Fears of global cooling

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The results of those fields aren't usually used to encourage us to restructure our economy.

Not in such an alarming and drastic manner, no. Humans always resist abrupt change. Instead, the results of those fields subtly change the world around us. What is modern computing based on?

[Kuciwalker]

Modern computing is based on a branch of mathematics developed in the 1920's and 30's. I don't see what you're getting at.

The point was, the more consequential the claims, the more proof required.

[Lorizael]

The transistor, which wouldn't work without our understanding of quantum mechanics - an incomplete and flawed science. Anything out there with a circuit or a semiconductor makes use of our guesses about the subatomic universe. Clearly, this should terrify us.

Anyways, I don't disagree with your last point there.

[Patroklos]

ike Lori said, this is so wrong it's silly.

That would be true if both sides were not using current weather patterns to prove global warming or cooling.

Yes they do.

No. They don't. Please tell me what changes in the model to predict 10/20/30/40/50 years into the future. The model is the same.

NEXT.

Dork

Newtonian physics is flawed. General relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed. That doesn't mean anything.

When the model has flaws on the level of reading tea leaves or chicken bones then yes, it does.

[Patroklos]

You actually know paleoclimatologists who reject Milankovich Cycles?

Sarcasm.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No. They don't. Please tell me what changes in the model to predict 10/20/30/40/50 years into the future. The model is the same.

You're clueless about science.

You want examples of models used on different scales? Cosmologists use general relativity (+ other stuff) to model the development of the universe; particle physicists use quantum mechanics to model the behavior of subatomic particles. Not only are these models different, they're contradictory. Weathermen look at their radar, see a lot of water in the air, and the computer tells them that a hurricane might hit in a week. Climatologists look at general numbers describing the state of the Earth's climate, look at the trends of those numbers and their interactions, and then make predictions about the future state of those numbers. They don't just model the ****ing weather in a computer for 50 years.

[Patroklos]

You want examples of models used on different scales? Cosmologists use general relativity (+ other stuff) to model the development of the universe; particle physicists use quantum mechanics to model the behavior of subatomic particles. Not only are these models different, they're contradictory. Weathermen look at their radar, see a lot of water in the air, and the computer tells them that a hurricane might hit in a week. Climatologists look at general numbers describing the state of the Earth's climate, look at the trends of those numbers and their interactions, and then make predictions about the future state of those numbers. They don't just model the ****ing weather in a computer for 50 years.

Then perhaps they shouldn't use the weather of today to justify the predicted accuracy of their global warming/cooling theories then eh?

Or do Gore and crowd not predict powerful hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, and alien invasions based on their GW models?

But thank you Kuci, your are correct (as already stated) the models do not change based on the level of prediction.

You're clueless about science.

Molly Bloom = Kuci

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by dannubis


So you make my point then ? No harm in being carefull and yes, being carefull in this context unfortunately means expensive.

Please note that I am all for an expansion of nuclear power. As far as I am concerned every kWh should come from nuclear energy (provided of course the local governements can be relied upon to keep things safe).

No being careful means that whatever cures are intended are known not to be worse than the disease. Our understanding of global climate makes me more than a bit unsettled that we would have the slightest clue that fixing global warming wouldn't necessarily result in side effects far worse. Fortunately we have the requisite models to predict such a thing......or not.

This is the problem the we must fix it we must do something.... anything....mentality. All the while thrashing about half cocked.

To your point of Nukes. I'm all for it and have been ever since I toured 3 Mile Island as a teenager after the incident.

[Devil's Advocate]

I like GW. It beats all those frosty cold winters.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Doddler


IYO what's the difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather

The weather is the set of all extant phenomena in a given atmosphere at a given time. The term usually refers to the activity of these phenomena over short periods (hours or days), as opposed to the term climate, which refers to the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

A single particularly cool or warm year is a region dies not prove or disprove global warming, it is the long term trends that are relevant.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Doddler
Sounds like pseudo-science to me, no testable/falsifiable predictions there.

RIIIIGHT, and lies, spin, academic dishonesty, and distortion spewed by the "experts" that are bought and paid for by Exxon are scientific? Your accusation that climate models are unfalsifiable shows how ignorant you are on the subject. I've read that right after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 climatologists used thier models to predict the effects the eruption would have on the climate, and the actual; amound of cooling caused by the eruption was extremely close to the the amount of cooling predicted by the climate models.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Didn't the models in the 70's predict a new ice age looming

No. There was some sensationalist pop-sci BS claiming that, but it was universally rejected by climatologists.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Odin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

A single particularly cool or warm year is a region dies not prove or disprove global warming, it is the long term trends that are relevant.

I didn't ask for the internet's opinion. Still, it speaks volumes that you had to look up "weather" and "climate" in an encyclopaedia to know what they were.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
what I dont get is why people are upset by GW, I welcome a warmer world.

Then you also welcome a billion refugees, many major cities drowned, famines, and resource wars?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The position of the earth wrt the sun... The Earth cycles between more elliptical and more circular orbits (eccentricity) with the former more conducive to ice advances. The tilt of the Earth also cycles between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees, we're around 23.5 now heading for the lower limit. About 7,000 years ago the Earth had its maximum tilt and experienced a warm(er) period between 9 K and 5 K years ago. Precession gradually changes where in the sky our pole points so at one point in time the northern hemisphere will get its summer when the Earth is closer to the sun, another point in time it will have summer when the Earth is furthest from the sun.

Today's parameters are similar to 400,000 years ago when the Earth got a 40,000 year break from the ice age, we're about 14,000 years into our warming period. But we'll hit that 21.5 degree minimum long before that so we will still get cold, just not enough sustained cooling for ice sheets to grow and expand over much of the northern hemisphere. That kind of world takes the coinciding of cycles conducive to a cooler world.



You actually know paleoclimatologists who reject Milankovich Cycles?

he Milankovic cycles are irrelevant to the current warming, they have been trending towards the orbital conditions that encourage ice sheet formation for the last 6000 years.