[Lucky Dog]

was wondering what you think of the mathematical models that are being used to support the hypothesis that humans are responsible for global warming....

These models are generally based upon unproven assumptions.

and whether you think the earth's meteorological system (global temperature system?) is a more or less complex system than the earth's biological system.

The earth's climatological system like the the earth's biological system can be discussed and mathematically modeled in broad terms. Where the current climatological models generally fail is in their predictive capability (both postscriptively and prescriptively).

As an example, proponents of the current climatological models claim to be able to predict a coming catastrophe. However, their models can not even be used to postcriptively predict major, historical, climatological events.

As to modeling the earth's biological system, it can be done in broad terms. If one tries to use such a model to predict exactly when a new species will emerge, it is going to have to incorporate a number of unproven assumptions just like the climatological models currently do.

However, in terms of climatological models one can examine ice cores (from very deep cores) to determine the frequency of past ice ages and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with geologic evidence of volcanic activity within certain confidence intervals. Similarly, one can examine the statistical occurrence rate of genetic mutations and the past frequency of occurrence of the emergence of new species and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with the mutation rate.

[PatrickHenry]

Similarly, one can examine the statistical occurrence rate of genetic mutations and the past frequency of occurrence of the emergence of new species and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with the mutation rate.

I don't think such a model could cope with the potential for variation that may already exist within a population. For example, some herd may have a recessive gene for really shaggy hair, but in a mild climate those few who pop up shaggy may not make it. Yet the recessive gene persists. If the climate grows colder, some of the shaggy ones will survive. If the cooling continues, eventually the whole herd will be shaggy. Tough to predict that.

Also, most species go extinct. At least 90%. They just couldn't cope. How do you model to take that into account? Survival is a dicey thing. All we see is the survivors. But most didn't make it.

[ml1954]

These models (global warming mathematical models) are generally based upon unproven assumptions.

The earth's climatological system like the the earth's biological system can be discussed and mathematically modeled in broad terms. Where the current climatological models generally fail is in their predictive capability (both postscriptively and prescriptively).

I think the global warming models fail not only because of false/unproven assumptions, but because the system they are trying to model is too complex.

And if we cannot create a testable/useful mathematical model of global climate change over relatively short periods of time because of it's complexity, how can we hope to create a testable/useful mathematical model of evolutionary biology -- a much more complex system, with many more variables, that operates over much greater periods of time.

In other words, I think it is probably futile to try prove or disprove biological evolution by using a mathematical model.