Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
Personally I don't have too much of a problem with living in a world full of 'may' or 'might' where 'may' or 'might' are unknown.

This piss artist attitude surrounding global warming where 'may' or 'might' suddenly become MUST, that bothers me. Bothers me deeply.
Agreed.

But will young minds, once matured, still understand "may" and "might" as "will" and "must", etc.?

"Training" youngsters (and even oldies!)about what to do if a potentially dangerous major natural event should happen is most sensible.

Associating the event to something presented as "immediate" (weather) when the suggested changes, should they occur, can only be assessed in decades or longer time scales (if what is being done is as it is being reported there) strikes me as being an attempt to pre-form opinions in a way that could be counter-productive, in a practical sense, in the long term.

I'm not sure that is a job for a charity operation.

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
2. The complex pendulum - all bets are off.
Well observed, well understood through physics/maths, impossible to predict.

c.f. MMGW

Poorly observed, poorly understood through physics/maths, allegedly predicted well.


turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

The Don of Croy

5,975 posts

158 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
From the article.

"Meanwhile, amid the debate over energy in the Philippines, there are efforts to help people cope with the kind of future disasters that may become more intense with climate change.

The charity Save the Children is providing advice to schools on how to teach children to be more aware of the possible dangers. "



So, is that useful help from a charity in a time of need .... or attempted pre-emptive indoctrination of young minds?

Maybe they are simply helping the children accept future low expectations rather then have them hope for a coal powered energy driven future?
Saw this on t'news last night (and also on radio news earlier) - the PM of Philippines (Aquino? presumably offspring of Corizon?) said that renewables would not help as they had not enough wind, too much cloud and wave power wasn't anywhere near deployment, so coal is the goal. Seems logical. Except that the next talking head wants former coal burners to pay for their perceived problems. Jog on.

Overall, if a charity is teaching children to run out of a classroom then it makes good telly. Once. Just how many of the schools that charity is 'influencing' we don't know, but I suspect it's a pretty small number, so the net effect in 5/10/15 years may be less than zilch (it's a nation of 100million with many <25 years old spread over loads of islands, so the logistics of getting round them must be daunting - and therefore expensive. Perhaps the money could be better spent on books/transport/internet).

Nuclearsquash

1,329 posts

261 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Re the Philippines was curious why the didn't investigate the reasons for the flooding getting worse. My bet is that there is a massive amount of deforestation and building going on, leading to greater volumes of water running into rivers, but you know blame it on CO2 and evil imperial westerners burning coal first, rather than any introspection.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
The Charlie and Charlotte statements - further observations.

http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terroris...


Clearly both ore either ill read, incompletely briefed or simply making things up to suit their own personal agendas egos.

In la Church's case she may need the publicity and feel that any publicity is worth the embarrassment, Charlie Sheen style (whoever he is).

Hmm. Three Charlies.

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Well it's not surprising they're amping up the rhetoric with COP21 coming up. Did anyone watch Newsnight last night? Ed Miliband was on talking about it. Another true believer of course.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Euan Mearns, in a comment on the post I linked to above, points out that the Turkish air force shot down a Russian jet today as it was flying over Syria/or maybe Turkey.

There will no doubt be speculation about whether this might lead to WW3.

Thus, should such an event develop, we might hear 2 of the 3 Charlies telling as that WW3 was caused by Climate Change.

As a former UK PM once said; "Events, dear boy, Events."

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
turbobloke said:
Exactly.

In a complex chaotic system such as our planet's coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system, it's not possible to know for sure what the outcome will be from any perturbation.
Even more exactly, look at how a complex pendulum behaves in a complex chaotic system. The mathematics cannot cope.
Hm. I can't buy the "it's just too complicated" argument.

The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?) but it is still entirely possible to predict what the effect of upsetting its chemical balance will have.

If it wasn't, we wouldn't have medicine.

Or beer.

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 24th November 13:51

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
There's none so blind as those who won't see.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
TheExcession said:
turbobloke said:
Exactly.

In a complex chaotic system such as our planet's coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system, it's not possible to know for sure what the outcome will be from any perturbation.
Even more exactly, look at how a complex pendulum behaves in a complex chaotic system. The mathematics cannot cope.
Hm. A bit risky offering the "it's just too complicated" argument. You're heading into creationist territory on that path.

The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?) but it is still entirely possible to predict what the effect of upsetting its chemical balance will have.

If it wasn't, we wouldn't have medicine.

Or beer.
Hmm.

Are you sure?

I mean completely sure in every circumstance?

If so, why is so much money spent on medical research?

Moreover, since overpopulation is, according to many of a "green" persuasion, a huge threat to the planet and, of course, a source of CAGW, one would have thought the combination of knowing everything there is to know and the adverse results of extending human lifespans and increasing early survival rates would be something that one could readily abandon.

Yet medical research continues.


Puzzling, in the context of your point as presented.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?) but it is still entirely possible to predict what the effect of upsetting its chemical balance will have.
Why then do we have drug trials? Should be able to just model the effects.


alock

4,224 posts

210 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
Hm. I can't buy the "it's just too complicated" argument.

The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?) but it is still entirely possible to predict what the effect of upsetting its chemical balance will have.

