New Category suggestion. Climate change.

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,089
    "Equable climate" is not a model. It is a description of a climate state where worldwide temperatures show fewer extremes.

    The _output_ of a climate model may suggest that the climate becomes more or less equable. So far, since most models predict that the poles will warm faster than the tropics, it looks like the climate will move in that direction.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    OK
    When I first encountered the equable climate, it was phrased thusly:
    Graham's "equable climate" model
    (that was almost 25 years ago)
    So, I suppose it is time to drop the "model" part now
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    My alternate under-informed opinion: I don't believe that the IPCC report has understated the gravity of the issue--that would be somewhat unethical, and not really in accordance with scientific conventions, wouldn't it? Rather, I suspect that most of the authors believe that they are understating the gravity, based on the trend of every subsequent report (in recent history) to note that previous reports had, in fact, underestimated this or that factor. To clarify that jumble: I suspect that many/most of the scientists involved believe that in coming months/years they will acquire new knowledge and improved methodologies that will in all likelihood reveal a more dire scenario, as that has been the trend over the past several years.

    (italics unintended)
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,506
    ... or, we can just start building our family arks...
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,089
    Or just move to Denver.
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    que lastima

    ...........................
    I find it puzzling that many people seem to rely(assume the accuracy of) on the prognostications of models which they do not understand.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,554
    Do you know how packet encryption works?
    Yet you rely on (and the assume the accuracy of) packet encryption every day.

    I find it puzzling that you rely on the expertise of thousands of people every day just to stay alive (such as the food preps who know enough not to put paint thinner in your Corn Flakes), yet for some reason, here, you draw a line.
     
    origin likes this.
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    This isn't some Appeal to Authority fallacy: the persons who actually use the models do, in fact, have a fairly comprehensive understanding of them. And the overwhelming majority of scientists who also understand them are largely in agreement with those who use them.

    Do you fully understand every single aspect of how, say, your laptop computer works--from the ground up? I suspect not, but you still use it.
     
  12. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    You beat me to it.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,554
    Actually, yours was better, since you brought it back around to the validity of climate models.
     
  14. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    What I find fascinating is that in this field, there is actually a whole lot more agreement amongst scientists than one might find in certain other fields--say neurology, neurobiology, and--this one I kinda hesitate to call a "science," especially as it is practiced in the U.S.--pharmacology. And yet, far fewer people allege that there is major "controversy" in those areas.

    Even more fascinating... I kinda "get" those with vested financial interests--most of them probably don't even believe their denials--but when it comes to the average citizen of the world--what's the deal? Why doubt what thousands of specialists, who know vastly more about the subject than the "average citizen," purport to be transpiring?
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,506
    A whole lot of stuff i don't understand cured me of cancer. So, yeah, I trust authorities on the subjects they know and i don't.
    In the case of climate science, I've been listening to experts for half a century, and every single thing they warned about has come to pass.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  16. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    And, more often than not, what has come to pass has come to pass much sooner than IPCC reports have postulated. Obviously, one can't really do "good" science based upon conjecture about what we do not know and cannot account for yet; but it certainly seems that in some instances those prone to speculating, i.e., James Hansen--those often described by a certain crowd as "alarmists"--were more accurate in their predictions.
     
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,506
    Generally, scientists tend to report conservatively. They know that all data are subject to revision when more information becomes available; thus, all conclusions are provisional. They're also acutely aware of how skewed scientific announcements tend to become when filtered through mass media.
    But in a situation such as we had c. 1968-75, a few brave people thought it urgent enough to warn the responsible authorities of the impending tightly-bunched group of uninvited carnal knowledge while there was time to take evasive action. Of course, the evasive action taken was to shoot the messenger. Surprise!
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    What?
    Explain please.
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,506
    There may have been earlier warnings, but I didn't grow into awareness of the world past my grades and crappy social life until 1966 and for a while after, we were too immersed in civil rights and Viet Nam to notice much else. By 1970, alarm bells were ringing all over the place, about the dangers of overpopulation, pollution, pesticide use, deforestation, mismanagement of water, rapid industrialization and the inability of a finite planet to support infinite human growth.
    The first big oil spill was closely followed by a fruitless international conference and then the introduction of disposable plastic bags and bottles - everywhere.
    That's when I knew we're a hopeless species*
    https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-limits-to-growth/
    https://www.infoplease.com/world/disasters/man-made/oil-spills-and-disasters-timeline
    https://www.britannica.com/science/acid-rain/History
    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/...pring-ignited-the-environmental-movement.html
    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/humanenvironment

    *correction. the knowledge didn't solidify until my first encounter with bottled water. Toronto had unlimited free drinking water of very good quality at that time. The expensive water came from Europe - a continent where intensive urban populations, industry and agriculture had been carelessly pissing into their few waterways for centuries. Some people had thought it a good idea to manufacture special bottles, drain that little spring, crate the bottles and put them on diesel-powered trains to the coast, load it onto ships that churn up the whales across the Atlantic, leaving an oil-slick all the way, to unload, distribute by big stinking truck, and sell to a willing market - in Canada - a vast land of pristine rivers and lakes.
    If the wars in Asia had not been proof enough of our terminal collective insanity, this did.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    Better to think that we aint just the problem, we are also the solution.
    we've come a long way since silent spring-1962
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    long term climate trend

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Not just tending toward being colder
    also the swings are much more radical.
    41kyr is a better fit to the milankovitch cycles
    the shift to 100kyr is not completely understood

    A lot of our evolutionary leaps happened during this ice age
    Perhaps, there was little evolution needed during the Neogene eden?
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,554
    Sculptor: you didn't acknowledge responses 107/108 to your 'puzzled' post 106.

    Are you less puzzled now? If not, why not?
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    107, 108--- packet encryption --- how your laptop computer works
    These things do not interest me.

    I study what interests me.
    I know the strengths and weaknesses of the materials and tools I use, and the strengths and weaknesses of my interface with them. Before I understood that, I was very interested in learning that and asked a lot of questions and read and/or watched everything I could find to help gain the knowledge.

    The thing about people's faith in models that they do not understand just seems odd to me.
    In another thread, we discussed outliers(which usually get my attention).
    Belief in things that one does not understand seems almost like a superstition.
    That in people who I assume to be intelligent and well educated seems an outlier.
    ergo, my interest
     

Share This Page