Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2221  
Old 31.01.2018, 10:38
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 31,577
Groaned at 2,353 Times in 1,711 Posts
Thanked 38,371 Times in 18,109 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Global Warming science predicts some areas will get colder, or get more rain, or more snow, or stronger winds on average. It also predicts that most days will seem similar to what you experienced in the past.
So, in other words, it's nothing to be concerned about.

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #2222  
Old 31.01.2018, 10:45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Please do not let one day of weather fool you.
Global Warming science predicts some areas will get colder
Snork.

Quote:
View Post
It also predicts that most days will seem similar to what you experienced in the past.
So nothing to worry about then.

EDIT: Beat me to it

Quote:
View Post
So, in other words, it's nothing to be concerned about.

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #2223  
Old 31.01.2018, 11:38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
10 degrees and sun by the lake and record snow and warm in the mountains
FTFY. There might be record snow but there's also been the warmest January on record including in the mountains.

This is of course weather and not climate.
Reply With Quote
  #2224  
Old 05.02.2018, 14:25
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,380
Groaned at 282 Times in 153 Posts
Thanked 1,115 Times in 636 Posts
Capo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthyCapo is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Capo for this useful post:
  #2225  
Old 05.02.2018, 15:12
Newbie 1st class
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Biel
Posts: 10
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
pgough has no particular reputation at present
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Everything this scientist said was true, until he said all climate scientists fudge their data to make the models predict what ever they want. The models must also match everything we know about the past. The models are getting better all the time, as more data is collected around the world, and our understanding improves.
This guy ignored that fact that at least of the models did accurately predict the path of the hurricane.
The only thing this guy added to the debate was that, in his opinion, all climate scientists are dishonest!
I am also a Physicist with similar credentials.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank pgough for this useful post:
  #2226  
Old 05.02.2018, 15:55
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Everything this scientist said was true, until he said all climate scientists fudge their data to make the models predict what ever they want. The models must also match everything we know about the past. The models are getting better all the time, as more data is collected around the world, and our understanding improves.
This guy ignored that fact that at least of the models did accurately predict the path of the hurricane.
The only thing this guy added to the debate was that, in his opinion, all climate scientists are dishonest!
I am also a Physicist with similar credentials.
I agree the models are getting better all the time.
I still like the analogy that these models are like driving an auto by only looking in the rear view mirror.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2227  
Old 05.02.2018, 16:28
Newbie 1st class
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Biel
Posts: 10
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
pgough has no particular reputation at present
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I agree the models are getting better all the time.
I still like the analogy that these models are like driving an auto by only looking in the rear view mirror.
It is not really a great analogy. Physics allows a better prediction of the future (if we know the current state), than the random curves of a road you can't see.
Reply With Quote
  #2228  
Old 05.02.2018, 17:32
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It is not really a great analogy. Physics allows a better prediction of the future (if we know the current state), than the random curves of a road you can't see.
Ah, good to know-
So you are confident the models will predict a possible reorganization of the thermohaline ocean circulation in the North Atlantic resulting in a more southerly course of the Gulf Stream, which would have a profound influence on the climate of Western Europe,
or a possible reduction of upper-level ocean cycling in the Southern Ocean,
or a possible but unlikely rapid disintegration of part of the Antarctic ice sheet with dramatic consequences for the global sea level?

You can learn more here
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2229  
Old 16.02.2018, 10:06
robBob's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 2,867
Groaned at 62 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 2,757 Times in 1,470 Posts
robBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond reputerobBob has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

If it wasn't for global climate change there would be no OJ on our breakfast table!

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/7/16...ution-breeding
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank robBob for this useful post:
  #2230  
Old 22.02.2018, 11:02
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

A new study on global warming from the European Commission Joint Research Centre here.
The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance.

Quote:
We show that perturbations in the surface energy balance generated by vegetation change from 2000 to 2015 have led to an average increase of 0.23 ± 0.03 °C in local surface temperature where those vegetation changes occurred.
Vegetation transitions behind this warming effect mainly relate to agricultural expansion in the tropics,
Reply With Quote
  #2231  
Old 22.02.2018, 12:11
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,751 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It is not really a great analogy. Physics allows a better prediction of the future (if we know the current state), than the random curves of a road you can't see.
But some of the models are not based on actual physics but on curve fitting and extrapolation / interpolation. So in that respect the analogy is pretty good.

They still use wind tunnels today to design cars and aeroplanes. If physics can't accurately predicte something so simple and with so few parameters, how can we trust it to predict global weather patterns 40 years from now?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
This user groans at amogles for this post:
  #2232  
Old 22.02.2018, 12:14
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,751 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If it wasn't for global climate change there would be no OJ on our breakfast table!

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/7/16...ution-breeding
If it wasn't for climate change, significant chunks of Europe would still be buried under a vast ice shelf.

And we wouldn't have whisky, or IKEA.

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #2233  
Old 22.02.2018, 14:03
Don Molina's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 902
Groaned at 38 Times in 23 Posts
Thanked 1,327 Times in 560 Posts
Don Molina has a reputation beyond reputeDon Molina has a reputation beyond reputeDon Molina has a reputation beyond reputeDon Molina has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
They still use wind tunnels today to design cars and aeroplanes. If physics can't accurately predicte something so simple and with so few parameters, how can we trust it to predict global weather patterns 40 years from now?

God you're ignorant.

Classical mechanics are deterministic, so what you call a model, can perfectly describe what is going to happen, with absolute certainty of outcome. It is not only deterministic, but perfectly solvable analytically, so you can just substitute stuff in equations, and get results that make sense and are immediately useful.
That is why we can launch something from the Earth, and hit a rock that moves quite fast in the other side of the solar system.
So that is "simple".

Quantum mechanics have deterministic and stochastic parts. So some of it is based on statistics and statistically derived expectations. These expectations don't come from the "rear-view mirror", because empirical evidence has found causality links in statistical findings.

By the way, this is also true for financial/economical models. Of course they can't account for things that have never happened before, but it is still a pretty good way of expecting results.

Proper models fit past curves and are used by "extrapolation", ONLY when causality links have been ESTABLISHED. So the rear-view mirror analogy stands for "models" made by ignorant people for ignorant people, for the sake of sensationalist (but completely non-factual) arguments.



Lastly we come to fluid mechanics. If people think that F = m x a is difficult, and quantum mechanics is insane, they should never attempt to touch fluid mechanics because it blows everything out of the water. If you see a black board with equations on the topic it looks like some sort of elvish. Ask me how I know...

The only real way of interacting with what we know about fluid mechanics, and coming up with useful designs, is by breaking down space in very small cells, and apply simplified forms of the relevant equations and then make the cells interact with each other. This happens numerically and not analytically, so it's not a 1+1=2 type of situation. It's a -load of approximation, assumption, and iterative calculations. That's not to say it's not precise or useful, it's just different and A LOT HARDER.

And in the end, whatever computational simulation (read numerical solution) you end up running, you'll need to validate that in a wind tunnel.

So if you think that designing complex structures to be aerodynamically efficient in very particular ways is "something so simple and with so few parameters" then you are clearly IGNORANT, and you should cease discussing ANYTHING that has ANY sort of connection to science whatsoever.

Because you're ignorant, so whatever argument you're bringing up is invalid, because it has no foundation in anything valid.
Again, when it comes to science.

And by the way:
When scientists say "we believe it to be", or "we are expecting", or something to that tune, it's because they are scientists and they should to be extremely precise with their phraseology.
It does not mean that someone can say "I believe something else", or "you are expecting stupid stuff", unless that someone has done proper research that has been peer-reviewed and validated.
__________________
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at Don Molina for this post:
  #2234  
Old 22.02.2018, 14:12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
God you're ignorant.

Classical mechanics are deterministic, so what you call a model, can perfectly describe what is going to happen, with absolute certainty of outcome. It is not only deterministic, but perfectly solvable analytically, so you can just substitute stuff in equations, and get results that make sense and are immediately useful.
That is why we can launch something from the Earth, and hit a rock that moves quite fast in the other side of the solar system.
So that is "simple".

Quantum mechanics have deterministic and stochastic parts. So some of it is based on statistics and statistically derived expectations. These expectations don't come from the "rear-view mirror", because empirical evidence has found causality links in statistical findings.

By the way, this is also true for financial/economical models. Of course they can't account for things that have never happened before, but it is still a pretty good way of expecting results.

Proper models fit past curves and are used by "extrapolation", ONLY when causality links have been ESTABLISHED. So the rear-view mirror analogy stands for "models" made by ignorant people for ignorant people, for the sake of sensationalist (but completely non-factual) arguments.



Lastly we come to fluid mechanics. If people think that F = m x a is difficult, and quantum mechanics is insane, they should never attempt to touch fluid mechanics because it blows everything out of the water. If you see a black board with equations on the topic it looks like some sort of elvish. Ask me how I know...

The only real way of interacting with what we know about fluid mechanics, and coming up with useful designs, is by breaking down space in very small cells, and apply simplified forms of the relevant equations and then make the cells interact with each other. This happens numerically and not analytically, so it's not a 1+1=2 type of situation. It's a -load of approximation, assumption, and iterative calculations. That's not to say it's not precise or useful, it's just different and A LOT HARDER.

And in the end, whatever computational simulation (read numerical solution) you end up running, you'll need to validate that in a wind tunnel.

