Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 13:55:39 GMT -5
But you didn't answer question 3. What do you mean by "considerably" So how can it be settled as you claim? ? So what percent of the global warming is due to us. I can tell you with certainty, that the answer is filled with "uncertainty," and there is considerable difference of opinion among scientists (climatologists). I live in South Florida a couple of blocks from the Ocean for 20 years. I have been hearing about how the Oceans are going to move up and flood the beaches and adjoining homes. Well in 20 years I have seen absolutely no movement of the Oceans at all. (actually there is a good reason for this even in the presence of global warming)
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 9, 2015 14:28:38 GMT -5
So what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 9, 2015 14:45:41 GMT -5
But you didn't answer question 3. What do you mean by "considerably" So how can it be settled as you claim? ? So what percent of the global warming is due to us. I can tell you with certainty, that the answer is filled with "uncertainty," and there is considerable difference of opinion among scientists (climatologists). I live in South Florida a couple of blocks from the Ocean for 20 years. I have been hearing about how the Oceans are going to move up and flood the beaches and adjoining homes. Well in 20 years I have seen absolutely no movement of the Oceans at all. (actually there is a good reason for this even in the presence of global warming) The official UN report says there is 95% certainty that a majority (that is, greater than 50%) of total global warming is human caused. 95% is hardly uncertain as to overall probability. And the amount they attribute to humans is intentionally a very conservative estimate based on scientific consensus. Here's a good article explaining the amount of warming due to human causes, indicating that most scientists believe the human-related cause is close to 100%. www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing. Unlike questions 1 and 2, there are credible scientists that disagree, but there's still a strong consensus. As to South Florida, the objective sea-rise data belies your subjective observations. The oceans ARE rising; there simply is no dispute. 2 or 3 inches may not seem like that big a deal to you, and since it's gradual, it's hard to tell the difference when you're looking at it every day. But we know that small increases can have big effects, and obviously the trendline is not encouraging. www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2014/10/03/sea-level-rise-in-miami/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 16:54:29 GMT -5
Be careful about the so-called UN report. There is a large number of scientists (climatologists) who disagree with this "over 50% number." There is really no good evidence for this. Here in south Florida, we were warned 10-20 years ago, that in 20-30 years, the waters were going to flood A1A and flood coastal residences. Well, I would think you would see something by now. I don't see anything. Incidentally, there is a lot of controversy over whether there is a significant ocean rise. Remember, as the earth's temperature rises, there is more water evaporation. As a result, there is more precipitation in the polar regions where the ice never melts. We are seeing an increase in the thickness of the polar ice caps. This is where the excess water goes. Also any increase in the rain in the deserts would simply be retained in the underground water aquifers. Many of the deniers of the presence of global warming use the thickness of the polar caps as an argument against global warming. They don't realize that the thickening of the polar caps actually supports global warming.
Bottom line, questions 3 and 4 are far from settled. I am not saying you are wrong. I am stating that we really don't know yet.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 10, 2015 12:48:06 GMT -5
I just want to remind you that when people ask Do you believe in climate change, they are conflating several questions which need to be addressed separately 1. Is the earth's temperature increasing 2. Are humans contributing to the increase in temperature 3. If you accept that humans are impacting on earth's temperature, how much?? 4. How much can we affect the increase in the rise in the temperature, by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, etc. It appears that the majority of scientists feel that the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "Yes." However, there is a lot of controversy in the scientific community when looking at questions 3 and 4. I am not an atmospheric scientist but I am a degreed engineer so I have a significant tech background. Nor have I studiously looked at all the studies surrounding the issue, and one of the reasons is the fact that most of the scientists associated with the studies are making a living off these studies. Plus, how many people on the other side of the issue can get grants or get work published in refereed journals? With these in mind, here are my answers to the four questions. 1. Who knows? The measured temperatures seem to say there has been no warming for twenty years or so. The adjusted numbers say yes but the accuracy of the measurements, then and now, is not sufficient to draw conclusions. Plus, how accurate are the adjustments? 2. Probably. Anytime a heat source introduces BTU's into the atmosphere it is bound to change the earth's temperature. 3. Infinitesimal. There's this huge spheroid in the sky that is emitting so much heat as to overpower any amount of heat produced by humans or other sources such as volcanoes. 4. If the entire world would cut back on putting heat into the atmosphere, we might see an infinitesimal decrease in earth's temperature. If only the U.S. or the U.S. and eight or ten other countries do this, there will be no effect and the impact on those economies would be sizable.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 10, 2015 14:05:52 GMT -5
