A challenge to climate sceptics

OK, with that out of the way, supposing I said let's debate the science of quantum electrodynamics (QED). What would readers think?

Many readers would probably think I was some kind of a braggart who was trying to impress them with my intellectual brilliance. Others might think I was a raving lunatic. Few readers, if any, would agree that holding a debate on the science of QED on an online forum was a sensible idea.

I also venture to say that most readers would admit freely that they were not in a position to debate the science of QED. And yet many of those same readers have firmly held views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They are prepared to dismiss AGW as being without foundation.

It happens I did study QED as part of my post graduate degree in theoretical physics back in the 1960s. I love QED. It is so wonderfully counter-intuitive. What path does the electron take in going from A to B? It "sniffs out" every conceivable path.

I do not know enough to offer any new insights on QED and I never did. But I am still able to give a coherent explanation on what it's about and, for example, explain the physical significance of the Feynman path integrals.

Now I am going to let you into a secret. AGW is several orders of magnitude more complicated that QED. Comparing AGW to QED is like comparing the fighting of a real war to a game of checkers.

Here's why.

QED deals with systems that are simple compared to the Earth's climate. They are also well defined; we know all the important parameters and how the interact.

Everything you need to know about QED is contained in a compact set of mathematical concepts. It's not simple mathematics. You won’t learn it at high school. But a good under-graduate course in mathematics should put you in a position to tackle the mathematical aspects of QED.

Now compare this to climate.

• Climate systems are several orders of magnitude more complex than the systems that physicists consider when they study QED.
• We do not know all the parameters. Most likely we do not yet know all the important ones.
• We cannot quantify the interactions of even the known parameters with precision.
• There is no compact set of equations that enable you to predict with precision the way climate will behave as parameters are changed. Climate science will never achieve the predictive precision of QED.

If you are prepared to admit that you cannot debate QED maybe you should ask yourself whether you are truly in a position to offer opinions on a scientific topic that is immensely more complex such as AGW.