[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



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?

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"?

>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.

>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?

>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.

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.

>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?

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?





Follow-Ups: References: