by Bryan 48 Replies latest jw friends
Dan,
I don't think you read what I wrote. I've already answered your question. To be terse:
1- Models are only as good as the current heuristics and analytics incorporated within the modeling software, and the accuracy of the assumptions and data used to drive the model.
2- Accurately representing all forcings, including deforestation and agricultural practices is necessary. Garbage in, garbage out.
BA- Repeating himself.
Six of Nine,
one has to assume that he believes said forcings will contribute exactly nothing to an accurate model of potential outcomes.
As usual, your reading comprehension needs work.
In addition, your mind-reading crystal ball doesn't work.
"Something" was contributed to the model, therefore "something" is reflected in the outcome. How significant is "something" What shall be done to reverse "something" if it is a negative "something"? "Anything"?
BA- When you assume, you make an...you know the rest.
PS- Don't assume so much.
Brother Apostate: "How significant is "something""?
Presumably, "We'll have to wait and see."
(Because it's far easier and wiser for those not trained and actively working in the field to rush ahead speculating that some new, unproved, unverified, and as yet unfound mechanisms are responsible for unequivocal observations of warming than it is to accept the highly likely (+90%) findings of an anthropogenic basis from thousands of scientists.)
Quote:
1- Models are only as good as the current heuristics and analytics incorporated within the modeling software, and the accuracy of the assumptions and data used to drive the model.
And that has proven to be very good indeed. Not perfect, but very good. You sound a lot like the Watchtower telling it's doe eyed followers that carbon dating is a fatally flawed technique, when in fact it is solid science that has been verified and calibrated by other techniques.
And much like that verification, computer models have shown their value looking backward by comparing their output to data collected by scientist studying ice-cores, and their accuracy as present climate models by the way they respond to inputs mimicking what we directly observe.
2- Accurately representing all forcings, including deforestation and agricultural practices is necessary. Garbage in, garbage out.
Well that's a no-shit-sherlock comment if there ever was one. Is this one more occasion where you think you've had an epiphany that people who've devoted their life to this study have not had?
For anyone genuinely interested in the history (stretching back much further than you probably imagine) of atmospheric science, and particularly modeling, here is a long but interesting primer.
I don't think you read what I wrote. I've already answered your question. To be terse:
1- Models are only as good as the current heuristics and analytics incorporated within the modeling software, and the accuracy of the assumptions and data used to drive the model.
2- Accurately representing all forcings, including deforestation and agricultural practices is necessary. Garbage in, garbage out.
BA- Repeating himself.
Yes, but what you repeat doesn't seem to have very much substance. You would have us all believe that today's climate models are no better than fortunetelling they are so inaccurate, but what I'm asking you is, how are you so certain that these issues of deforestation and agricultural practices aren't being accurately taken into account, and how are you so sure that these things would have such impact on the models once they are taken into more perfect account, that they will make today's models "garbage" by comparison?
Some have stated that Mar's warming has nothing to do with our warming:
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
I have no doubt our actions as humans have increased co2 and probably helped warm the earth. But to think that the earth would not be warming without us is off. Our planet, as does our sun, has cycles.
Global warming... Global cooling... Ice age... There would be no ice age without a warm earth.
Why do people have to think there are black and white answers to something as complex as our planet?
Well, I'm bailing out of this discussion. I started it, but it amazes me the people who, instead of talking the issue, they have degrade those who do not agree with their ideals.
And no... I do not throw my flouresent bulbs in the trash.
Bryan
DanTheMan: "Yes, but what you repeat doesn't seem to have very much substance. You would have us all believe that today's climate models are no better than fortunetelling they are so inaccurate, but what I'm asking you is, how are you so certain that these issues of deforestation and agricultural practices aren't being accurately taken into account, and how are you so sure that these things would have such impact on the models once they are taken into more perfect account, that they will make today's models "garbage" by comparison?"
Brother Apostate is right: You really didn't read what he wrote. How much more exhaustive and thorough an explanation is required than, "We'll have to wait and see"? No doubt this prudent approach, coupled with a few snappy "I have a hard time believing"s are precisely the jolt those actively working on this phenomenon have needed in order to come to their senses, drop their calculators, and stop causing panic in the Seychelles.
Quote: "Why do people have to think there are black and white answers to something as complex as our planet?"
This is what is so frustrating! NO ONE has suggested that there are black and white answers. Not me, not DantheMan, not Al Gore, and certainly not any climate scientist.
If there is any b/w thinking, it is you suggesting that since we don't know it all, we know nothing. It is you suggesting that because there are other factors than Co2 warming the earth, Co2 output should not be worried about. Etc etc. THOSE are examples of black and white thinking.
Now I will venture into a little bit of Black&White thinking; you and I both have one responsibility and one responsibility only as parents wrt to global warming: hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.
I said it before and I'll say it again. These threads are like a laboratory. They demonstrate so well why it is hard for us to do anything constructive. It always turns into ping-pong match and nothing is achieved. Reminds me of famous Moliere's words “It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I'm right.”
That unfortunately becomes more important than anything else....But perhaps his even more pertinent words would be these
"Don't appear so scholarly, pray. Humanize your talk, and speak to be understood" ~ Moliere
Certainly a lot to think about
