I understand perfectly well that we are in a warming trend. We have been in one since 1750.
Could you describe what the temp data looks like from 1750-2007? There is a reason people looking at that are concerned. You need to explain the last 50 years in particular. That is the difference between no theory and a reasonable model. Your "no theory" just admits an uptrend, but provides absolutely no fit to the data. The good climate models fit the data. You lack an appreciation of the difference between those two approaches. One is BS, the other is hard work and good science.
Once again, the models are modelling greenhouse effects. They are not modelling the whole climate and they can't.
People are modelling every component they can think of. AFAIK, the current largest source of remaining uncertainty is cloud effects. Read the history of greenhouse gas ideas. They are over 100 years old, and the number of processes that have been discovered and investigated to get to our current understanding is amazing.
Since climate is non-linear and chaotic, I doubt it can be modelled. Does anyone claim he can predict butterfly effects? And that is based on my knowledge of the non-intuitive nature of chaotic systems. Saying the "trend is clear" assumes a linear system, which climate just ain't.
You are confusing the scope of chaos. Chaos in weather means one cannot say what the temp will be at a specific time and place. I once before pointed out to you that aerodynamic codes are excellent for predicting aircraft performance, but cannot give you the exact parameters at a specific point in turbulent flow. Turbulent flow is chaotic, but the overall aerodynamics are not. Same applies to climate models. You need to ditch the chaos handwringing, and instead try to find one single item: Is anyone pushing a peer reviewed model which shows negative climatic sensitivity to atmospheric CO2? If not, and I've never seen one, then human induced global warming is most likely unavoidable. I.e. you need to find someone with reasonable proof that the climate is immune to atmospheric CO2 levels. That is one of my BS filters for any global warming basher.
BTW, trends are clear in all sorts of non-linear systems, it has nothing to do with an assumption of linearity. Linearity has a very special meaning in physical systems, but spotting a trend is not one of them.
Now maybe global warming will happen just as many think. But maybe not. The science isn't there yet. So keep studying, and take precautions that make sense anyway, but don't bankrupt yourself to take precautions that may turn out to be perfectly useless.
I'd say that is a somewhat reasonable statement, other than the science is pretty clear. The problem I have is that those denying the science are also in denial about the potential for solving the problem without bankrupting our economies. If there is one big lie in global warming, IMO, it is that. We have already seen a very significant refutation of that theory with the price of energy over the last 4 years, and our economic growth. If economists want to be treated seriously on the global warming issue, they need to go back and look at their predictions of the impact of oil prices on economic growth vs. what has actually happened, then ask what they think solving global warming is really going to cost.
I know a mass hysteria when I see one.
I'd agree, but most of those who don't consider it a big problem also could care less about ecology. Global warming is best viewed a la that Danish chap Lomborg: he was writing about the human condition, not the environment. He just misnamed his book. I'm pretty sure that humans are one of the species that will fare the best under global warming, at least of the larger mammals. But plenty of other things won't, and many people, especially those bashing global warming science today, could care less.
|
