Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Oh well that's good then (I think).
Tip - try actually reading the IPCC reports to avoid misrepresenting what they say (since you doth loathe misrepresentation greatly).
When the media misrepresent the IPCC summaries of what the science says you mean?Tip - try actually reading the IPCC reports to avoid misrepresenting what they say (since you doth loathe misrepresentation greatly).
Of course I loathe misrepresentation of science for political purposes.
kerplunk said:
No you've clearly deliberately misrepresented what I said there to make a political point.
Oops.What I meant was the next time someone spouts the line about irreversible changes and runaway warming due to tipping points are going to happen due to CO2 because IPCC, I can tell them that is a oversimplification and not what climate scientists are claiming at all.
Honestly, it was an interesting read covering various possibilities for changes and new equilibria.
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
No you've clearly deliberately misrepresented what I said there to make a political point.
Oops.What I meant was the next time someone spouts the line about irreversible changes and runaway warming due to tipping points are going to happen due to CO2 because IPCC, I can tell them that is a oversimplification and not what climate scientists are claiming at all.
Honestly, it was an interesting read covering various possibilities for changes and new equilibria.
kerplunk said:
Cool. I should've remembered this Real Climate classic by Gavin Schmidt which is quite succinct - Runaway tipping points of no return
Again an interesting read, I tend to apply the logic that regional and global climate and environmental changes that can and have occurred naturally in the past are normal and therefore anything claimed as an AGW or CC effect should only be something above and beyond these and specifically tied to the claimed MMCO2 changes. I also find people that think the climate and environment should not change a bit odd, however the rate of change is something we need to be concerned about so again people that think that if we could reduce CO2 production to zero it would mean this could not still happen also worry me. We cannot fix the climate, in the unchanging sense, so throwing all efforts into CO2 reductions and not making any plans for coping with climate change is very, very short sighted.Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Cool. I should've remembered this Real Climate classic by Gavin Schmidt which is quite succinct - Runaway tipping points of no return
Again an interesting read, I tend to apply the logic that regional and global climate and environmental changes that can and have occurred naturally in the past are normal and therefore anything claimed as an AGW or CC effect should only be something above and beyond these and specifically tied to the claimed MMCO2 changes. 
Toltec said:
I also find people that think the climate and environment should not change a bit odd,
I've never seen one of those, despite sceptics talking about them a lot - where do they hang out? It's a bit of a myth really isn't it. Basically you've got people who look at the earth's history and say - hey the climate has always changed so it's daft to try and stop it, and folk like me who look at the record and notice that human beings have flourished in a period of relative climate stability which might lead us into complacency, because you don't have to go much further back to see that, in fact, climate is a precocious beasty and it's probably unwise to poke it with a stick.Toltec said:
however the rate of change is something we need to be concerned about so again people that think that if we could reduce CO2 production to zero it would mean this could not still happen also worry me. We cannot fix the climate, in the unchanging sense, so throwing all efforts into CO2 reductions and not making any plans for coping with climate change is very, very short sighted.
That's policy stuff and I generally try to avoid getting into policy discussions on the science thread.Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 13th September 15:35
kerplunk said:
I've never seen one of those, despite sceptics talking about them a lot - where do they hang out? It's a bit of a myth really isn't it. Basically you've got people who look at the earth's history and say - hey the climate has always changed so it's daft to try and stop it, and folk like me who look at the record and notice that human beings have flourished in a period of relative climate stability which might lead us into complacency, because you don't have to go much further back to see that, in fact, climate is a precocious beasty and it's probably unwise to poke it with a stick.
Cheap energy from fossil fuels.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
I've never seen one of those, despite sceptics talking about them a lot - where do they hang out? It's a bit of a myth really isn't it. Basically you've got people who look at the earth's history and say - hey the climate has always changed so it's daft to try and stop it, and folk like me who look at the record and notice that human beings have flourished in a period of relative climate stability which might lead us into complacency, because you don't have to go much further back to see that, in fact, climate is a precocious beasty and it's probably unwise to poke it with a stick.
Cheap energy from fossil fuels.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th September 11:41
kerplunk said:
I had more than the last couple of hundred years in mind - the last couple of millenia would be closer. The word "flourish" doesn't quite hit the spot for what's happenend in the last couple of centuries when everything went through the roof. The word 'explosion' comes to mind for that, though that could have negative conotations - but I can't think of a better one right now. Certainly if alien geologists arrived on the planet a million years from now they would find evidence of something that looked like an explosion anyway. There's no denying the huge benefits we've got from fossil fuels, but we're hooked on it now like heroin addicts and our thirst for it, and everyhing it enables, is changing the environment faster than our ability to understand the consequences (to borrow from Stephen Schneider).
Geometric expansion?Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th September 11:41
"An entire archaeological layer of compressed shoes."
kerplunk said:
I had more than the last couple of hundred years in mind - the last couple of millenia would be closer. The word "flourish" doesn't quite hit the spot for what's happenend in the last couple of centuries when everything went through the roof. The word 'explosion' comes to mind for that, though that could have negative conotations - but I can't think of a better one right now. Certainly if alien geologists arrived on the planet a million years from now they would find evidence of something that looked like an explosion anyway. There's no denying the huge benefits we've got from fossil fuels, but we're hooked on it now like heroin addicts and our thirst for it, and everyhing it enables, is changing the environment faster than our ability to understand the consequences (to borrow from Stephen Schneider).
We do understand the consequences. They be bad. Bad tings happen. Settled science, innit!
We do understand the consequences. They be bad. Bad tings happen. Settled science, innit!
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th September 11:41
Toltec said:
Just like so called planet temperature. I can think of 5 ways to calculate an average!! Incidentally, few curves missing there. Non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS) is a mathematical model commonly used in computer graphics for generating and representing curves and surfaces. It offers great flexibility and precision for handling both analytic (surfaces defined by common mathematical formulae) and modeled shapes. NURBS are commonly used in computer-aided design (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and engineering (CAE) and are part of numerous industry wide standards, such as IGES, STEP, ACIS, and PHIGS. NURBS tools are also found in various 3D modeling and animation software packages. They can be efficiently handled by the computer programs and yet allow for easy human interaction. NURBS surfaces are functions of two parameters mapping to a surface in three-dimensional space. The shape of the surface is determined by control points. NURBS surfaces can represent, in a compact form, simple geometrical shapes. T-splines and subdivision surfaces are more suitable for complex organic shapes because they reduce the number of control points twofold in comparison with the NURBS surfaces.
In general, editing NURBS curves and surfaces is highly intuitive and predictable. Control points are always either connected directly to the curve/surface, or act as if they were connected by a rubber band. Depending on the type of user interface, editing can be realized via an element’s control points, which are most obvious and common for Bézier curves, or via higher level tools such as spline modeling or hierarchical editing.
(ICEM Surface, Rhino). This is how the car industry CAD model body surfaces.
https://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/produc...
https://www.rhino3d.com/
Toltec said:
XKCD nails it, as always 
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff