Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,822
Great statement! And since an algorithm is a set of rules we humans create to determine an outcome we are looking for its flawed from the start. It would take many hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of experience to write the rule set for a calculated outcome. We have no such experience. Once there is a consensus then science left the room! At best climate science is a SWAG!
Unfortunately, this topic has become more political than scientific, and more emotional than rational. For example, the IPCC has been much maligned, but I think the scientists have tried to present information fairly, even if the political managers of the IPCC tend to distort what the scientists have to say. For example, in the AR4 report, in the section on the "Physical Science Basis" for the report's conclusions the authors write this about the effect of clouds on climate:
"Since tropospheric and surface temperatures are closely coupled (see Section 3.4.1), these constraints predict a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity (RH) is close to unchanged."
They go on to acknowledge: "Confidence in modelled water vapour feedback is thus affected by uncertainties in the physical processes controlling upper-tropospheric humidity, and confidence in their representation in GCMs."
I translate this to mean that if water vapor in the form of clouds in the atmosphere are constant at all altitudes, then clouds are a positive feedback to solar radiation. However, since we don't actually know all that much about the effect of clouds on temperatures we can't be confident about their impact.
I'm not sure about you, but if you blow air over water, or wind through clouds you might observe cooling. The higher you go in the atmosphere, the more the cooling. However, clouds also keep heat in. So what is the balance here? Does increased warming, which causes increased evaporation and increased clouds cause more warming, or does it cause cooling and what is the balance. The IPCC says we have no clue but for the sake of modeling, they assume a positive feedback.
So, how many trillions should we spend pretending we know the answer to this question when the scientists say they don't know that answer? If you are deciding the issue on politics or emotion, I guess the sky is the limit. If you care about spending money wisely, you may feel differently.