Originally
posted by
Tertius:
Okay detmer, I guess we shouldn't judge a model on what it lacks, but that just means its intended purpose is not good enough for what we are looking for: i.e. realistic predictions of future climate. These have wide ranges depending on what we think is happening, and almost no one agrees (and new studies are always coming out). Being able to predict the background cycles of the past is certainly good, but I would most certainly not say that a good understanding of one aspect of the past to tell us what the climate SHOULD be like is the same as understanding what the climate WILL be like.
As someone who spends all day creating gravitational models (and yourself presumably a geophysical scientist), it's kind of disturbing that you would advance the idea that gravity is *just* a theory. It tends to lead credence to science doubters everywhere when it is the basis behind GPS, high energy particle physics experiments (really anything related to relativistic quantum field theory), and understanding most cosmic processes. Saying gravity is *just* a theory is like saying the Atlantic ocean is *just* a salty river.
The climate models are able to say, that based on Milankovitch cycles, we shouldn't be experiencing warming when we are. I think that is in itself an important model conclusion and within the scope of what it is intended to be. Forward looking climate models have many short comings, but those short comings don't take away from the knowledge of what we have already done and are still doing to the climate.
I think it is important for non-scientists to recognize that gravity is just a theory. It is something demonstrably true to them and helps them to understand the scientific process. It lends validity to things like evolution, which is also a theory. Perhaps I didn't rave enough about the rigor intimated by calling something a theory but I don't think that highlighting that gravity is a theory takes anything away from it.
EE Patron
