LOL
Basically: "Do not trust what Einstein wrote about physics because Gell-Mann effect."
-
Features
New report on climate change released today
- Thread starter southernhybrid
- Start date
LOL
Basically: "Do not trust what Einstein wrote about physics because Gell-Mann effect."
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I "discovered" the Gell-Mann Effect decades before I ever heard its name. It showed up vividly for me in the NY Times. I won't recount all the instances where reporter showed ignorance, except that one was climate-change related. With zero expertise but with common-sense, I could see the fallacy. I remember asking myself: With all these errors I can see, have I been misled on topics where I lacked knowledge?
On climate change, there are lots and LOTS of articles and YouTubes that are just a click away from journal articles. I often go ahead and click that click; I'm sure many other TFTers do also.
One thing that is NOT in dispute is the very strong correlation between climate and CO2. Perfect prediction is impossible, but it's a leap from that admission to "We don't know."
Whatever the natural forcings due to orbit and solar variation, man's increases in atmospheric CO2 will, in effect, be added to those other forcings. In the near-term "natural" fluctuation will mean the difference between "too hot" and "much too hot" and NOT between "hot" and "cool."
You are almost right about one thing! The Wurm-Wisconsin Glaciation which began about 100,000 years ago is NOT blamed on the wood burning by the tiny Neanderthal population of that time!
But some ancient climate changes have been attributed to mankind. I wrote that you are "almost" right because some researchers think Europe's "Little Ice Age" (centered about 400 years ago) was amplified by the reforestation of North America as farming there declined due to smallpox epidemics!
Right-wing climate deniers are insulated from science by the Republican Lie Machine. But most TFTers commenting on climate change are getting their info from scientists or competent journalists.
On climate change, there are lots and LOTS of articles and YouTubes that are just a click away from journal articles. I often go ahead and click that click; I'm sure many other TFTers do also.
For starters, we think you said "Do not trust experts. Remember the Gell-Mann effect." Gell-Mann speaks about journalists, not experts. However it appears you followed my advice and did Google to learn what the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is, so let's move on.
My understanding is that the Milankovitch cycles are thought to have much more effect than the unexplained solar cycles, but you're right: There's a bewildering number of cycles. Still, the correlation between Milankovitch cycles and climate is rather strong. And importantly, whatever forcing is imposed by orbital, solar or man's activity will be amplified by positive feedbacks, e.g. reduced albedo as ice melts.
One thing that is NOT in dispute is the very strong correlation between climate and CO2. Perfect prediction is impossible, but it's a leap from that admission to "We don't know."
Whatever the natural forcings due to orbit and solar variation, man's increases in atmospheric CO2 will, in effect, be added to those other forcings. In the near-term "natural" fluctuation will mean the difference between "too hot" and "much too hot" and NOT between "hot" and "cool."
You are almost right about one thing! The Wurm-Wisconsin Glaciation which began about 100,000 years ago is NOT blamed on the wood burning by the tiny Neanderthal population of that time!
But some ancient climate changes have been attributed to mankind. I wrote that you are "almost" right because some researchers think Europe's "Little Ice Age" (centered about 400 years ago) was amplified by the reforestation of North America as farming there declined due to smallpox epidemics!
Your point is clear, despite the silliness of the adjective I've underlined. And it's not just "newspapers." I attended a conference where the quality of papers was so low that I almost wanted to withdraw my own paper to avoid guilt by association.
Right-wing climate deniers are insulated from science by the Republican Lie Machine. But most TFTers commenting on climate change are getting their info from scientists or competent journalists.
George S
Veteran Member
Not my point at all! Right over your head.
Don't trust the CURRENT experts because there might be BETTER expert coming along.
IN OTHER WORDS the experts may well be wrong.
Another example is the Food Pyramid (experts) which was, after all, wrong.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,362
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Wrong? You mean biased by food industries?
We have a pretty good correlation between increases in the average Earth temperature and CO2 increases in the atmosphere. This increase was predicted in the late 19th century. The media was all over global cooling, not "the experts". You keep flappin' about computer models, in order to distract from the century plus data we have.
LOL. As soon as the "better" expert comes along, he becomes the "current" expert.
