OPINION:
In his op-ed, “The changing climate of science” (Web, July 30) Anthony J. Sadar writes, “At least part of the problem of predicting reality can be attributed to the apparent abandonment of the observation-hypothesis-testing construct and replacing the hypothesis component with theory and the testing component with modeling.” Modeling has not replaced good, old-fashioned hypothesis formulation and testing in science. To suggest as much is at the very least disingenuous.
Simulation models are used to test hypothesis when it is impractical or impossible to use direct, physical experimentation. For example, simulation modeling is used in testing the potential efficacy of future weapons systems because the alternative, starting a war and observing the behavior of the weapon, is neither practicable or desirable. Testing climate change is also limited to modeling for essentially the same reason: There is no practical alternative.
Hypotheses concerning climate change began appearing in the late 19th century, evolving by the 1960s into the basic outlines of the current greenhouse-gas theory. At that time, we lacked computer technology of sufficient processing power to reasonably simulate the extremely complex behavior of Earth’s climate. It is only recently that both super computers of sufficient power and the climate models to run on same have been developed.
Data analysis of ice core samples shows a close correlation over time between increases in carbon dioxide and increasing thermal energy in the atmosphere. Using this and other data, recently developed climate-simulation models have consistently predicted melting icecaps and rising sea levels, a development of potentially catastrophic consequences.
Legitimate criticism offered in the spirit of improving climate science is one thing; disinformation employed in the service of narrow interests is quite another.
WILLIAM CARRAWAY
Fredericksburg, Va.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.