BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Fiction Of Climate Science, Why the climatologists get it wrong
wan
post Mar 05, 2010, 07:24 PM
Post #31


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Mar 05, 2010, 07:22 PM) *

QUOTE(wan @ Mar 05, 2010, 11:09 PM) *

Never actually seen the movie. Never really figured is was worth my time.
It's important to see what the rest of the world see and believe, maybe?
Yes perhaps I should. I watch all sorts of weird stuff due to my interest in modern mythologies. I think archetypes have even more primitive predicates. However, it's unlikely to change my general attitude for reasons I give above. The sociology of public policy decision making is not particularly efficient, correct, or even sane. Yet it tends to evolve toward solutions through the interplay over time between competing perspectives, like an ecology of ideas. The radicals are just the fringes of a spectrum. When the public attention shifts in a new direction the validity of the reasons given are generally ill defined, and consist of a lot of BS. Yet valid reasons exist independent of any one individuals ability to define them completely. We live in a chaotic system, as all ecologies are. Evolving this social ecology is the best we can do, as there is nobody, even in principle, of being smart enough to predict outcomes or 'truth' in a chaotic 'non-linear' system.

I have no objection to the direction these delusions of understanding is leading us technologically, so long as they remain powerless to artificially shut down our economy. If they get that much power then the same social mechanism that give it to them will take it from them. The actual advances that result from this social pressure will play an important part in our long term survival, if we do survive, in ways we can't predict. So the insanity just gets a yawn from me, so long as it stays in the realm of competing ideas and out of airplane cockpits and physical force. I have but one voice, and that voice should be made to compete to be heard, and not heard through force. My percieved understanding of the world is too limited to take the voices of others. The end result will not be decided by any singular ideology or belief, but will better represent a valid solution to miriad issues in a way nobody can predict.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Mar 06, 2010, 04:30 PM
Post #32


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



I throw a little more the way of the original discussion:

Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle
Happened last time (followed by Glacier UK), say profs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/gl...ng_seen_before/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 06, 2010, 08:49 PM
Post #33


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Mar 06, 2010, 07:30 PM) *

I throw a little more the way of the original discussion:

Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle
Happened last time (followed by Glacier UK), say profs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/gl...ng_seen_before/

It's not entirely normal. You can't get around the fundamental physics regardless of what subsystem you can single out and claim as evidence. The ice cover can very well advance with even warmer global mean temperatures than we have now. I described one mechanism for this already. We could even have arid desserts rebloom. Do you know why the desert are distributed the way they are around the world? It's not because of temperature alone. It hinges on the methods the temperature differences are circulated, which can be volatile even at a constant global mean temperature.

The select data you are using is not valid. Take the tree ring data you mentioned earlier. Above a certain temperature, increases do not lead to increased tree ring growth. It's well known and well established fact. Even if you assume that the radiative profile of the Earth will adjust to limit the increase in heat load, it still entails massive changes in circulatory patterns. This means very different weather patterns both good and bad. Even that depends on assuming the atmospheric CO2 increase more or less stabilizes. Look at what it says here concerning the global cooling stories you referred to:

QUOTE(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend. (The actual increase in this period was 29%.)[3]

In fact the World Meteorological Organization warned of significant warming in 1976. How do you suppose the get around the fundamental physics? The only thing that can be argued is exactly what effects it will have. To that nobody knows. It's not the changes that are of such concern, but the rate of change. Flood basalts on a continental scale have produced rates of change essentially this fast before. Microorganisms originally terraformed our atmosphere making it possible for us to breath today. To think that the global ecology maintains the same strange attractor irrespective of our actions on it is just plain untenable. Traditionally microbes ruled atmospheric chemistry, but we are now competing with them to some extent in effects.

The fact is that the normalcy of warming at the end of an interglacial period says absolutely nothing about what effects we have on present warming. The advance of ice sheets in general only say something about local not global temperatures. That's why these measurements are pooled and combined on such a large scale. What your not facing up to in all this data mining is that local variations have nothing to do with global temperatures. We have satellites that can read global temperatures to an accuracy impossible for any group of distributed local measurements. Getting in a tit for tat saying: It warmed over here: So, it cooled over here, is just plain silly. An AC cools a house, but warms the air outside the house even more than it cools the inside. So why doesn't the outside air feel any warmer? That's the kind of BS being played with this, "Well uh, it got colder over there", game.

P.S. We have really good reason to predict the next 10 years or so will be somewhat cooler than normal, yet this has nothing to do with the overall global mean increase in temperature.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2017 - 01:04 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles