On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:00:29 -0600, Jim Adney
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:11:13 -0700 Big Bill wrote:
All this is true.
However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
*possible* reality.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that theory is nice, but
it isn't convincing until you have an observation that proves it.
Certainly yours would be the most convincing senario, but I wonder if
you are willing to be consistent with this attitude.
What I'm saying is that the data we have is incomplete.
If we are to postulate that an observed phenomenom is caused by a
certain action, we need to first make sure that the phenonemon is
actually happening for the reasons we *think* it's happening.
Especially when that phenonemon is something that we know is part of a
system that we haven't been observing for very long.
Imagine landing on Mars, and finding a dead animal 50 feet away from
the landing site. Did the landing cause the death?
Take natural radiation, do you feel that spontaneous fission is an
unproven theory just because no one has ever actually been watching a
particular atom when it broke up?
Bad analogy. It's been observed long enough to understand the physics
involved.
Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one? Has anyone?
I haven't seen China, either. But I believe it exists.
Relativity predicts that my yardstick will look 18" long to you if I
pass you at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Do you
choose to postpone your belief until this particular experiment is
done?
How do you feel about E-M waves? Ever seen one? Maxwell's equations
make a lot of predictions which we can verify, but we still can't
actually see a radio wave.
Or how about the politically dangerous ground of evolution? No one has
ever actually watched while one species evolve into another. There's
plenty of other evidence, but again we find the scientific community
united in favor, while some non-science people argue against it.
Each of these items is something which has been explained by some
theory to most people's satisfaction, and yet none of these particular
things has ever actually been directly observed. In spite of a lack of
direct observational data, there is enough corroborating evidence that
most of us believe that we understand these things and believe the
theory to be correct.
And yet, for some reason, no one is trying to get us to disrupt our
economy over these things.
I agree that the natural occuring variation fuzzes up the cause of the
observed ozone hole, but the science is clear that ozone depletion is
an expected consequence of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmsophere. The
observed rate of depletion is consistent with the predictions. There
IS some undertainty in the predictions, simply because very small
changes in the reaction rates have large consequences over 100 years.
We can *model* such changes. We can't determine from those models that
this is *why* it's happening.
Why did the ice ages of former times go warmer? We don't know. But we
are told we know why *this* warming period is happening: it's *our*
fault, becasue some model says it *can* happen a certain way. Yet,
it's happened before, and it certainly *didn't* happen the way the
models say it *can* happen.
Models are not perfect, they are only tools.
I still suggest that you look around and see who is still arguing
about this topic. I don't think you will find any disagreement within
the scientific community. The objections are all political. While the
scientists are certainly willing to continue to take data forever, the
actual problem is a social one and the only solution will have to be a
political one.
Wrong. Those who rely on models simply can not apply the models to
reality, they can only say that the model represents one way it can
happen.
Right now, the easy way out is to just say that we don't have enough
data and leave it at that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on
your point of view, this can go on forever.
The real problem with waiting is that the time constants of ozone
depletion are so long that it may already be too late to do anything
about it. Even if we stopped all of these emissions right now, ozone
depletion will continue over the next 100 years. The rate of depletion
will still slowly increase for 20-50 years as Freon from the lower
atmosphere slowly diffuses upwards and only later will the rate of
depletion start to decline.
None of the living things on this planet have evolved to cope with the
amount of UV that they might be exposed to. Sure, we can all wear
hats, but what if our wheat won't grow in this environment? Fish can
hide in the deep water, but what will they eat? What will we breathe
if our green plants don't survive?
Alarmist? Sure, but not too unrealistic. We're all interdependent in
ways that most of us don't comprehend, and it might just be a little
change like this which would push us all over the edge, not with a
bang, but a wimper.
Extinction happens all the time, and it's not our fault. More than 80%
of all species went extinct before we existed. We just aren't the bad
guys all the time.
The earth's different systems are not understood well at all. ANy
scientist who says they are is just flat lying.
I remember in the 70s when we were told a new ice age was imminent;
now it's global warming. Well, which is it? Global warming has
happened before, without us even being here. We simply do not know
why. But we are being told we know why *this* global warming is
happening; it's our fault. Isn't that just a little arrogant? To
assume that *we* are causing something that's happened before without
our even being here?
Sort of like floating down a river on a raft, and, noticing the
drawbridge is opening, assuming it's opening for you.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
|