Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxWilson
...What would it take to disprove my skepticism? ... my doubts would be irrefutably laid to rest if the other system inputs (solar energy) could be kept constant or decreased while CO2 rose, and temperature continued to rise as climate models predict[1]. Do that for, say, ten years, and show a consistent temperature rise, and I'll call the climate models validated. What we have so far looks more like over-fitting the data, to use the machine-learning term.
-Max
|
The problem here is manifold.
- It has been shown in excruciating detail that 10 year variance renders any such small sample size to be irrelevant, for better or worse, to the trend as a whole.
- If there is something to this (and that is a big IF to just disregard completely), then we really don't have much more time than that to start impacting the system, due to its enormity, and inertia.
- By the time your 10 year test is done, the world will be either destabilizing over direct supply/demand issues for oil, or will be near that point anyways, due to rate of oil field depletion, and increasing world population needs.
- Combine these factors and you see if we wait 10 years, not only will we have little useful data (beyond studies of direct atmospheric interactions), but we will be forced to change our methods of operation anyways.
Ultimately the human race is going to have to come to grips with our dilemma - in most large scale systems, the need to act is generally more pressing than our ability to sit around and do studies, and pilot projects, and propaganda wars.