Actually, it's very relevant. The global warming folks all have kind-of physics based approximations (models) of how they think various factors interact to affect climate. The most important single step in modeling is validating your model against known data. Otherwise, you are just dreaming stuff up and running your computer.
The assertion by the global warming folks is not just that the climate is warming but that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Given a history of hundreds of millions of years where climate demonstrably changes when there were no humans, the question is why the present is somehow different than the past--that is, in the past, stuff warmed up and cooled down all on its own. Isn't that the obvious explanation for today's climate change?
So the burden is on the ecofreaks to establish that somehow this is different. And that is where there models fall apart on the validation problem. They have only one data point for human effect on the environment--the modern industrial era. There are no previous periods of industrialization that correlate to temperature increases (because there were no previous periods of industrialization).
One data point is laughably insufficient to validate a model. So what the ecofreaks are doing is, quite literally, dreaming stuff up and running a computer and it deserves about that much respect.
Deep down, some of the better statisticians on the eco freak side know this. That's why you hear so much about the 'precautionary principle.' Effectively, what they argue by way of the precautionary principle is that even though the data is insufficient to support their position, they might be right so we should shut down our economy. That's a fine argument if you hate western civilization and want to destroy capitalism and replace it with a statist economy. But it's no way to preserve markets, wealth, and freedom. Plus, I think it underestimates the adaptability of humans.
Big picture. So what if oceans rise 3 meters? Do you think our survival as a species (or even our prosperity) is threatened. New wealth will be created as we will adapt so long as we are free.
Great response. Well said.
My whole problem with the GW "movement" is just that, its science turned into a religious/philosophical/ethical movement. The whacko's have taken front and center, and any reasonable response has been relegated to the fringe. The damned greenies have ruined a great area of study (climatology).
Currently, the ice melt is running about .0001" per day or a sea level rise of roughly 1/3 inch per year; by 2039 we should be able to easily measure this.
By 2015 (when we are all dead) we will be under water if we don't move inland.
By 2115 there will be no ice left on the planet and we can all go naked in the winter.
"Big picture. So what if oceans rise 3 meters?"
I'd gladly give up my home at 16 feet MSL if we could get the sea level to rise enough to flood the Middle East.
Amen. And well said.
My original post was a bit extreme (I often find it's good to begin that way and then whittle it down).
You're correct that scientific models need to be verified against past data. You say that "The most important single step in modeling is validating your model against known data", and I agree, but the point is we don't have reliable "known" data from 200 mya. The further we go back in time, the more uncertain we are. Climate models in their validation often go back no further than 100 years (although some do go back 1000 years).
There's a fallacy that I was trying to point out.
1) The climate has changed in the past for natural reasons
2) The climate is currently changing
3) Therefore the current climate change must be natural
That reasoning is fallacious. The point I was trying to make is that yes, scientists have to understand how the climate works and it helps to look at the climate over the past 200 million years, but they have to investigate what is causing the current climate change (which is deemed anomolous)
Point one: the reason that now is different from any previous "then" is that a signficant increase in atmospheric CO2 is occurring during a very stable interglacial period, on a timescale for which no other natural Earth cycles will have a significant, noticeable effect. The only possible effects on this timescale are from major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar activity. As for the latter, data does not indicate a significant solar influence, though some warming in the early 20th century is attributed to an increase in solar activity.
Point two: about 55 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred. Based on carbon isotope data, it is believed to have been caused by a major methane release over several millenia, and the methane oxidized to CO2, making the effects last longer. Though imperfect, this is the best analogy to the current situation, whereby a gas influencing Earth's radiative balance increased markedly (with no other cyclical contributions), with resultant increase in Earth's global temperature.