Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
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.This piss artist attitude surrounding global warming where 'may' or 'might' suddenly become MUST, that bothers me. Bothers me deeply.
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.
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."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?
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).
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.
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 ownpersonal 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.
http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terroris...
Clearly both ore either ill read, incompletely briefed or simply making things up to suit their own
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.
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."
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."
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. 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.
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
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. 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.
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 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.
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.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.
I need to know exactly how much beer is safe?
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.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.
I need to know exactly how much beer is safe?
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 .....
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. 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.
The human body is also a complex, chaotic system (moreso than the climate perhaps?)
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 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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff