| Topic: | Reply | |
| Posted by: | Michael Ixer | |
| Date/Time: | 18/10/26 16:00:00 |
Mr Hawkes. Perhaps check your facts; I don’t recall posting anything about the lack of rain, although I suppose the recent weather extremes may be considered additional evidence when collated with other evidence of climate change. Net zero modelling is based on measurements of temperatures, proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, observations in changes of ocean and jet stream circulation changes, etc in line with scientific methods. As all scientific measurements should have an estimated error range then there is bound to be some debates about accuracy of measurements and the models derived from them. Science is always subject to some opinion in formulating and evolving theories. Einstein wasn't comfortable with the statistical nature of quantum theory ("God doesn't play with dice") yet much of our modern technology relies on quantum mechanics whereas Einstein's relatively theories underpin technology such as GPS and nuclear power, and haven't yet been disproven. Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" out of derision to the opponents of his Steady State universe theory; the evidence currently favours an expanding universe from a singularity - although some recent JWST observations and measurements are challenging some of the current early universe theories. Nothing in science is fixed as new information becomes available, we need to modify theories otherwise we'd still belive the Earth was flat and Centre of the universe - but you know that so you're just arguing for the sake of it rather than trying to consider the real problem and its solutions. To be honest, I'd like nothing more than man made global warming to be disproved as we seem to be heading for a future disaster. Some of us acquainted with Piers Corbyn hoped his theory might provide hope of an alternative theory - after all he has a first in physics from IC and an MSc in Astrophysics from QMC. However, it's difficult to discuss his theories as there's nothing (or at least nothing I'm aware of) in detail published as its "proprietary information" used by his Weather Action company. (Something I discussed briefly with Joanna Haigh, a former Head of Physics at Imperial, after a convincing lecture on global warming; her comment in answer to my question was that she'd tried discussing it with him but it's impossible as there's no papers to review ...) Sadly, the current evidence seems to be we'll boil the planet if a solution is determined soon, perhaps it's already too late; anyway, as I'm unlikely to be around in 2050 why should I care ... or, if I am, will I be capable of caring! |