General > General Technical Chat

heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.

<< < (31/67) > >>

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pm ---Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.

--- End quote ---

I suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited.
Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result might match a prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive.
They already have not had the best track record in this regard.

snarkysparky:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pm ---Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.

--- End quote ---

I suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited.
Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result might match a prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive.
They already have not had the best track record in this regard.

--- End quote ---

Can you name ONE complete science,  according to your definition?

If incomplete then there is no point ?

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 05, 2023, 03:06:46 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pm ---Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.

--- End quote ---
I suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited.
Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result might match a prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive.
They already have not had the best track record in this regard.

--- End quote ---
Can you name ONE complete science,  according to your definition?
If incomplete then there is no point ?

--- End quote ---

The ones that turn into practical engineering, you know, like electronics. Stuff that we've used and reproduce every day for centuries.

You can't compare that with climate science models. You come up with a model, apply it to massively complicated global system we don't fully understand, wait 30 years and then the temperature went in the direction you expected. Hardly proof positive of anything, other than correlation.
And that's even factoring in how many times the models have failed before. Heck, in the 1970's the climate science said we were headed for another ice age!
Rinse and repeat. There are memes going around that show how many times the climate science and predictions have been dead wrong over the decades.
They even trotted out Spock himself to tell us all about it:


Oh, but it's different this time, right?
Sure, maybe, but maybe not. My point is that while we know a lot more about this complicated system than we did then, it's still vastly far from knowing everything. If you think we know it all then that's just sheer hubris.
And then factor in the extreme fear and and control many people, governments, and organisations want to exert on us over climate change, you should be skeptical of alarmist claim on that human nature aspect alone.

Like I said, with covid, BLM/Woke etc, there are always people looking to take control and advantage by way of fear.

Look, no sensible scientific person is going to doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and can potentially have an impact in warming the planet. But to upheave society in one gigantic bet that's the prime move and the thing that will stop it does not pass the sniff test. It does however conveniently match the fear and control boogieman test.

KE5FX:
(Shrug) If you demand absolute certainty in life, you don't want science, you want religion. 

That ice-age schtick never had any real support, which is why it was abandoned.  Meanwhile the notion of heat retention due to CO2 and other gases goes back to Arrhenius.  Everything you need to know about the greenhouse effect you (should have) learned in high school chemistry.

I don't have any particular opinions on climate science and I don't trust computer models any more than any other intelligent, technically-literate person should.  I also don't agree that we're facing any sort of doomsday scenario due to warming.  We adapt, that's what humans do.  No animal anywhere has ever been better at adapting to a changing environment. 

But the general concept of accelerated warming due to GHG emissions seems hard to refute.  You can't refute it by saying "B...b...b...but they were wrong before!," that much IS certain.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: KE5FX on August 05, 2023, 06:55:08 am ---I don't have any particular opinions on climate science and I don't trust computer models any more than any other intelligent, technically-literate person should.  I also don't agree that we're facing any sort of doomsday scenario due to warming.  We adapt, that's what humans do.  No animal anywhere has ever been better at adapting to a changing environment. 
--- End quote ---

Exactly.


--- Quote ---But the general concept of accelerated warming due to GHG emissions seems hard to refute.  You can't refute it by saying "B...b...b...but they were wrong before!," that much IS certain.
--- End quote ---

The correlation is there, for sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only driver. And it also doesn't mean it's the only way to drive it back down.
There is every chance that we stop all C02 tomorrow and we still don't stop it.
Sure, reduce C02, very sensible thing to do. But to upheave society over CO2 alone, which includes, let's be frank about it, the potential death of countless millions in developing nations, seems absurd.
You said it yourself, we are very good at adapting, it's what we do. So let's reduce CO2 the best we can without screwing people over, and plan to adapt.

My only objection to the current climate science is the poltics of fear associated with it. Try to install fear in me and you can bugger right off.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod