4 ms·

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so

by TriinT 17y ago

"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit. Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.

ramidarigaz 17y ago
The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it. About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.
- TriinT 17y ago
  The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation. If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.
  - mighty 17y ago
    Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.
    - TriinT 17y ago
      English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer. What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?
      - lanaer 17y ago
        If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary! “Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all. “climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period” In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period. “Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both). Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.
        TriinT 17y ago
        Please note that you defined "climate" in terms of "weather", and "weather" in terms of "climate". "in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms" Temperature and precipitation can be measured. Windspeed can also be measured. One can't really measure a storm, but one can measure how violent the storm is, roughly speaking. If you discretize physical space and assign values of temperature, pressume, etc to each cell in the grid, and you log them over a certain period of time, then you obtain a microscopic description of the "weather". The laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer define the dynamics of the system. Knowing the inputs, we obtain a trajectory in a very high-dimensional state-space. This is too much information for humans to digest. Hence, the order of the model is greatly reduced, and instead of microscopic description, we have a macroscopic description which we call the "weather". After all, we need to know if it's gonna rain or how cold it will be, we don't need to know the temperature and pressure at every single point in space, nor do we need to know how fast each droptlet of rain is falling. I agree with you. In my view, the dynamics are the same, and the "climate change" people talk means that the trajectories in state-space are approaching regions they usually don't go to. But since trajectories are inherently dynamic, I think the word "change" is weak. That is why I proposed the word "crisis".
Tichy 17y ago
"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit." Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information. The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.
- TriinT 17y ago
  "Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information." Temperature of what??? Temperature is a function of space. If you fix the spatial coordinates, you can tell if the temperature increased at that point between time t1 and time t2. However, there are an infinite number of points, and thus you need an infinite number of bits. And to make it worse, all these bits only tell you what happened at time t2 relative to time t1. No need to bring quantum entanglement to the discussion. If temperature is a function of space, it's an infinite-dimensional problem. You can discretize space and transform it into a finite-dimensional problem. Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature. Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too. Measurements at the surface are easy to obtain, but they're only part of the picture.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "Temperature of what???" I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition. Maybe "moving average of 100 years" or whatever (I don't know). "However, there are an infinite number of points" Not sure what you are saying? Seems to me a finite sample should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result. Are you saying "OK, the measurement at point x was 30°C, but how can you be sure that 1m north of it the temperature was not -10°C"? I think that would be a bit silly. Again, the average should be your friend. Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out. "Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature." As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit. (Edit: although I also dispute your claim that there is an enormous number of points. To make up an extreme counter example, suppose you measure temperature in your home, and you notice it rising 10°C every year - would you really need other measurements to conclude that something is wrong? Like when it was at 100°C, boiling temperature for water, would you still say "but OK, it is still reasonably chilly at 80km altitude, so nothing to worry about"?). "Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too." Again, I assume that climate researchers pick meaningful spots to measure. Maybe they measure at 80km altitude, maybe not. Maybe it is relevant to measure at 80km, maybe not. I don't see a point to argue about that kind of thing on a "popular science" level - that is up to the specialists. I suppose temperatures at 80km could be measured, why not? Maybe it can be done with telescopes or satellites - why do you assume it is not being done? It just seems like a cop out to say "yeah, but it is so complicated we can never be sure". We are not 100% sure how the human body works, but we can still fix parts of it and detect some things when they are wrong.

by TriinT 17y ago

ramidarigaz 17y ago

The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it. About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.

TriinT 17y ago
The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation. If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.
- mighty 17y ago
  Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    English is not my native language and I don't claim to have perfect command over it. In my native language, "climate" and "weather" are denoted by the same word, and the context makes it clear which one is which. Moreover, I am a physicist, not a writer. What exactly is "silly" about what I wrote? Are you going to claim that the laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer have changed?
    - lanaer 17y ago
      If you recognize that you are not in perfect command of the language, then follow his suggestion and use a dictionary! “Climate” does not refer to basic laws of physics at all. “climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period” In other words, climate is just the type of conditions (in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms, etc.) generally observed in an area over a long period. “Weather” is the same thing, but over a short period (thus it does not surprise me that your language only uses one word for both). Weather and climate can both change, drastically, without laws of fluid dynamics or heat transfer changing in the slightest.
      - TriinT 17y ago
        Please note that you defined "climate" in terms of "weather", and "weather" in terms of "climate". "in terms of temperature, rainfall, winds, storms" Temperature and precipitation can be measured. Windspeed can also be measured. One can't really measure a storm, but one can measure how violent the storm is, roughly speaking. If you discretize physical space and assign values of temperature, pressume, etc to each cell in the grid, and you log them over a certain period of time, then you obtain a microscopic description of the "weather". The laws of fluid dynamics and heat transfer define the dynamics of the system. Knowing the inputs, we obtain a trajectory in a very high-dimensional state-space. This is too much information for humans to digest. Hence, the order of the model is greatly reduced, and instead of microscopic description, we have a macroscopic description which we call the "weather". After all, we need to know if it's gonna rain or how cold it will be, we don't need to know the temperature and pressure at every single point in space, nor do we need to know how fast each droptlet of rain is falling. I agree with you. In my view, the dynamics are the same, and the "climate change" people talk means that the trajectories in state-space are approaching regions they usually don't go to. But since trajectories are inherently dynamic, I think the word "change" is weak. That is why I proposed the word "crisis".

Tichy 17y ago

"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit." Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information. The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.

TriinT 17y ago
"Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information." Temperature of what??? Temperature is a function of space. If you fix the spatial coordinates, you can tell if the temperature increased at that point between time t1 and time t2. However, there are an infinite number of points, and thus you need an infinite number of bits. And to make it worse, all these bits only tell you what happened at time t2 relative to time t1. No need to bring quantum entanglement to the discussion. If temperature is a function of space, it's an infinite-dimensional problem. You can discretize space and transform it into a finite-dimensional problem. Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature. Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too. Measurements at the surface are easy to obtain, but they're only part of the picture.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "Temperature of what???" I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition. Maybe "moving average of 100 years" or whatever (I don't know). "However, there are an infinite number of points" Not sure what you are saying? Seems to me a finite sample should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result. Are you saying "OK, the measurement at point x was 30°C, but how can you be sure that 1m north of it the temperature was not -10°C"? I think that would be a bit silly. Again, the average should be your friend. Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out. "Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature." As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit. (Edit: although I also dispute your claim that there is an enormous number of points. To make up an extreme counter example, suppose you measure temperature in your home, and you notice it rising 10°C every year - would you really need other measurements to conclude that something is wrong? Like when it was at 100°C, boiling temperature for water, would you still say "but OK, it is still reasonably chilly at 80km altitude, so nothing to worry about"?). "Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too." Again, I assume that climate researchers pick meaningful spots to measure. Maybe they measure at 80km altitude, maybe not. Maybe it is relevant to measure at 80km, maybe not. I don't see a point to argue about that kind of thing on a "popular science" level - that is up to the specialists. I suppose temperatures at 80km could be measured, why not? Maybe it can be done with telescopes or satellites - why do you assume it is not being done? It just seems like a cop out to say "yeah, but it is so complicated we can never be sure". We are not 100% sure how the human body works, but we can still fix parts of it and detect some things when they are wrong.