Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Esceptico said:
...However that doesn’t mean we can’t say anything about the end position of the ball. In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction. Same with the climate. We can’t model exactly what is going to happen every day of the year but we can say what is going to happen over a whole year at a global level.
So we can’t model the daily changes, but we can say that the climate is going to change state (the ball will roll down the hemisphere), but we don’t know what direction the Ball/climate will move in.I think I have it now.
dickymint said:
Some cock on Newsnight just said that due to climate change we're unfortunately going to see more pandemics!!!!
His comment is supported by academics;https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/how-climate-cha...
What was your reactionary insult based on?
Do you understand why the comment was made, what was behind it, and can refute it with evidence? Or do you just froth at the mouth every time you hear climate change mentioned?
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
...However that doesn’t mean we can’t say anything about the end position of the ball. In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction. Same with the climate. We can’t model exactly what is going to happen every day of the year but we can say what is going to happen over a whole year at a global level.
So we can’t model the daily changes, but we can say that the climate is going to change state (the ball will roll down the hemisphere), but we don’t know what direction the Ball/climate will move in.I think I have it now.
Esceptico said:
dickymint said:
Some cock on Newsnight just said that due to climate change we're unfortunately going to see more pandemics!!!!
His comment is supported by academics;https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/how-climate-cha...
What was your reactionary insult based on?
Do you understand why the comment was made, what was behind it, and can refute it with evidence? Or do you just froth at the mouth every time you hear climate change mentioned?
And this just about sums up your link............
Edited by dickymint on Friday 5th March 23:55
Esceptico said:
dickymint said:
Some cock on Newsnight just said that due to climate change we're unfortunately going to see more pandemics!!!!
His comment is supported by academics;https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/how-climate-cha...
What was your reactionary insult based on?
Do you understand why the comment was made, what was behind it, and can refute it with evidence? Or do you just froth at the mouth every time you hear climate change mentioned?
There’s plemty of evidence linking climate change to increased risk of pandemics.
Changes in weather patterns and thus animal habitats leading to migration of species and to increased mixing of different species and humans.
Only a fool would think mixing these things up wouldn’t lead to changes in how and where diseases are occurring.
dickymint said:
About 8 cans of cider and counting.........
And this just about sums up your link............
I will take that as a “no” that you can’t refute the arguments put forward in the article. And this just about sums up your link............
Edited by dickymint on Friday 5th March 23:55
However after 8 cans of cider I’m impressed you can post at all! Or just impressed you can drink 8 cans. A number of times when I was young I got badly drunk (is there a good way?) on cider. Taste was just about acceptable for the first glass (we used to get the big (2
Litre?) bottles - was cheaper) but after a few it really tasted rank. Didn’t stop us drinking it though. Often ended with bouts of vomiting. Perhaps unsurprising I’ve sort of lost the taste for it.
El stovey said:
Esceptico said:
dickymint said:
Some cock on Newsnight just said that due to climate change we're unfortunately going to see more pandemics!!!!
His comment is supported by academics;https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/how-climate-cha...
What was your reactionary insult based on?
Do you understand why the comment was made, what was behind it, and can refute it with evidence? Or do you just froth at the mouth every time you hear climate change mentioned?
There’s plemty of evidence linking climate change to increased risk of pandemics.
Changes in weather patterns and thus animal habitats leading to migration of species and to increased mixing of different species and humans.
Only a fool would think mixing these things up wouldn’t lead to changes in how and where diseases are occurring.
Pandemics happen because of economics. Deforestation happens because of economics. It's totally independent of climate change.
Esceptico said:
It is just your fundamental lack of understanding of chaotic systems as shown by many posts on here. .................... In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction.
"lack of understanding of chaotic". Really ? We just don’t know in which direction !!!! Oh, just a minor inaccuracy then ? The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
It is just your fundamental lack of understanding of chaotic systems as shown by many posts on here. .................... In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction.
"lack of understanding of chaotic". Really ? We just don’t know in which direction !!!! Oh, just a minor inaccuracy then ? The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
kerplunk said:
Yes this is the 'initial conditions' problem and why climate (and weather) modelling methodology is multiple model runs with multiple initial conditions leading to a spaghetti of results. It's an attempt to 'bound' the possible outcomes and arrive at a probabilistic assessment of what's likely and unlikely to happen. And it's the same for the example you've posted of the california drought and the attribution of to global warming - it's a probabilistic assessment.
I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
Do they do carry out multiple runs with the same initial conditions see how the results vary?I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
It is just your fundamental lack of understanding of chaotic systems as shown by many posts on here. .................... In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction.
"lack of understanding of chaotic". Really ? We just don’t know in which direction !!!! Oh, just a minor inaccuracy then ? The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Yes this is the 'initial conditions' problem and why climate (and weather) modelling methodology is multiple model runs with multiple initial conditions leading to a spaghetti of results. It's an attempt to 'bound' the possible outcomes and arrive at a probabilistic assessment of what's likely and unlikely to happen. And it's the same for the example you've posted of the california drought and the attribution of to global warming - it's a probabilistic assessment.
I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
Do they do carry out multiple runs with the same initial conditions see how the results vary?I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
It is just your fundamental lack of understanding of chaotic systems as shown by many posts on here. .................... In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction.
"lack of understanding of chaotic". Really ? We just don’t know in which direction !!!! Oh, just a minor inaccuracy then ? The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
kerplunk said:
Yes this is the 'initial conditions' problem and why climate (and weather) modelling methodology is multiple model runs with multiple initial conditions leading to a spaghetti of results. It's an attempt to 'bound' the possible outcomes and arrive at a probabilistic assessment of what's likely and unlikely to happen. And it's the same for the example you've posted of the california drought and the attribution of to global warming - it's a probabilistic assessment.
I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
I should know better than to write about climate modelling, I wrote the above from what little I know (or thought I knew) but post-googling reveals I haven't done a very good job:I would expect you to come back with a comment about how impossible it is to do any of that, to which I would say I hope not! Because the implications of that are far more scary.
eg
"The counter-argument is that the system is inherently chaotic and, therefore, we cannot make long-term predictions. This is true for weather predictions, but not for climate modelling. Even if we could get very accurate initial conditions, there would still be a limit to how far in advance we could predict the weather. The climate, however, doesn’t depend very strongly on the initial conditions, and so this property doesn’t impact climate modelling in the same way as it does weather modelling. "
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/05...
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
...However that doesn’t mean we can’t say anything about the end position of the ball. In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction. Same with the climate. We can’t model exactly what is going to happen every day of the year but we can say what is going to happen over a whole year at a global level.
So we can’t model the daily changes, but we can say that the climate is going to change state (the ball will roll down the hemisphere), but we don’t know what direction the Ball/climate will move in.I think I have it now.
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
...However that doesn’t mean we can’t say anything about the end position of the ball. In fact we can work out fairly precisely how far it will roll away from the bowl. We just don’t know in which direction. Same with the climate. We can’t model exactly what is going to happen every day of the year but we can say what is going to happen over a whole year at a global level.
So we can’t model the daily changes, but we can say that the climate is going to change state (the ball will roll down the hemisphere), but we don’t know what direction the Ball/climate will move in.I think I have it now.
I hereby issue my forecast for 2021; global av temps this year will be cooler than last year by 0.05 - 0.2C
I also anticipate significant warming in the northern hemisphere over the next few months, mirrored by cooling in the southern hemisphere.
robinessex said:
"lack of understanding of chaotic". Really ? We just don’t know in which direction !!!! Oh, just a minor inaccuracy then ?
It depends upon what is important to know. In the example given you do know the set of all possible answers ie the ball will be on a circle with its initial starting point being the centre. You know how far it has travelled. Same with the climate. As an example you can model and predict with reasonable accuracy how many hours of sunshine, how many mm of rain will fall for a given region over a year but you have no way of predicting on which day it will be sunny or on which day it will rain. The inability to forecast the weather more than a few days in advance does not mean that the weather is completely random ie it will rain continually for two years or have no rain for two years. You seem unable or unwilling to understand that distinction.
Esceptico said:
robinessex said:
"lack of understanding of chaotic". Really ? We just don’t know in which direction !!!! Oh, just a minor inaccuracy then ?
It depends upon what is important to know. In the example given you do know the set of all possible answers ie the ball will be on a circle with its initial starting point being the centre. You know how far it has travelled. Same with the climate. As an example you can model and predict with reasonable accuracy how many hours of sunshine, how many mm of rain will fall for a given region over a year but you have no way of predicting on which day it will be sunny or on which day it will rain. The inability to forecast the weather more than a few days in advance does not mean that the weather is completely random ie it will rain continually for two years or have no rain for two years. You seem unable or unwilling to understand that distinction.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bbc-says-we...
It has just recently past the BBC's Doomsday prediction.
I presume that as the atmosphere hasn't burnt away and that as the sea levels are pretty much normal, that the doomsday has been and gone without much of a notice?
It has just recently past the BBC's Doomsday prediction.
I presume that as the atmosphere hasn't burnt away and that as the sea levels are pretty much normal, that the doomsday has been and gone without much of a notice?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff