Howdy, y'all.
I was kinda hoping the global warming folks'd answer a few questions. Now, I'm just an Oklahoma redneck, dropped out of school, but I got me a GED and even took some courses down to the college. So I heard about this global warming and looked over some of the books and papers on it, and some questions occurred to me. Hope y'all can help.
1. Modelling - last I heard, all the computer power in the world couldn't accurately model a mouse. Well, I calculate the whole world's probably a mite more complex than a mouse, so my question is can you verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of your model?
2. Sampling - how good, widespread, and comprehensive is your sampling? I'm asking because, best I know, we've only had thermometers for a smidge over a hundred years, and Mr. Fahrenheit's six-foot tubes of water weren't exactly precision instruments. I mean, considering the Earth is exactly 6017 years, two months, thirty days, eleven hours, and 47 minutes old, ain't a century of observations kinda like looking at a Tuesday afternoon from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. and predicting the year's weather from just that? And how many thermometers y'all got? I hear folks talk about ocean temperatures. How many thermometers y'all got down on the seabed?
3. Compensatory factors - OK, I get it. If you dump megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, planet's gonna warm up. Any fool can see that. But what about plants? They eat carbon dioxide, and seems to me if there's more carbon dioxide, the plants'll be all well-fed and happy. And when they're well-fed and happy, they reproduce a lot (don't we all?). Which'd tend to bring down the CO2 some. Now, being an Oklahoma redneck, I'd never use words like "self-correcting systems" or "homeostatsis," but I figured you smart guys might could. Got that in your model?
4. Closed systems - I hear a lot about treating the Earth as a closed system. But the helmsman of Starship Earth just reported a fair-sized thermonuclear reactor 'bout 150,000 kilometers off the starboard bow. And the one thing we know even from our Tuesday-afternoon observations is its output ain't steady. Don't vary much, but with a million-mile-wide wildcatting fusion reactor, how much y'all need? I'd never use big ol' words like "insolation," but maybe y'all should think on it some.
5. History - Ice ages? Do we know how they happen? Might that have some effect?
6. Modern history - like some folks have said, forty-some years ago a bunch of scientists just as eminent as the current crop of climate scientists said the planet was cooling. Somebody turn up the thermostat? Or were they just wrong. And if such a group of eminent scientists forty years ago could be so wrong, y'all absolutely positive you're dead-on now?
Just askin'. Even made it all corn-poney to keep pgs from gettin' all insecure and lashin' out.
I was kinda hoping the global warming folks'd answer a few questions. Now, I'm just an Oklahoma redneck, dropped out of school, but I got me a GED and even took some courses down to the college. So I heard about this global warming and looked over some of the books and papers on it, and some questions occurred to me. Hope y'all can help.
1. Modelling - last I heard, all the computer power in the world couldn't accurately model a mouse. Well, I calculate the whole world's probably a mite more complex than a mouse, so my question is can you verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of your model?
2. Sampling - how good, widespread, and comprehensive is your sampling? I'm asking because, best I know, we've only had thermometers for a smidge over a hundred years, and Mr. Fahrenheit's six-foot tubes of water weren't exactly precision instruments. I mean, considering the Earth is exactly 6017 years, two months, thirty days, eleven hours, and 47 minutes old, ain't a century of observations kinda like looking at a Tuesday afternoon from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. and predicting the year's weather from just that? And how many thermometers y'all got? I hear folks talk about ocean temperatures. How many thermometers y'all got down on the seabed?
3. Compensatory factors - OK, I get it. If you dump megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, planet's gonna warm up. Any fool can see that. But what about plants? They eat carbon dioxide, and seems to me if there's more carbon dioxide, the plants'll be all well-fed and happy. And when they're well-fed and happy, they reproduce a lot (don't we all?). Which'd tend to bring down the CO2 some. Now, being an Oklahoma redneck, I'd never use words like "self-correcting systems" or "homeostatsis," but I figured you smart guys might could. Got that in your model?
4. Closed systems - I hear a lot about treating the Earth as a closed system. But the helmsman of Starship Earth just reported a fair-sized thermonuclear reactor 'bout 150,000 kilometers off the starboard bow. And the one thing we know even from our Tuesday-afternoon observations is its output ain't steady. Don't vary much, but with a million-mile-wide wildcatting fusion reactor, how much y'all need? I'd never use big ol' words like "insolation," but maybe y'all should think on it some.
5. History - Ice ages? Do we know how they happen? Might that have some effect?
6. Modern history - like some folks have said, forty-some years ago a bunch of scientists just as eminent as the current crop of climate scientists said the planet was cooling. Somebody turn up the thermostat? Or were they just wrong. And if such a group of eminent scientists forty years ago could be so wrong, y'all absolutely positive you're dead-on now?
Just askin'. Even made it all corn-poney to keep pgs from gettin' all insecure and lashin' out.