I just want to remind you that when people ask Do you believe in climate change, they are conflating several questions which need to be addressed separately 1. Is the earth's temperature increasing 2. Are humans contributing to the increase in temperature 3. If you accept that humans are impacting on earth's temperature, how much?? 4. How much can we affect the increase in the rise in the temperature, by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, etc. It appears that the majority of scientists feel that the answer to questions 1 and 2 is "Yes." However, there is a lot of controversy in the scientific community when looking at questions 3 and 4. I am not an atmospheric scientist but I am a degreed engineer so I have a significant tech background. Nor have I studiously looked at all the studies surrounding the issue, and one of the reasons is the fact that most of the scientists associated with the studies are making a living off these studies. Plus, how many people on the other side of the issue can get grants or get work published in refereed journals? With these in mind, here are my answers to the four questions. 1. Who knows? The measured temperatures seem to say there has been no warming for twenty years or so. The adjusted numbers say yes but the accuracy of the measurements, then and now, is not sufficient to draw conclusions. Plus, how accurate are the adjustments? 2. Probably. Anytime a heat source introduces BTU's into the atmosphere it is bound to change the earth's temperature. 3. Infinitesimal. There's this huge spheroid in the sky that is emitting so much heat as to overpower any amount of heat produced by humans or other sources such as volcanoes. 4. If the entire world would cut back on putting heat into the atmosphere, we might see an infinitesimal decrease in earth's temperature. If only the U.S. or the U.S. and eight or ten other countries do this, there will be no effect and the impact on those economies would be sizable. I'd suggest you read the studies. Or at least one study. If by "measured temperatures," you're referring to topographic satellite readings, the studies that have shown no warming have been consistently and thoroughly debunked because they were not taking the temperature in the same spot each day (and for other reasons). If the "measured" readings are inaccurate, they need to be adjusted! And when you go back and actually just use satellite data from precisely the same locations as comparisons, lo and behold, you get very similar warming as the surface studies show. Indeed, NASA measures those same temperatures via satellite and has concluded that the nine warmest years on record have occurred in the past 15 years. NOAA has concluded similarly. There are differences between the NASA measurements, the NOAA measurements, and many of the surface temperature studies. Of course there will be. But the trend-lines are similar enough. And let's be clear, NASA and NOAA are government scientists -- mostly civil servants -- paid by the government to do their jobs, which is simply to compile data from government equipment. They're not paid by the Sierra Club. (Which, of course, is the opposite of virtually every study that comes out the other way -- bought and financed by groups with a preditermined scientific conclusion in mind.) Indeed, NASA and NOAA has been taking and analyzing measurements before any of this became a serious issue; their jobs simply depend on continuing to take readings. Your response to number three, respectfully, is silly for someone with an engineering background. Of course, the sun is the heat source for the earth. If the sun all of a sudden began to emit a lot more (or a lot less) energy in our direction, there'd be a big impact, and of course, cyclical variations do indeed occur. But the reality is that our atmospheric conditions mean that the earth (historically) retains very little of whatever heat is emitted by the sun. During the day, the sun warms the atmosphere, land, and water, and at night, that heat is rapidly re-emitted by the earth back into space. That's why the temperature generally goes down at night. Of course, some of the heat doesn't go back into space; it gets trapped by our atmosphere. (The phenomenon is best seen on a cloudy day -- heat gets trapped at the surface -- but invisible gasses do the same thing.) Obviously, the fact that this occurs generally is essential or else we'd cool down too much at night. But when the atmosphere captures too much heat, not enough heat is lost and the total average temperature goes up. That's the issue. It may be, as you say at the end, that there's not much we can do to retard or reverse the process. And it may be that even if there are things we could do, those things would be incredibly deleterious to our global (or national) economy. That's a debate worth having. But we can't have that debate until people emerge from the bubble of their preconceptions and accept the possibility that they might be wrong. I read every single study that comes out and concludes that global warming isn't happening (or is overstated) for just that reason. But I still find the evidence to the contrary overwhelming. I still ask: What would it take to convince you? By your theory, any study is suspect because the practitioner necessarily needs to reach one conclusion to keep his job? So, there just can't be studies of the issue? Said (and asked differently): It's not possible that you're wrong? And assuming it is possible, what would it take for you to decide that action is warranted?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,431
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 19, 2015 18:42:14 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I would defy anyone, who sat through the presentation Climate Change from the Globe on Down to Where it Counts by Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D at the International Society of Exposure Science (unfortunately called ISES), to deny there is global warming and it is caused by man. 2005, 2010, 2014 (and a predicted 2015)have been the warmest years on record. There has been some variation in the atmospheric temperatures, but there has been no slow down on ocean warming. From 1900 to 2015 the temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade. These trends have been predicted with models over the last 30 years. If we continue to go the way we have been going with no intercession, the models indicate that by the end of the century, the temperatures will rise another 4.5 to 5 degrees Centigrade. If we take steps to stop this rise in temperature by various means, we can limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. Most of these models converge to the same outcome. This was quite a depressing way to start the day. The biggest uncertainty in this whole situation is what we are humans do. And that was the only outcome that was a bit optimistic - that we take measures to limit this increase. Lots of other downers from increased temperatures to extended droughts to glaciers melting to seas levels rising.