Joined: Aug. 2005
|All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.|
Really? Perhaps you could identify these assumptions? Here are some links to information about climate modeling. Show me in these descriptions of the models where the assumptions are that invalidate the results in your view.
Or are you just bloviating about matters completely beyond your understanding?
|I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.|
Got it. Bloviating.
Here's the deal, skip. "Massively complex systems" are dynamic. They depend highly sensitively on feedback loops. What may look like "resilience" on the timescales familiar to human experience is actually the result of fluctuations between attractors over geological timescales. However, the study of chaos theory and dynamic systems in general tells us that while the system may seem locked in to a basin of attraction, perturbation may cause a rapid shift to a new attractor or chaotic fluctuations. What we've done by pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is give this feedback dependant system just such a perturbation.
Finally, it's not the resilience of Earth that we're worried about. All can agree that the climate has been different in the past, and that it will be different in the future, all due to entirely natural fluctuations. However, in the short term, the resilience of human agro-economy is very much in doubt, what with our teeming billions of mouths to feed.
|Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.|
Agreed. Got any?
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.