Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

RE: Let me generalize.

What I do is look at the battle of dueling authorities and check their statements to the extent that I can, consistent with my own knowledge and experience. When comparing disagreements between disciplines where things are otherwise equal, I follow the following hierarchy of decreasing soundness:

1. Mathematics
2. Physics
3. Chemistry
4. Other physical sciences
5. Social "sciences"
6. Psychology
7. Politics

My original supposition when first hearing popular summaries of the situation was that Global Warming was based on physics. However, after investigating further as a result of conflicting inputs, I have concluded that this issue has descended down the hierarchy and is now soundly based on politics, which is only a small step away from complete BS.

When I knew that the issue was bogus was when I first heard of the multiplier effect, which requires the existence of positive feedback. Since this came from the promoters of Global warming, I deduced that either (a) there really is positive feedback or (b) these people were plain wrong. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I accepted the existence of positive feedback. From this and the fact we aren't already toast, one concludes that it is unlikely that the multiplier is very high in the absence of some non-linear effects. Indeed the likely situation is that there are non-linear effects and both positive and negative feedbacks that operate at different time scales. Systems of this form are the hallmark of chaotic dynamical systems, systems in which a small change of initial conditions or parameters can lead to a potentially large but completely unpredictable outcome. It is known from physics and meteorology that weather is a chaotic process and hence it is hardly an extrapolation to assume the same applies to climatology. So yes, a tiny change in CO2 might result in a large change in average temperature, but the change could be positive or negative.

I have some first-hand experience modeling chaotic systems using computers, and know that this is generally futile, even if all the parameters and initial conditions are known precisely. While computer models can be a useful tool to yield insight into how complex systems behave, they are generally not suitable for obtaining reliable predictions, and certainly not where the matter involves huge decisions of monumental consequence. This applies to engineered systems where all the parameters and interactions are understood and even more to natural systems where the parameters are the result of limited and inaccurate measurements and proxy measurements.

The coup de grace was when "Global Warming" was renamed "Global Change". The political nature of this neologism should be readily apparent to all air breathers.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]