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 20, 2015 12:11:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I would defy anyone, who sat through the presentation Climate Change from the Globe on Down to Where it Counts by Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D at the International Society of Exposure Science (unfortunately called ISES), to deny there is global warming and it is caused by man. 2005, 2010, 2014 (and a predicted 2015)have been the warmest years on record. There has been some variation in the atmospheric temperatures, but there has been no slow down on ocean warming. From 1900 to 2015 the temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade. These trends have been predicted with models over the last 30 years. If we continue to go the way we have been going with no intercession, the models indicate that by the end of the century, the temperatures will rise another 4.5 to 5 degrees Centigrade. If we take steps to stop this rise in temperature by various means, we can limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. Most of these models converge to the same outcome. This was quite a depressing way to start the day. The biggest uncertainty in this whole situation is what we are humans do. And that was the only outcome that was a bit optimistic - that we take measures to limit this increase. Lots of other downers from increased temperatures to extended droughts to glaciers melting to seas levels rising. You'll excuse me if I'm not 100% sold on the power of predictive models. UN in 2007: We have “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 20, 2015 12:29:19 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I would defy anyone, who sat through the presentation Climate Change from the Globe on Down to Where it Counts by Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D at the International Society of Exposure Science (unfortunately called ISES), to deny there is global warming and it is caused by man. 2005, 2010, 2014 (and a predicted 2015)have been the warmest years on record. There has been some variation in the atmospheric temperatures, but there has been no slow down on ocean warming. From 1900 to 2015 the temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade. These trends have been predicted with models over the last 30 years. If we continue to go the way we have been going with no intercession, the models indicate that by the end of the century, the temperatures will rise another 4.5 to 5 degrees Centigrade. If we take steps to stop this rise in temperature by various means, we can limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. Most of these models converge to the same outcome. This was quite a depressing way to start the day. The biggest uncertainty in this whole situation is what we are humans do. And that was the only outcome that was a bit optimistic - that we take measures to limit this increase. Lots of other downers from increased temperatures to extended droughts to glaciers melting to seas levels rising. You'll excuse me if I'm not 100% sold on the power of predictive models. UN in 2007: We have “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This is such a lazy argument. Let's not pretend the debate about global warming is one about precision in measurement or predictions. It's about an industry-fueled effort to delegitimize the issue and prevent any action that cuts down on their profits. I love the switch in the last few years from flat out denial to pedantic, disingenuous concern trolling over climate modeling.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 20, 2015 12:30:15 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I would defy anyone, who sat through the presentation Climate Change from the Globe on Down to Where it Counts by Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D at the International Society of Exposure Science (unfortunately called ISES), to deny there is global warming and it is caused by man. 2005, 2010, 2014 (and a predicted 2015)have been the warmest years on record. There has been some variation in the atmospheric temperatures, but there has been no slow down on ocean warming. From 1900 to 2015 the temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade. These trends have been predicted with models over the last 30 years. If we continue to go the way we have been going with no intercession, the models indicate that by the end of the century, the temperatures will rise another 4.5 to 5 degrees Centigrade. If we take steps to stop this rise in temperature by various means, we can limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. Most of these models converge to the same outcome. This was quite a depressing way to start the day. The biggest uncertainty in this whole situation is what we are humans do. And that was the only outcome that was a bit optimistic - that we take measures to limit this increase. Lots of other downers from increased temperatures to extended droughts to glaciers melting to seas levels rising. You'll excuse me if I'm not 100% sold on the power of predictive models. UN in 2007: We have “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” And this, friends, is how climate-based misinformation gets started and continued. The report to which KC refers (which was developed in 2007) does not predict that there will be a 2-degree C rise in temperatures within eight years (that is, by now). Obviously if it had, that would be wrong. It says, instead, that to avoid predicted increases in the range of 2 degrees C later in the 21st century, greenhouse emissions must peak by 2015. The report, by the way, also postulates that it's conceivable that future technologies could be developed to mitigate the effects of emissions, but their work is based on the then-present technological reality.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Oct 20, 2015 12:34:35 GMT -5
What about that article suggests that their model is wrong? (edit : whoops, aleutian made my point already).
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 20, 2015 12:51:03 GMT -5
And this, friends, is how climate-based misinformation gets started and continued. The report to which KC refers (which was developed in 2007) does not predict that there will be a 2-degree C rise in temperatures within eight years (that is, by now). Obviously if it had, that would be wrong. It says, instead, that to avoid predicted increases in the range of 2 degrees C later in the 21st century, greenhouse emissions must peak by 2015. The report, by the way, also postulates that it's conceivable that future technologies could be developed to mitigate the effects of emissions, but their work is based on the then-present technological reality. Who said the report "predict(s) that there will be a 2-degree C rise in temperatures within eight years." I didn't say that. That, my friends, is how the left incorrectly frames the opposition to doom & gloom climate change predictions.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 20, 2015 13:16:18 GMT -5
And this, friends, is how climate-based misinformation gets started and continued. The report to which KC refers (which was developed in 2007) does not predict that there will be a 2-degree C rise in temperatures within eight years (that is, by now). Obviously if it had, that would be wrong. It says, instead, that to avoid predicted increases in the range of 2 degrees C later in the 21st century, greenhouse emissions must peak by 2015. The report, by the way, also postulates that it's conceivable that future technologies could be developed to mitigate the effects of emissions, but their work is based on the then-present technological reality. Who said the report "predict(s) that there will be a 2-degree C rise in temperatures within eight years." I didn't say that. That, my friends, is how the left incorrectly frames the opposition to doom & gloom climate change predictions. Then what was your point? It appeared to me you were attempting to say that you did not believe the models to be correct and were citing to an article about a model released seven years ago for support in advance of your position. Normally, when one says they "aren't sold on the power" of some model, and then cites to an article about that model, you'd expect the article to provide some reason to not be sold. But not so here. Taking you at your word, if all you were attempting to say was "I don't believe the models are right, and here is a cite to one such model," then I'm not sure what conclusion we are supposed to draw. We all know there are models out there; we know that they are predictive in nature; we now know you believe the predictions will be proven wrong. But on what basis?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 20, 2015 14:02:36 GMT -5
What do you mean what was his point? To throw off any discussion of substance by playing semantics. It's literally the only thing the climate change deniers have left.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 22, 2015 10:37:40 GMT -5
What do you mean what was his point? To throw off any discussion of substance by playing semantics. It's literally the only thing the climate change deniers have left. My point was that we've continually heard dire predictions about how a certain rise in temperature will occur in x number of years, or that we only have y number of years to act before it's too late, yet those predictions/models turn out to be inaccurate or wrong of continually revised. Quickplay says "Let's not pretend the debate about global warming is one about precision in measurement or predictions." Let's. If we are trying to decide whether we should join this treaty or agree to certain emissions targets, and doing so may slow global warming by 0.1 degrees over 20+ years, then precision in measurements and predictions is important to decide how much we want to burden our economy and society. Similarly, taking into account the accuracy of past predictions is a reasonable thing to do when considering future steps to take. I don't deny that some sort of climate change is taking place. I do have questions about (1) the actual extent of what is occurring, (2) how much is caused by human activity, and (3) how much of an effect on a global scale any actions taken in the US will have.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 22, 2015 11:08:05 GMT -5
What do you mean what was his point? To throw off any discussion of substance by playing semantics. It's literally the only thing the climate change deniers have left. My point was that we've continually heard dire predictions about how a certain rise in temperature will occur in x number of years, or that we only have y number of years to act before it's too late, yet those predictions/models turn out to be inaccurate or wrong of continually revised. Quickplay says "Let's not pretend the debate about global warming is one about precision in measurement or predictions." Let's. If we are trying to decide whether we should join this treaty or agree to certain emissions targets, and doing so may slow global warming by 0.1 degrees over 20+ years, then precision in measurements and predictions is important to decide how much we want to burden our economy and society. Similarly, taking into account the accuracy of past predictions is a reasonable thing to do when considering future steps to take. I don't deny that some sort of climate change is taking place. I do have questions about (1) the actual extent of what is occurring, (2) how much is caused by human activity, and (3) how much of an effect on a global scale any actions taken in the US will have. Then seek answers from someone knowledgeable on the subject, such as Nevada. Specious concerns of precision in an immensely complex subject has now replaced the industry-funded flat out denial, only because that's no longer a viable position. The goalposts constantly move, 'concerns' are constantly adjusted, and it's getting tiresome to have to play along.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 22, 2015 11:16:44 GMT -5