Your own words can demonstrate precisely what is wrong with your argument:
"Don't trust Newton, because a better expert might come along."
"Don't trust Einstein, because a better expert might come along."
"Newton may well be wrong."
"Einstein may well be wrong."
What makes your argument so inane is that it is certain that many of our current scientific models will be replaced by better ones, and that future scientists will be able to make better predictions. And yet, this tells us nothing about the quality of the predictions made by existing models.
On top of that, you got it completely wrong about Newton: his classical mechanics is not as accurate as relativistic mechanics because it assumes mass is constant regardless of velocity. But this only matters when you're dealing with relativistic speeds: the Lorentz factor can be safely ignored for non-relativistic velocities. Classical mechanics is perfectly adequate for getting astronauts to the moon and rovers to Mars.
In a century, climatologists will have far more sophisticated models and they will be able to predict climate change with even greater accuracy than they are doing now. But that tells you nothing about the quality of the predictions made by existing models. What scientists can evaluate, however, is the accuracy of the predictions made using models in the last four decades, and it's clear that these models - even the relatively simple ones from the 80's and 90's, have been making accurate predictions.
Your insistence that we can't trust the climate science - because even better climate science will be done in the future - is just plain old, head-in-the-sand denial.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,362
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
It is always the same ole story... the climate change denialist says the models can be wrong (meaning they have to be wrong), but that wrong always leads them to concluding that temp increases will be negligible. If the models are wrong... they could also be underestimating change. That is never part of GeorgeS's argument though, for some reason.
George S
Veteran Member
The Russian model (which uses a lower CO2 feedback) has tracked the actual data better than most others.
The IPCC uses HADCRUT4 -- Dan Davidson (textbook author: The Weatherman's Guide to the Sun.) asserts that this has been calculated incorrectly omitting effects of particles (solar wind) reaching us. That is, the warming to the recent solar maximum (1940-1990) is wrongly attributed to CO2.
Potholer says Dan is FOS.
Tony Heller says Potholer is FOS.
I've looked at clouds from both sides now and still don't know clouds at all.
I still do know that climate is too complex a system to be simplified. Weather predictions begin to fail at 10 days. Even with a fairly accurate 1-year model, there would be an error bar. The technique of running the same model for year 2 starting means any error in the method would grow in one direction. If the error bars were totally random they would cancel out.
Computer models are only as good as the input (HADCRUT). Get that wrong and models lose predictive power. Make an error in the indirect effects of a trace gas and models lose predictive power.
No I don't believe that Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change is impossible.
No I don't believe that Dan's New Ice Age theory is impossible.
However I do believe that whether the Climate gets warmer, or gets cooler, or stays the same nuclear power would be just the thing. No CO2 emission. Unaffected by excess heat. Unaffected by excess cold.
No matter what you believe, nuclear -- modern, safe, meltdown-proof -- could provide a solution. Which modern design is best? Engineers disagree. How about an experiment. Try each on a relatively small scale and see which has the least problems for the cost. I favor the molten-salt but only by a little.
repoman
Contributor
The issue with the Milankovitch cycles is that they are further amplified by positive feedback loops.
In the past when it started to get colder the oceans would hold more CO2 and lower CO2 in the air would further decrease the energy balance. The reverse on the way out of interglacials.
At that time not much CO2 was added or subtracted to the "free" moving supply (Most CO2 is locked in limestones). It just moved to and fro between the ocean and atmosphere. Very different from now.
Same for reflective ice sheets building and thawing.
In fact, dishonest and misled understandings of this is an often used tool.
(Note, even though I agree with all in the above video, I think that "denial" is too charged a word and may have people who are skeptical dig in their heels out of mental self defense. Sort of like "dumb ass Christians")
Lots of references in the video description.
In the past when it started to get colder the oceans would hold more CO2 and lower CO2 in the air would further decrease the energy balance. The reverse on the way out of interglacials.
At that time not much CO2 was added or subtracted to the "free" moving supply (Most CO2 is locked in limestones). It just moved to and fro between the ocean and atmosphere. Very different from now.
Same for reflective ice sheets building and thawing.
In fact, dishonest and misled understandings of this is an often used tool.
(Note, even though I agree with all in the above video, I think that "denial" is too charged a word and may have people who are skeptical dig in their heels out of mental self defense. Sort of like "dumb ass Christians")
Lots of references in the video description.
George S
Veteran Member
Good data. If we could determine water vapor (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) through ice-cores or equivalent, wouldn't it show the same? Warmer oceans evaporate more leading to warming leading to evaporation, etc. Sure, there's a feedback. In fact it is the degree of feedback in CO2 (which the Russian model assumes to be lower than the rest of the herd) that I think makes it match actual data. It is not whether there is feedback, but whether the model's input parameter in that calculation is correct. There are loads of other differences, too, though. Perhaps it is not solely the lower parameter as the cause of best match of model to reality.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,082
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
It really is a rapture like cult.
There is no such person as a climate change denialist. And it’s the same ole story with the alarmists. Every prediction has been wrong. Can’t even get next week’s forecast right.
Our children won’t know what snow is. Lol.
There is no such person as a climate change denialist. And it’s the same ole story with the alarmists. Every prediction has been wrong. Can’t even get next week’s forecast right.
Our children won’t know what snow is. Lol.
barbos
Contributor
This is fucking retarded. Just because Milankovitch cycles correctly explain/predict ice ages, does not mean forcing more and more CO2
does not cause global warming.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,218
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
This is indeed fucking retarded.
What worries me is that it's far from the most fucking retarded shit in recent posts.
Apparently, there's no such person as a climate change denialist, which is in itself more than sufficient reason to deny that humans are changing the climate.
repoman
Contributor
The guy who runs Watts Up With That is a money making shill for example and is a public figure. Call him a denialist and attack him with extreme prejudice.
But for any dupe reader of his, be a bit more kind and don't overly insult.
WUWT is like a pastor in a way and his readers are a flock to be fleeced.
So don't be heavy handed and scream Denialist!!! at undereducated (science at least) workaday schlubs.
AGW is very real.
But for any dupe reader of his, be a bit more kind and don't overly insult.
WUWT is like a pastor in a way and his readers are a flock to be fleeced.
So don't be heavy handed and scream Denialist!!! at undereducated (science at least) workaday schlubs.
AGW is very real.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
All we have established here is that we have a problem with misinformation on both sides of the discussion. Both sides are plagued with journalists and bloggers chasing "clicks" with sensational headlines. The only thing that we can say for sure is what you said, AGW is very real.
The adopters mentioned:
- UAE
- Turkey
- Bangladesh
- Poland
- Egypt
Even the Biden administration has pledged to build nuclear power.
Unlike hydrogen, or synfuels, or batteries, nuclear power actually exists as a clean, scalable energy source, capable of powering even the largest grids, that countries can be building right now.
Building nuclear doesn't mean committing to nuclear forever, it's only necessary to curb emissions until cheap and scalable renewable energy actually exists to replace it.
People are clinging to the hope that renewable tech will arrive in time to avert climate catastrophe. That's just an optimistic fantasy.
A climate change denialist is someone who denies known data (for example, sticking with old, flawed data that's better for their position when the flaw has been found and corrected. One case comes to mind: Satellite monitoring of Earth's temperature. It was consistently lower than other methods until someone realized the satellites were experiencing atmospheric drag and their orbits were slowly decaying. The decay was not enough to bring them down but the altitude of the satellite mattered for interpreting the readings. Problem identified, the numbers recalculated given the true altitude rather than the original orbit, now they line up with other measurements. If you've got the knowledge to understand the data {it's giving the data to let you figure out where it will be rather than simply telling you where it is and it's structure dates to the punch-card era} anyone can look up the orbit of any satellite at USSPACECOM. Anyone sticking to the old numbers is a denialist.)
Showing that A caused B does not provide the slightest evidence that C can't also cause B.
repoman
Contributor
lpetrich
Contributor
Warren, AOC Push $500 Billion Bill for Green Mass Transit - Bloomberg
Sen. Warren has been doing a lot of behind-the-scenes work to get support in the Biden Admin. "However Warren has been building clout with Biden, with many of her former staffers and protégés holding key posts in the administration."