this is one of the silliest. What mechanism do you
>expect to change overnight? Are you under the impression
>that the CO2 level has an "overflow" and at a certain level
>any additions "go down the drain"?
>
Are you under the impression that we are doomed if we don't
act today? If this is true, you have my sympathies.
>>Why am I worried about making the measurement of increases
in
>>global temperature? Because anyone can formulate a
>>mathematical or computer model. Often, these models are
very
>>large and complex. And ALWAYS, the computer code that
makes
>>up these models has errors in it.
>
>That would be a semi-valid criticism for one model.
>
>It is a completely invalid criticism for many models,
designed,
>implemented and run completely independently, all showing
the
>same thing. More or less of the same thing, true (going
back
>to those differing assumptions), but all the same trend.
>
>You keep repeating this sort of thing like a mantra.
If they all show the same thing, how come none of them
recognize the impact that the oceans have on the atmosphere
and on climate? This is because they are all using the same
starting assumptions. And yes, you can't formulate any
complicated model without making starting assumptions. If
every model that agrees with the consensus has the same
starting assumptions, how do you know that all the
assumptions are correct, and that no "necessary" assumptions
have been left out? You don't.
>
>>This necessarily means that we must be able to
>>measure a definite change in global temperatures before we
>>can select the most appropriate (or least error free) model
>>upon which we can base future work.
>
>Completely invalid criticism. Weather models are full of
>errors and fall apart completely after only a few days. If
>one predicts heavy storms for tomorrow, are you going to
>ignore it because the model is not completely accurate?
>
If these models can't predict weather one week from now, why
should I believe that they can predict the impact of human
changes 50-100 years from now?
>>By the way, if you are thinking about using the argument
that
>>we know CO2 is bad, so we should reduce it to reduce its
>>impact on global temperatures, let's go into this a bit.
If
>>the atmosphere is that simple to change, why are we working
>>on all of these models?
>
>Because the influence of all the factors interacts in ways
>which are not entirely understood.
Thank you for helping me make my argument. You have
unwittingly contributed to my prior posting, even though you
seem to be disagreeing.
>
>Given that the impact of CO2 on the radiative transfer of
>energy in air is completely understood, and this influence
>can only act to warm the atmosphere, how can you possibly
>conclude that it isn't worthwhile cutting the rate of
>CO2 input? If nothing else, it would give more time to
>develop better models.
What if we have all the time we need without cutting CO2
input now? Why are some of you "CO2 prophets" so convinced
that we are doing irreversible damage to the environment when
we haven't yet seen any appreciable temperature rise after
many decades of fossil fuel consumption?
>
>>Obviously, if you are
>>trying to move a variable that has inverse response, and it
>>takes decades to see the effect, you can't get the desired
>>effect without a good model, because the short term inverse
>>response will cause people to invariably move in the wrong
>>direction.
>
>You have it backwards. We are trying to get the system NOT
to
>move, at least not in harmful directions. Now suppose that
>your second clause is the case; that it takes decades to see
>the effect. Acting later rather than sooner would not only
>take decades to reverse the effect, the initial response
would
>be to exacerbate the harmful effect, not ameliorate it.
>
>>Think about it.
>
>If you're thinking about it, why didn't you realize the
>implications of what you wrote before posting it?
>
Believe me, I did recognize the implications. You stated
yourself, earlier in this posting, that there are complicated
interactions of variables involved here. Why do you
conveniently forget this when you are trying to "slam" me?
>I'm really amazed at you, Charlie. You advocate one thing,
>but half or more of the things you write argue exactly
opposite
>it. How do you stand the cognitive dissonance?
>
You tell me. Either I am a blithering idiot, or I have
enough "real world" experience to advise caution before
jumping to conclusions.
Follow-Ups:
References: