3 ms·

You clearly did not read the article you're critiquing, because he spends screens and screens of text discussing exactly the difference between climate and weat

by emmett 17y ago

You clearly did not read the article you're critiquing, because he spends screens and screens of text discussing exactly the difference between climate and weather. In short, climate is predicting that a candle will make the room warmer. Weather is predicting the exact swirls and eddies of the flame. Further, your objections to computer modeling are incorrect. Of course you can get a computer program to say whatever you want, but you can't make a computer model say whatever you want. Computer models are a subset of computer programs constrained to attempt to model reality according to some set of assumptions. You can make equations say whatever you want too, but that doesn't make Maxwell's laws incorrect.

azgolfer 17y ago
There is no way to build anything close to an accurate model of the climate. It has far too many independent variables. What really makes it ridiculous is that the are always claiming to use the latest "super" computers when every (good) CS student knows that you can't solve problems like these with any size computer. Also - regarding non scientists influencing the debate - seems to me a lowly patent clerk had a pretty large influence on physics around 1905.
electromagnetic 17y ago
Actually assuming the climate and weather aren't connected is fundamentally ignorant. The El Nino and La Nina effects are the biggest example of this, in that it can change regional temperatures across the entire globe, it can cause algal blooms, which in turn are a key part of the climate model. A prolonged El Nino is reported to have helped provoke the French Revolution by causing famines all over Europe. Crop failures and record low temperatures/rainfall have profound effects on the environment and the local biospheres climate effects. Death of biological material (crop failures) is usually tied to CO2 and Methane release through the biological processes that result, this is not to mention that prolonged cold periods (El Nino lasted over a decade at the time of the French revolution) result in less plant growth and more CO2 production through fuel burning. Then it would have likely led to a lot more deforestation than it likely would today. My objections to computer modeling is that all they are is a model. If you put the wrong equation into the model, the answer is wrong. The one thing I've never heard factored in is the amount of thermal energy emitted by living organisms and our society. From the estimates I've read, all the biomass on earth produces roughly 3-4 days the amount of solar energy received from the sun. Essentially the Earth is receiving 369 days worth of energy, for only 365 days in a year. It's all a matter of equations, and the computer models have always put out unsatisfactory answers. I remember one being laughed at for predicting ocean rises of 1 cm per year, and I believe we've had approximately 0.01 cm per year. My point is that the climate scientists' jobs depend on the climate being in danger. If there weren't fires we wouldn't have firemen, and if we didn't have crimes we wouldn't have police, so if there isn't a climate crisis we wouldn't have climate scientists and there's no provisions to protect us from rogue scientists but there are provisions to protect us from rogue cops. None of these models are repeated, no one can confirm the results as even being valid, they're just guesses. Perhaps I just have a problem with trusting people in white coats telling me the sky is falling, but it all sounds too much like Chicken Little to me. I need to know the firemen aren't burning buildings down before I'm willing to pay them to put out fires. Equally I need to know Climate Scientists aren't hyping this up just to keep their careers alive. As I've already said, I don't have a problem with the hardcore evidence and I believe global warming is happening. My problem is with the explanations and predictions, because they all seem either too simplistic or just bunk. Perhaps it's just a problem in the translation from the scientific and non-scientific lexicons, just like the major problems with explaining evolution to an American.
brc 17y ago
I read the screems and screens of text trying to disconnect climate and weather: that's where I gave up. I had had enough of the cutesy anecodotes and attacking straw men with straw men. It's a nice anecdotal attempt to disconnect climate and weather. but it falls very flat. Candle flame eddies, swirling winds? What bunkum. Weather is what you get? So what we get in 50 years, as predicted by climate forecasts, won't be weather? The reason people argue that climate predictions are weak because of the inability of massive amounts of computing power and continually revised models still fail to predict short term temperature and conditions. This is with a lot of known inputs. And yet, we are all supposed to believe the outputs of a 100 year climate prediction, when the amount of assumed/fudged/unknown variables is simply immense? This is the core reason people (including myself) place no credence whatsoever in climate modelling. I'm happy to change my mind when someone can prove they know all or enough of the inputs to make the model highly accurate. What would be the effect of another 10 hurricanes per year? What about a reversal or diversion of the Gulf stream? How about a permanent el nina in the Pacific? None of these are black swans and yet they would all negate current climactic predictions.

