Climate

Well at least the climate nutjobs on both sides of debate seem to be staying away from where I grew up.

Who knows what they'd manage to pass off as "scientific evidence of X" using tidal figures from the Bay of Fundy.

biochem wrote:I saw one comment from a genuine climate scientist on the news. (Terrible shock, the news prefers to quote from "scientists" who sound like hysterical street preachers than responsible PhDs). Anyway he was commenting that when discussing temperature and climate change that one should use decade long averages and control for El Nino, anything less is weather not climate. The key isn't satellite simply other methods, but the length of time of the measurement.

Any time the sample size is biased or too small, statistical result quality goes pfft.

But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

Also there is a trade off between speed of response to change and accuracy of response to change. This is why the PID algorythm is preferred for control systems wherever it can be applied. Even then, often an automatic adjusting of the three parameters is used. Given a suitable situation, PID controls very much better than P or PI. P is nicknamed "bang-bang", and PI just reduces the size of the overshoots. It should be possible to apply some modification of this to finding the best fit for retroactive analysis. Anyone out there know anyplace this is done?

For those not knowing, P is proportional to the actual/set point difference, I adjusts for offset, and D fades the control signal change as actual approaches the set point.

IMHO for climate, the primary analysis time should be in centuries. An English winter some centuries back was reported that was so warm people didn't bother to get their winter clothes out, but also several where the Thames froze enough that ice fairs were held.

PS. It is a real pity this thread can be under "political" instead of "observational" (if we had such a thread.)

I have fond memories of walking around wearing a jumper in winter whilst English tourists sunbathed.
What the English consider warm and what someone who grew up in a desert can vary greatly.





Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:I have fond memories of walking around wearing a jumper in winter whilst English tourists sunbathed.
What the English consider warm and what someone who grew up in a desert can vary greatly.





Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Heck with that. Still happens today. I visit my sister in NY's family in August. They need the AC in the low 70's to be comfortable. Me, since living 10 years in South FL am walking around their house freezing, figuartively. Something about 4 months below freezing and humans adapting to it.

Actually "real" desert is the worst example fondly remember freezing on the way from San Diego to Phoenix. Then I roasted once the sun came up. <30 at night >80 in the day.

Which is why when considering climate change I am not really concerned, humans adapt. Generally advancing technology to do so. For example, electrically heated motorcycle gear. More or less how we evolved in the first place. To listen to some scientists.

Also why in order to measure climate change you need use thermometers and such. But it seems like they are homogenizing and modifying past data. Including past satellite data. There are valid reasons to do so on a case by case basis. Instruments degrade and such. But at a certain point largely due to Mann and others I don't trust that they are doing it for the correct reasons.

Or the idiot scaremongers that they let on TV News. Yep, climate change was going to cause many more hurricanes stated in 2005. Not going to say how many have hit the US since, don't want to tempt fate.

Have fun,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:Heck with that. Still happens today. I visit my sister in NY's family in August. They need the AC in the low 70's to be comfortable. Me, since living 10 years in South FL am walking around their house freezing, figuratively. Something about 4 months below freezing and humans adapting to it.

Actually "real" desert is the worst example fondly remember freezing on the way from San Diego to Phoenix. Then I roasted once the sun came up. <30 at night >80 in the day.

Which is why when considering climate change I am not really concerned, humans adapt.

Good grief, that is a statement horrifying in its flippant dismissal of a catastrophic problem.

Is climate change going to wipe out humanity? No. Are people going to adapt to whatever conditions result, sure.

Are MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people going to die while that adaptation occurs? Almost certainly. Adaptation to moving from a hot to a cold region or vice versa is one thing. Adaptation to, oh for example, world food supplies being ravaged... a little different.

More or less how we evolved in the first place.

You realize that in many cases large scale climatological events that force rapid evolutionary adaptation in species wipes out large percentages of that species in the process and then the SURVIVORS adapt.... right? Large scale global mass extinctions have happened more than once... doesn't mean they're something you should flippantly not be concerned about living through yourself. That something has happened before doesn't make it not a concern. People have dropped nukes before, I wouldn't recommend standing in the vicinity of anywhere anyone was contemplating doing it again just because it must not be that big a deal if the planet is still here and full of people after the last time they did it.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Which is why when considering climate change I am not really concerned, humans adapt. Generally advancing technology to do so. For example, electrically heated motorcycle gear.

And the dramatic reduction in how much food can be produced on a worldwide basis because of climate change, obviously wont matter, because humans just "adapts".

Oh dear, wait a second, it doesn´t matter if HUMANS adapt, if everything else that lives doesn´t... Wow, what a mistakea to makea...

thinkstoomuch wrote:Also why in order to measure climate change you need use thermometers and such. But it seems like they are homogenizing and modifying past data. Including past satellite data. There are valid reasons to do so on a case by case basis. Instruments degrade and such. But at a certain point largely due to Mann and others I don't trust that they are doing it for the correct reasons.

Yes, because noone is honest. Including you by your own thinking then.
That´s the usual fallacy, it´s all the opposition that is dishonest and corrupt, never the side you like to listen to.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Or the idiot scaremongers that they let on TV News. Yep, climate change was going to cause many more hurricanes stated in 2005. Not going to say how many have hit the US since, don't want to tempt fate.

I´ve seen the statistics for the last 50 years. You´re in BIG trouble in another decade or two.

US agricultural decline was a problem even without the slightest hint of climate change, with it, the question becomes how long before US food production faces drastic reductions.

Tenshinai wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:Which is why when considering climate change I am not really concerned, humans adapt. Generally advancing technology to do so. For example, electrically heated motorcycle gear.

And the dramatic reduction in how much food can be produced on a worldwide basis because of climate change, obviously wont matter, because humans just "adapts".

Oh dear, wait a second, it doesn´t matter if HUMANS adapt, if everything else that lives doesn´t... Wow, what a mistakea to makea...

...snip far as I read...

So if it gets warmer one place grows wheat, where perhaps they grew oats. Guess what they now grow wheat other places that couldn't grow it before. Oat growing belt is now moved. up.

Likewise where it may have been dry it is now wet. Where it was wet is now dry. Various modifications of the above.

Um, that is what happens when it the world wide weather which reflects climate, changes.

Something farmers figured out a few years ago. Who figured out how to grow corn to support the tribe in the America Plains? I'll give you a hint It wasn't the European immigrants(current scientists don't credit to the menfolk either). If a stone age culture can figure it out I think that we should be able to as well.

Good Grief. Read IPCC's own CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. Stop listening to the alarmist reporters and do your own reading.

T2M

While I am personally certain that mankind's actions have significantly contributed to climate change, I also agree that mankind has adapted in the past and will again. Plus Gaia (or the earth) has feedback mechanisms (higher CO2 means more green growth etc), which will dampen some of the extreme fluctuations.

This does not mean however that mankind's adaption will be painless. Some people argue that unprecedented extended droughts in Africa have already spurred conflicts that have cost the lives of maybe millions, and it will get worse. Developed countries won't be exempt either as conflict spills over, and shortages of specific commodities bite. They are predicting a chocolate shortage in the next year, disaster for me.

thinkstoomuch wrote:So if it gets warmer one place grows wheat, where perhaps they grew oats. Guess what they now grow wheat other places that couldn't grow it before. Oat growing belt is now moved. up.

Funny thing about heat, it tends to cause aridification. Which even at best tends to reduce soil fertility by 50-70%.

Meanwhile, places like Russian tundra, that by your logic should suddenly become a great place to farm, well no, because even at best it´s going to take decades for the soil there to become as fertile as the lost farming ground in warmer areas.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Likewise where it may have been dry it is now wet. Where it was wet is now dry. Various modifications of the above.

That´s not how it works. It´s not a zero sum game.

Funny little problem with your above idiocy, is that warmer climate commonly means greater extremes in "wet" and "dry". Which means the place that "is now wet" has crops washed away by flooding, while the place that "is now dry" has crops burned away by "dry season" being a damned lot more "dry" than its supposed to be.

Simplified, for your easy reading, and hopefully understanding, but i expect you´re not interested in that.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Um, that is what happens when it the world wide weather which reflects climate, changes.

Riiight... You really don´t have the slighest clue do you?

Lets take ONE example, the very real risk that the Gulf stream could be interrupted by an overall increase in heat.
What happens then? One very real risk is that Scandinavian temperatures drops by ~5-25C, over a few years, which "funny" enough over time may have a brand new glacier start creeping south. And we´re going to have below freezing temperatures most of the year, or worst case, constantly.
Try to adapt to THAT.

The above is not a "far out and unlikely" risk, it´s something that could happen tomorrow, because noone can say for sure how much it takes for it to happen. All that is certain is that a warmer climate has a definite risk of causing it to happen.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Something farmers figured out a few years ago. Who figured out how to grow corn to support the tribe in the America Plains? I'll give you a hint It wasn't the European immigrants(current scientists don't credit to the menfolk either). If a stone age culture can figure it out I think that we should be able to as well.

Oooh, how amazingly amazing! Or not really.
Again, you don´t have a clue do you...

thinkstoomuch wrote:and do your own reading.

Problem is that THAT is exactly what i already have done.

George Box quote - All models are wrong. Some are useful.