"Doctors will never understand whether smoking is dangerous! Alarmists claim it is, but I am not convinced, because I like to smoke."
Will global warming be reversed by human's effort?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Aircraft design is complicated. We don't have the computing power to simulate it on a molecular level, let alone all the quarks. Better ground all flights ASAP!
Exactly. Until flight simulations can predict what happened to every crash in the past, we simply don't know enough to design a safe airplane. It is sheer folly to claim that flying will ever be safer than transportation by horse.
Modern climate models give an extremely accurate match to the data accumulated over the past 100 years, and with limited data they still give a strong match even over the past 1000 years. Those correlations between theory and data don't occur unless you include human CO2 emissions as a relevant factor. If multiple independent teams of top-rated engineers perform some tests on a bridge, run their calculations and determine that the bridge is in imminent danger of collapse, do you listen to the construction company that built it and the state governor who supports it instead?
Like I say, given that you say you're a psychologist and believe in the standard medical definition of mental illness applied to millions of North Americans, what do you suppose would become of the fields of psychology and psychiatry if they were held to the same level of scrutiny, testability and precision as you wish to hold climate science?
The bridge never collapsed before - so unless you can tun those tests backwards and predict collapses that didn't happen in the past, then it is folly to listen to those engineers - even if 97% of them agree. They clearly don't understand all the variables because this bridge hasn't collapsed before. What about the modulus of elasticity in the reinforcing rods? What about the tides? What about COVID-19? I bet they didn't consider THAT so their opinion is worthless.
This report is not based on computer models and it shows well beyond a shadow of a doubt that human induced climate change is very significant to what the planet does.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
100 years
1000 years
even 10,000 years, and we are still in the holocene
There does not seem to be total agreement as to whether we have currently exceeded the holocene climate optimum/ holocene thermal optimum
that being said(posted)
Many predictions are that we will exceed the holocene climate optimum
What then?
Can we rely on models that are only accurate within this interglacial if we expect to exceed the temperatures that have occured within this interglacial?
If we expect to go beyond the parameters inherent in the holocene, then we should be seriously looking into understanding previous interglacials that were warmer than this interglacial.
Fortunately, we do have some knowledge of these previous interglacials that were warmer.
If the field researchers claim that the available models are incapable of accurately reflecting their data. then we have a real problem with the models that should not be ignored.
The first step in solving a problem is always recognizing that you do have a problem.
Lets start there.
So basically we have to completely trash the planet first before we can trust those who extrapolate our climate models to that scenario? We haven't seen accidents like Chernobyl kill that many people compared to other kinds of disasters, so next time a nuclear accident or toxic waste leak occurs, so we shouldn't evacuate anyone until tens of thousands are dead and we know for certain that it's a serious concern?
Right, let's start with the fact that you want to ignore the most detailed climate models we have, even though they're capable of accurately hindcasting decades' worth of precise data and do this far better than any alternative models which neglect the human impact. You'd rather have us do nothing about anything until we know with 100% certainty that it's a problem, at which point it will be far too late to act. Surely in psychology you're taught about the follies and dangers of such thinking? "Stats and projections don't matter one lick until it actually happens to me."
How about we start taking meaningful action now based on the existing evidence we have at hand, given that we won't have the opportunity to do so later if the projections are true, and if evidence starts to come in that we're being overly cautious, then we can go back to burning fossil fuels for sport?
Exactly. No one has produced a simulation showing this bridge collapsed in the past. Therefore stop with any efforts to fix the bridge; go back and work and work until you understand every molecule in that bridge. That's the first step. (At least until the bridge falls down, at which point you switch to "wasn't my fault.")
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Dutton & Lambeck (2012) completed an intensive analysis of coral data while accounting for GIA and found a global sea level highstand of 5.5–9 m during the LIG compared to today.
Plan for that.
..............................
n the absence of a historical record of a time when global mean sea level (GMSL) was higher than present, relative sea-level (RSL) reconstructions during past warm periods help us to understand the nature and timing of ice sheet and GMSL response to temperatures similar to those predicted for the future.
Last edited:
Do you agree that the best evidence we currently have strongly suggests that this problem can be avoided by curbing human CO2 emissions?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
What problem?
Rising sea levels flooding coastal populations.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
see post #131
Controlling CO2 will not control the environment
..........................................
When the sea rises, it would be good for the earth if instead of planting condos on the shore, we planted mangroves, and marsh grasses.
We have a symbiotic relationship with this earth. It is high time that we learned to use our brains in furtherance of that relationship.
(rode hard and put up wet just ain't gonna cut it for the long run.)
Last edited:
You think he's really going to answer a direct question? You haven't been around here long enough . . . .
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Bucky Fuller once told me: "If you can't find the answer, change the question." (When you find the best question, the answer becomes obvious.)
Modern mainstream climate models predict that curbing our CO2 output will prevent us from catastrophically tipping the environmental balance and give us millenia to prepare for climate changes instead of decades. Do you think it's just a coincidence that these models can accurately reproduce the last 100 years of data using the known laws of physics?
When, 100,000 years?
For over 800,000 years, the c02 level has been below 300 parts per million (usually averaging 220), but since 1950 has risen to 420. Is this some other natural cycle you'd like to opine?