by emmett 17y ago

azgolfer 17y ago

There is no way to build anything close to an accurate model of the climate. It has far too many independent variables. What really makes it ridiculous is that the are always claiming to use the latest "super" computers when every (good) CS student knows that you can't solve problems like these with any size computer. Also - regarding non scientists influencing the debate - seems to me a lowly patent clerk had a pretty large influence on physics around 1905.

electromagnetic 17y ago

Actually assuming the climate and weather aren't connected is fundamentally ignorant. The El Nino and La Nina effects are the biggest example of this, in that it can change regional temperatures across the entire globe, it can cause algal blooms, which in turn are a key part of the climate model. A prolonged El Nino is reported to have helped provoke the French Revolution by causing famines all over Europe. Crop failures and record low temperatures/rainfall have profound effects on the environment and the local biospheres climate effects. Death of biological material (crop failures) is usually tied to CO2 and Methane release through the biological processes that result, this is not to mention that prolonged cold periods (El Nino lasted over a decade at the time of the French revolution) result in less plant growth and more CO2 production through fuel burning. Then it would have likely led to a lot more deforestation than it likely would today. My objections to computer modeling is that all they are is a model. If you put the wrong equation into the model, the answer is wrong. The one thing I've never heard factored in is the amount of thermal energy emitted by living organisms and our society. From the estimates I've read, all the biomass on earth produces roughly 3-4 days the amount of solar energy received from the sun. Essentially the Earth is receiving 369 days worth of energy, for only 365 days in a year. It's all a matter of equations, and the computer models have always put out unsatisfactory answers. I remember one being laughed at for predicting ocean rises of 1 cm per year, and I believe we've had approximately 0.01 cm per year. My point is that the climate scientists' jobs depend on the climate being in danger. If there weren't fires we wouldn't have firemen, and if we didn't have crimes we wouldn't have police, so if there isn't a climate crisis we wouldn't have climate scientists and there's no provisions to protect us from rogue scientists but there are provisions to protect us from rogue cops. None of these models are repeated, no one can confirm the results as even being valid, they're just guesses. Perhaps I just have a problem with trusting people in white coats telling me the sky is falling, but it all sounds too much like Chicken Little to me. I need to know the firemen aren't burning buildings down before I'm willing to pay them to put out fires. Equally I need to know Climate Scientists aren't hyping this up just to keep their careers alive. As I've already said, I don't have a problem with the hardcore evidence and I believe global warming is happening. My problem is with the explanations and predictions, because they all seem either too simplistic or just bunk. Perhaps it's just a problem in the translation from the scientific and non-scientific lexicons, just like the major problems with explaining evolution to an American.

brc 17y ago

I read the screems and screens of text trying to disconnect climate and weather: that's where I gave up. I had had enough of the cutesy anecodotes and attacking straw men with straw men. It's a nice anecdotal attempt to disconnect climate and weather. but it falls very flat. Candle flame eddies, swirling winds? What bunkum. Weather is what you get? So what we get in 50 years, as predicted by climate forecasts, won't be weather? The reason people argue that climate predictions are weak because of the inability of massive amounts of computing power and continually revised models still fail to predict short term temperature and conditions. This is with a lot of known inputs. And yet, we are all supposed to believe the outputs of a 100 year climate prediction, when the amount of assumed/fudged/unknown variables is simply immense? This is the core reason people (including myself) place no credence whatsoever in climate modelling. I'm happy to change my mind when someone can prove they know all or enough of the inputs to make the model highly accurate. What would be the effect of another 10 hurricanes per year? What about a reversal or diversion of the Gulf stream? How about a permanent el nina in the Pacific? None of these are black swans and yet they would all negate current climactic predictions.