|
Post by FineWino on Apr 9, 2009 18:21:14 GMT
But if your model that shows temp increasing as CO2 increases. Then looking to the real world and see the same results doesn't mean that your model is correct. The correlation is there, but it may not be causation. Are the rising temperatures causing CO2 to increase? There is nothing in my statements that would imply this, so I do not understand your point. The point is, CO2 continues to increase, but temperature does not. Therefore, the models used to promote the concept of AGW are invalid. This does not imply that if temperatures continued to increase, that the hypothesis is correct. It would simply mean that the hypothesis may not be incorrect. To some that may seem like a logical subtlety, but it is actually quite important. By ignoring this fact, the AGW proponents and the media continue to dupe much of the public.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 9, 2009 4:51:58 GMT
The scary part is that they may recognize the climate is changing (i.e., cooling), and they are going to pull this sideshow stunt and then claim they "geoengineered" the end of global warming!
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 9, 2009 1:13:32 GMT
A physical model is constrained by physics. It's not possible to produce a model of the solar system with planets travelling in elephant shaped orbits for example. I don't believe von neumann was talking about models anyway. I have not yet posted on this board, as I have not yet felt a need to add to the discussions, but the above statement is SO wrong, I am compelled to respond. socold, REALITY is constrained by physics, and we understand some of the laws of physics better than others, some not at all. That is why the pursuit of science never ends. Models are constrained by nothing except the modeler's imagination. That is why they are models. They are designed in order to test hypotheses about things that we do not understand. Copernicus was a "denier" of the Ptolemeic model of the universe, and was persecuted accordingly. His model was eventually demonstrated to be correct. One COULD design a model of the solar sytem where the planets move in orbits shaped like elephants. We could then compare that model to reality, and reality would disprove the hypothesis that the planetary orbits are shaped like elephants. The scientific method has told us that the model is INVALID. Likewise, if I were to design a climate model that shows the average temperature of the earth increases as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, I look to reality to see if my model is valid. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, and the average global temperature does not increase, the model is INVALID. Very simple, end of story. The entire AGW scam is a case of a cadre of dishonest, unethical individuals purporting to practice "science" and convincing an ignorant public that the MODEL is REALITY. Based on your earlier comments and this latest post, I am convinced that you do not understand that the MODEL is not REALITY.
|
|