My point was that we've continually heard dire predictions about how a certain rise in temperature will occur in x number of years, or that we only have y number of years to act before it's too late, yet those predictions/models turn out to be inaccurate or wrong of continually revised. Quickplay says "Let's not pretend the debate about global warming is one about precision in measurement or predictions." Let's. If we are trying to decide whether we should join this treaty or agree to certain emissions targets, and doing so may slow global warming by 0.1 degrees over 20+ years, then precision in measurements and predictions is important to decide how much we want to burden our economy and society. Similarly, taking into account the accuracy of past predictions is a reasonable thing to do when considering future steps to take. I don't deny that some sort of climate change is taking place. I do have questions about (1) the actual extent of what is occurring, (2) how much is caused by human activity, and (3) how much of an effect on a global scale any actions taken in the US will have. Then seek answers from someone knowledgeable on the subject, such as Nevada. Specious concerns of precision in an immensely complex subject has now replaced the industry-funded flat out denial, only because that's no longer a viable position. The goalposts constantly move, 'concerns' are constantly adjusted, and it's getting tiresome to have to play along. IF anyone is moving the goalposts, it those who advocate massive legislation, regulations and changes in an effort to address climate change. Please stop acting as though those who disfavor massive government regulation on this issue are a monolithic cohort capable of a single, narrow line thesis in opposition.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 22, 2015 11:20:30 GMT -5
"those who disfavor massive government regulation on this issue"
And here we have the truth in opposition, finally. The only thing that changes is the explanation of why.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 22, 2015 12:06:23 GMT -5
What do you mean what was his point? To throw off any discussion of substance by playing semantics. It's literally the only thing the climate change deniers have left. My point was that we've continually heard dire predictions about how a certain rise in temperature will occur in x number of years, or that we only have y number of years to act before it's too late, yet those predictions/models turn out to be inaccurate or wrong of continually revised. Quickplay says "Let's not pretend the debate about global warming is one about precision in measurement or predictions." Let's. If we are trying to decide whether we should join this treaty or agree to certain emissions targets, and doing so may slow global warming by 0.1 degrees over 20+ years, then precision in measurements and predictions is important to decide how much we want to burden our economy and society. Similarly, taking into account the accuracy of past predictions is a reasonable thing to do when considering future steps to take. I don't deny that some sort of climate change is taking place. I do have questions about (1) the actual extent of what is occurring, (2) how much is caused by human activity, and (3) how much of an effect on a global scale any actions taken in the US will have. The problem I have is the reluctance to find that there's a clear answer to (1) and (2). I think the goalposts haven't been moved; I think the studies have been largely consistent and to the extent there have been any changes, the more recent models generally show a worse problem than do the earlier ones (or, at least, the more recent studies coalesce around worse-case scenarios from earlier studies). As I've asked elsewhere on this thread: what more evidence will it take for you to decide that what is occurring is something bad and largely man-made? If it's not this volume of evidence, then what? Surely, there must be some level of evidence that causes you to change your mind. I get that all we have are predictions based on analysis of past data -- and in that sense the predictions are necessarily inexact and subject to error. But at some point, there has to be enough certitude to demand action, right? It's not that it's infallible (what prediction could be?); it's that it's the best information we have and overwhelmingly points in one direction. If one scientist is a hold-out and disagrees with the consensus, is that enough to mean that we shouldn't take action? That can't be right. And, in my view, we're not really very far off from that "one scientist dissenting" hypo. That said, let me be clear: I don't have any issue whatsoever with a debate as to no. 3 or a more general debate as to what appropriate next steps are. To me (because I believe the answers to (1) and (2) are clear), that's the only debate left to have -- and it needs to happen. Maybe there is no reasonable way to make the changes that would be necessary without making sacrifices in other areas that are unacceptable. Maybe the costs outweigh the benefits and the best we can do is mitigate potential outcomes (or pour money into research to try to be innovative about reversing the situation, if restricting CO isn't realistic). Those are appropriate issues for honest and full debate. But they can't happen until there's agreement on the existence of a problem.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,431
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 23, 2015 13:00:23 GMT -5
You'll excuse me if I'm not 100% sold on the power of predictive models. [/a][/quote] So you don't believe in Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. Both proved their worth over and over. Quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian mechanics for small systems (nuclear dimensions and below). How do you think we got to the moon, for example? The scientists and engineers believed in the power of predictive models. Of course, the models which support our physical universe need updating once in a while, but these predictive models, which laid the basis of physics, work pretty well.
|
|