If it wasn't, we wouldn't have medicine.

Or beer.
Are you saying we're able to accurately predict the exact amount of beer it takes on a daily basis for dangerous and irreversible long term liver damage? The level of accuracy is important here. To match AGW I would guess we have to be at the sub-milliliter level.

I need to know exactly how much beer is safe?

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
alock said:
durbster said:
Hm. I can't buy the "it's just too complicated" argument.

The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?) but it is still entirely possible to predict what the effect of upsetting its chemical balance will have.

If it wasn't, we wouldn't have medicine.

Or beer.
Are you saying we're able to accurately predict the exact amount of beer it takes on a daily basis for dangerous and irreversible long term liver damage? The level of accuracy is important here. To match AGW I would guess we have to be at the sub-milliliter level.

I need to know exactly how much beer is safe?
Surely that is a relative judgement?

If, for example, your alternative fluid choice was tainted water one might be able to argue that that the beer, though it might be harmful in quantity and over time could be much safer, even if not entirely safe, for immediate consumption, than the water, the beer having gone through some chemical processing during its creation.

Thus one would have to balance the need for fluid intake with the potentially negative aspect of the beer effects and compare the risks over time for both a stable state (beer recipe does not change, water quality stays the same) and for variations of those factors.

And that would be just a starting point of course .....

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
TheExcession said:
turbobloke said:
Exactly.

In a complex chaotic system such as our planet's coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system, it's not possible to know for sure what the outcome will be from any perturbation.
Even more exactly, look at how a complex pendulum behaves in a complex chaotic system. The mathematics cannot cope.
Hm. I can't buy the "it's just too complicated" argument.

The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?)
Without getting into the beer issue, you might like to look at the earlier posts you replied to, then reflect on your post and which element of the description you isolated and focused on.

The key issue in terms of predictability, including response to perturbations, is the chaotic bit not the complex bit.

In comparison to the human body, there are specific problems with examining the planet's climate system and its chaotic nature. One is that, unlike the human body where experiments only need to take place over periods of time from (say) 100 seconds to approximately 100 years, the timescales of climate perturbations and responses vary from short-term (minutes, hours) to medium term (decades) to long-term (centuries, millennia). It's not possible to carry out all the experiments on the climate system that would increase understanding more rapidly, sometimes due to side-effects and sometimes due to the timescales involved. What we are basically limited to is what nature shows us over time, mother nature determines the 'experiments' we observe more than us.

However, that also changes nothing, given that total understanding would never convey predictability.

When you said that you can't buy the "it's just too complicated" argument, you were focusing on the wrong aspect. It's a chaotic system, that seals the deal. Being a complex chaotic system doesn't help but then it doesn't change the game.

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
And you can accurately determine a human's temperature by shoving a thermometer up it's arse. What is the equivalent for the Earth?

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
rovermorris999 said:
And you can accurately determine a human's temperature by shoving a thermometer up it's arse. What is the equivalent for the Earth?
Shove a thermometer up the Earth's arse.

Adjust the reading to make it hotter than it was.

Adjust the previous reading to make it cooler.

Announce a warming trend and make an unjustified assumption as to what caused it.

Decide that the recent hot reading is a record, making additional adjustments if needed and using wonky stats whether needed or not.

Use the re-adjusted hot reading to substitute for any cooler locations e.g. Earth's lug'ole.

Afterwards say it's worse than previously thought.

Job done.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Climate change prediction, or whatever you want to call it, is kaput!

The first sentence of the seconds paragraph in Wikipedia says:-

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.

It's a pity all the climate scientists didn't read that about 30 years ago, save us all from this nonesense, thus they could have got into something more useful.

Is it all settled now then ?

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
rovermorris999 said:
And you can accurately determine a human's temperature by shoving a thermometer up it's arse. What is the equivalent for the Earth?
Shove a thermometer up the Earth's arse.

Adjust the reading to make it hotter than it was.

Adjust the previous reading to make it cooler.

Announce a warming trend and make an unjustified assumption as to what caused it.

Decide that the recent hot reading is a record, making additional adjustments if needed and using wonky stats whether needed or not.

Use the re-adjusted hot reading to substitute for any cooler locations e.g. Earth's lug'ole.

Afterwards say it's worse than previously thought.

Job done.
You forgot to recommend a course of leeches (and to conceal your £billion interest in a leech farm owning consortium).

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
turbobloke said:
rovermorris999 said:
And you can accurately determine a human's temperature by shoving a thermometer up it's arse. What is the equivalent for the Earth?
Shove a thermometer up the Earth's arse.

Adjust the reading to make it hotter than it was.

Adjust the previous reading to make it cooler.

Announce a warming trend and make an unjustified assumption as to what caused it.

Decide that the recent hot reading is a record, making additional adjustments if needed and using wonky stats whether needed or not.

Use the re-adjusted hot reading to substitute for any cooler locations e.g. Earth's lug'ole.

Afterwards say it's worse than previously thought.

Job done.
You forgot to recommend a course of leeches (and to conceal your £billion interest in a leech farm owning consortium).
That I did; memory changes must have been linked to global warming somewhere by someone, chances are they own leeches.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED