New Category suggestion. Climate change.

The thing about people's faith in models that they do not understand just seems odd to me.
I suspect you have faith in the technology and tools behind elevators and aircraft. I suspect that you have so _much_ faith in them that you trust your life to them. I'm also willing to bet that you do not understand either in great detail. But you are OK with that level of faith.
 
Better to think that we aint just the problem, we are also the solution.
we've come a long way since silent spring-1962
Have we? Yes: we've eradicated more species, faster, and destroyed more habitat, faster, and poisoned more land and water, faster.
The hunded or so people who try to save the rain-forest are up against the millions who insist on eating beef twice a day. Bans on pesticides and effluents are ignored with impunity, office towers are lit up all night, even when empty and kill millions of migrating birds, the new-fashioned fracking proceeds at a breakneck pace.
Nothing has been solved.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...round-the-world-2161-0983-1000e130-99176.html
 
I kinda "get" those with vested financial interests--most of them probably don't even believe their denials-
In the case of Exxon we have documentary proof that they knew better, and that their denials and financings of denial were for political and economic gain.
Exxon financed early proprietary research into climate change, and kept the data in house.
The thing about people's faith in models that they do not understand just seems odd to me.
The disaster predictions are cold-blooded estimations of probabilities based on sound arguments by the best people from the best evidence available. "Faith" has nothing to do with it.
 
explain the "concern"
in relation to known paleo-climates
Yeh but, a map of Saskatchewan ain't gonna help you much in Kentucky.....
And, of course, scale becomes important.
Which is something for you to keep in mind the next time you try to extrapolate from the local rapid climate changes around Greenland in the paleo record to suggest that the kind of rapid global change currently underway and accelerating is something that has happened routinely in the past, without catastrophic effect.

You ran that garbage argument in various manifestations over multiple threads and for pages of postings. You got the take itself - the extrapolation from good local research findings - originally from Exxon-financed denial sites. You are now extending it via Dorthe Dahl-Jensen's work on the Greenland ice.

Likewise this take, likewise familiar from the wingnut Republican media operations:
Some of thee models I've perused predict climate change out to 2100--------that is untestable.
If an hypothesis is put forth that is untestable, do you think that it has value?
It's a forecast, not a hypothesis. Human beings often forecast, even though they won't find out for sure until the time comes. The ability to forecast is often considered to be a major advantage of having large expensive brains.
I have studied several available climate models and found them wanting.
In no small part, most models were based on the climate of the past 20-30-40-... years.
You mean they were corrected by comparing their output with measured events and carefully acquired information.
That's something you refused to do, when provided with information about the global climate responses to the local Greenland area paleoclimactic events.
It seems that very few people really know much about the models
The people who do the forecasting know all about them. They built them, they are constantly working on them, and they are honest in their employment of them - ranges, probabilities, different ones compared side by side and with new data as it comes in, errors acknowledged, assumptions detailed, uncertainties described, etc, all published. Nothing kept in house, like Exxon, while peddling deceptions like "climate is always changing" or "what about the 400ky Milankovitch Cycle" to the public.

That's how they earn serious consideration.
 
They
not you?

again
If you have faith in a specific hypothetical model and can quote specific hypothesized climate outcomes.
Please have at it.
 
If you have faith in a specific hypothetical model and can quote specific hypothesized climate outcomes.
You are using the word "hypothetical" wrong.
It is not a synonym for "prediction", "forecast", or "uncertain".
You are also using the word "faith" wrong. It is not a synonym for "confidence", "interest", or "acceptance".

Nobody I rely on for information uses one model only, for their forecasts. The IPCC uses dozens - which is one reason its forecasts have been lowballing, consistently. Culling the apparently underperforming models (the ones that least well match the measured past) would result in more dramatic and alarming IPCC forecasts.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ng-forecast-worst-case-best-models-ipcc-study

Nobody I rely on for information forecasts single, specific, climate outcomes.
 
If you have faith in a specific hypothetical model and can quote specific hypothesized climate outcomes.
Please have at it.
Why are you persisting in this model-witch-hunt?
That's not how it works and that's still not how it works, no matter how many times you repeat the question.
 
Super Typhoon Yutu (Rosita), biggest storm ever to hit the Mariana islands, 2nd biggest storm to hit USA territory in history. Lucky it was only a small island group and not USA mainland.
 
Super Typhoon Yutu (Rosita), biggest storm ever to hit the Mariana islands, 2nd biggest storm to hit USA territory in history. Lucky it was only a small island group and not USA mainland.
It closely tracked Manghut's path into Luzon, a bit south - kind of unusual for two hurricanes to track like that within a such a short time (ordinarily the first one cools the ocean and otherwise shunts the next one). The wind speed slowed by Luzon, but as we have seen in the US that does not reduce the rainfall - my little weather globe has the central agricultural region there getting 20 - 30 inches of rain in less than three hours some places. Not much farming will survive that in good shape.
 
Is there any imminent verdict on the new category?
One more suggestion, should it happen: Since it's too late to mitigate the damage collectively - and with the fascist domino-cascade under way, no foreseeable positive action - it would be nice if people shared personal experience and sources for individual ways to cope.
 
it would be nice if people shared personal experience and sources for individual ways to cope.
I think the most important thing a person can do in the extreme heat and humid conditions that are starting to occur with more frequency is to ensure that your place of sleeping, ( bedroom) at the very least has some means to de-humidify the rooms air, so that good sleep can be achieved.
Setting up the bedroom as a secure "panic room" or sanctuary so to speak, so that in the event of a (short time) heat/humidity crisis, you can survive until things settle down.
The greatest threats to the general population are exhaustion due to sleep deprivation. This would be due to the failure of temperatures and humidity to decrease after sunset ( Green housing) causing persons to be unable to cool down enough to sleep. ( hyper-thermia )
This is only a temporary solution ( maybe granting 2-3 years to 2020-21 - Melb Australia) of course, as temperature humidity continues to increase even these actions will not suffice in the longer term.

The greatest weakness is the need for reliable electricity supply and as you know in extreme situations the energy grid can become unreliable and in some cases fail. Especially if extreme flooding or storm events occur.

Mass migration ( attempted*) to more sustainable locations is inevitable. ( in the longer term)
 
Last edited:
It has been suggested by some that the greatest number of fatalities will be among people attempting to migrate, dying on the road or at closed borders and not in their home areas.
 
An example of how climate change might occupy a category of threads:
https://newrepublic.com/article/151700/bank-bailout-hobbled-climate-fight
- - - In the middle of October 2008, the Fed agreed to bail out America’s big banks, even the ones that weren’t failing, like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs.

- - - The bailout was one of the most significant turning points in America’s role in the global climate crisis and perhaps its most important piece of environmental legislation, - -
As Congress goes about preparing for the next financial crisis, it’s crucial that they realize how their bailouts can impact the climate in these ways. But there’s a hidden benefit, too. If shale oil is allowed to incur massive losses without conceding any claims to viability, shouldn’t wind and solar be held to the same standard? In fact, the application of the bank bailout to a massive energy and infrastructure program provides a strange photonegative of what a Green New Deal might look like, if public funding flowed towards green energy projects that were safely shielded from the whims of the market.
 
Setting up the bedroom as a secure "panic room" or sanctuary so to speak, so that in the event of a (short time) heat/humidity crisis, you can survive until things settle down.

That's a good point. Though a little more specific than I was looking for, I'd like to discuss it further, with considerations such as you mention, and perhaps in the context of mindful architecture, retrofitting, etc. Enough material there, in that one topic, for a whole thread of its own.

For the mo, I just meant to indicate what kind of subject matter a new category would include.
When do you take the vote regarding the category proposal?
 
When do you take the vote regarding the category proposal?
I personally have no say...
As I mentioned earlier in a post I think the sites staff are in an awkward position regards ANY changes to sciforums.com and given there has been no staff participation in this thread (now 7 pages) I would not hold your breath for any solid discussion about changes to categories.
Perhaps just simply starting threads in Earth sciences is all we can do at the moment. Admittedly it fails to facilitate/encourage discussion about the human aspect of climate change but at the moment it is all we have.
 
Back
Top