Global warming... - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Jeff Lebowski · 01-03-2007, 04:18 PM

The problem with global warming is that this type of science is based on massive quantities of data and involves complex interactions of a large number of parameters. And it relies heavily on forecasting, which is an inexact science at best and is based on computer models. These models are highly complex and are quite sensitive to input data and to assumptions made in the derivation of the governing equations. Long-term climate models require massive amounts of memory and computational power and therefore require supercomputers. This high cost of execution makes it difficult to perform stochastic (i.e., Monte Carlo) and sensitivity analyses which are critical to ascertaining the reliability of the model or the probability of the outcomes. Hence, you will NEVER see a consensus among the researchers regarding long-term forecasts or the relative influence of the each of the parameters involved. So it is rather simple for anyone (on either side) with an agenda to cherry pick the data and find a study or a quote to back up almost any argument.

A better strategy is to assess the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. There have been some fascinating studies recently showing that while individual computer models have a high degree of variation, the "average" model or prediction is usually quite accurate. So the real question is, what is the overall consensus of the scientific community on this issue?

Archaea · 01-03-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Get away from the debate over whether Man is causing global warming or not.

It is not disputed that global warming is occurring. It is fairly certain that severe changes could be catastrophic in terms of food production, rising oceans, etc.

The real question is whether we humans can do anything about it. And this is where the GOP sticks their head in the sand.

Can we do anything about it at a cost effective manner?

Solutions that state, walk everywhere, stop heating and live like a caveman are not appealling.

01-03-2007, 04:18 PM	#11
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	The problem with global warming is that this type of science is based on massive quantities of data and involves complex interactions of a large number of parameters. And it relies heavily on forecasting, which is an inexact science at best and is based on computer models. These models are highly complex and are quite sensitive to input data and to assumptions made in the derivation of the governing equations. Long-term climate models require massive amounts of memory and computational power and therefore require supercomputers. This high cost of execution makes it difficult to perform stochastic (i.e., Monte Carlo) and sensitivity analyses which are critical to ascertaining the reliability of the model or the probability of the outcomes. Hence, you will NEVER see a consensus among the researchers regarding long-term forecasts or the relative influence of the each of the parameters involved. So it is rather simple for anyone (on either side) with an agenda to cherry pick the data and find a study or a quote to back up almost any argument. A better strategy is to assess the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. There have been some fascinating studies recently showing that while individual computer models have a high degree of variation, the "average" model or prediction is usually quite accurate. So the real question is, what is the overall consensus of the scientific community on this issue? __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.