Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
If it's a contributer, it is guilty of...er...contributing.
|
Exactly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Freeztaroni
Of course I wouldn't discount other contributers.
|
Standing with you on a windy slope, I would not be concerned with your knowing which way to stand to discharge water.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Freeztarifick
A waste? Look where that money is going, cleaner energy and cleaner air. Sure it would be nice if we pursued these out of virtue, but either way I don't see it as a waste.
|
This depends, the economic balance that is, on the specifics of each project. All the 'cleaner' air, alternate fuel, etcetera has been going on for 40 years on the merits of all the other pollutants alone without regard for the carbon. So in my view there is no need to add some other still-debated reason, and so expenditure, to efforts and programs already in place to reduce use of fossil fuel. How many trees are getting killed to send out all the new dire reports with the latest catch phrase?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Freeztaruno
You can't use facts that aren't there. Since underwater volcanoes seem to be scientifically mysterious at this point, we can't factor them into any model yet, at least not with any reliable certainty.
|
Yes...sorta. But pretending they don't exist is perilous ground. Let's not foget that the 'latest-greatest' climate models have to be run on super-computers in order to model even the "well-understood" parameters. Practical decisions based on computer limits get made, such as leaving out as yet discovered (by necessity;duh), or not-yet-understood and quantified parameters.
The result can be the answer to Zythrn's insightful question:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zythrinator
... If our current estimation of the contribution that CO2 lends to GWing is so off, why is it the models based on what we currently know are relatively close to reality? Sure, we may be of by 10%, but if we are off by magnitudes, wouldn't the models be off by more?
|
Since the models don't include all the parameters, they cannot produce a result that uses them, that is a result that refers to them or their effects. If you don't count solar variance on compounded cycles for example, the conclusion must attribute whatever that amount is to some parameter that is in use in order for the result to match the observation.
Also, the model is constantly tweaked when observations don't meet predictions; this is what makes each new model "better". The modelers set their own threshold of variance so that past a certain point, whether 10% or whatever they choose, when the variance exceeds the threshold it's time to re-tweak. Perfectly acceptable practice...for making models, which are maps, which are not the territory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frrezodinator
The map is not the territory, but it's certainly nice having a map.
|
Nice as in comforting, until you find it it's wrong when you get into the field with it. Then, not so much.
