New Category suggestion. Climate change.

sculptor said:
How many models are based on the equable climate model?
Click to expand...
"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.
 
billvon said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Quantum Quack said:
Personally I tend to believe that the IPCC report has under stated the gravity of the issue, and also suggested time frames that are overly optimistic.
A form of politically correct distortion due to the need to remain credible in the eyes of the masses.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Jeeves said:
...
Maybe you're asking the wrong people. Non-experts can only give you general answers. ...
Click to expand...

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.
 
sculptor said:
I find it puzzling that many people seem to rely(assume the accuracy of) on the prognostications of models which they do not understand.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sculptor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Actually, yours was better, since you brought it back around to the validity of climate models.
Click to expand...

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?
 
sculptor said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Jeeves said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
parmalee said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
sculptor said:
What?
Explain please.
Click to expand...
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:
long term climate trend
Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

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?
 
Sculptor: you didn't acknowledge responses 107/108 to your 'puzzled' post 106.

Are you less puzzled now? If not, why not?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Sculptor: you didn't acknowledge responses 107/108 to your 'puzzled' post 106. ... ?
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top