So if you think that designing complex structures to be aerodynamically efficient in very particular ways is "something so simple and with so few parameters" then you are clearly IGNORANT, and you should cease discussing ANYTHING that has ANY sort of connection to science whatsoever.

Because you're ignorant, so whatever argument you're bringing up is invalid, because it has no foundation in anything valid.
Again, when it comes to science.

And by the way:
When scientists say "we believe it to be", or "we are expecting", or something to that tune, it's because they are scientists and they should to be extremely precise with their phraseology.
It does not mean that someone can say "I believe something else", or "you are expecting stupid stuff", unless that someone has done proper research that has been peer-reviewed and validated.
Lol. Triggered much?
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #2235  
Old 22.02.2018, 14:16
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,751 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
God you're ignorant.

Because you're ignorant, so whatever argument you're bringing up is invalid, because it has no foundation in anything valid.
Isn't it wonderful how people who claim to argue based on science need to resort to this type of argumnent.

For full disclosure. I spent many years of my life actually writing simulatiuons.

I know very well how they work. I also understand the limitations.

Your explanation is cute but unfortunately not accurate.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #2236  
Old 22.02.2018, 14:22
Blueangel's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Küsnacht, Switzerland
Posts: 4,004
Groaned at 113 Times in 101 Posts
Thanked 10,747 Times in 4,739 Posts
Blueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond reputeBlueangel has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
For full disclosure. I spent many years of my life actually writing simulatiuons.
You'd think after all those years, you'd be able to spell simulations.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Blueangel for this useful post:
  #2237  
Old 22.02.2018, 14:22
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
But some of the models are not based on actual physics but on curve fitting and extrapolation / interpolation. So in that respect the analogy is pretty good.

They still use wind tunnels today to design cars and aeroplanes. If physics can't accurately predicte something so simple and with so few parameters, how can we trust it to predict global weather patterns 40 years from now?
As per the video above, they can't predict the path of a hurricane 2 days in advance with real-time data. Of course they can't predict global temperature changes, they don't even know all the factors needed to be included to even begin to try.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #2238  
Old 22.02.2018, 14:56
AbFab's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 8,226
Groaned at 347 Times in 237 Posts
Thanked 11,995 Times in 4,115 Posts
AbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
God you're ignorant.

Classical mechanics are deterministic, so what you call a model, can perfectly describe what is going to happen, with absolute certainty of outcome. It is not only deterministic, but perfectly solvable analytically, so you can just substitute stuff in equations, and get results that make sense and are immediately useful.
That is why we can launch something from the Earth, and hit a rock that moves quite fast in the other side of the solar system.
So that is "simple".

Quantum mechanics have deterministic and stochastic parts. So some of it is based on statistics and statistically derived expectations. These expectations don't come from the "rear-view mirror", because empirical evidence has found causality links in statistical findings.

By the way, this is also true for financial/economical models. Of course they can't account for things that have never happened before, but it is still a pretty good way of expecting results.

Proper models fit past curves and are used by "extrapolation", ONLY when causality links have been ESTABLISHED. So the rear-view mirror analogy stands for "models" made by ignorant people for ignorant people, for the sake of sensationalist (but completely non-factual) arguments.



Lastly we come to fluid mechanics. If people think that F = m x a is difficult, and quantum mechanics is insane, they should never attempt to touch fluid mechanics because it blows everything out of the water. If you see a black board with equations on the topic it looks like some sort of elvish. Ask me how I know...

The only real way of interacting with what we know about fluid mechanics, and coming up with useful designs, is by breaking down space in very small cells, and apply simplified forms of the relevant equations and then make the cells interact with each other. This happens numerically and not analytically, so it's not a 1+1=2 type of situation. It's a -load of approximation, assumption, and iterative calculations. That's not to say it's not precise or useful, it's just different and A LOT HARDER.

And in the end, whatever computational simulation (read numerical solution) you end up running, you'll need to validate that in a wind tunnel.

So if you think that designing complex structures to be aerodynamically efficient in very particular ways is "something so simple and with so few parameters" then you are clearly IGNORANT, and you should cease discussing ANYTHING that has ANY sort of connection to science whatsoever.

Because you're ignorant, so whatever argument you're bringing up is invalid, because it has no foundation in anything valid.
Again, when it comes to science.

And by the way:
When scientists say "we believe it to be", or "we are expecting", or something to that tune, it's because they are scientists and they should to be extremely precise with their phraseology.
It does not mean that someone can say "I believe something else", or "you are expecting stupid stuff", unless that someone has done proper research that has been peer-reviewed and validated.
So, to sum up:

forget what you think you know - I know better. Ignore what you see about you, don't ask questions - we boffins are much cleverer than you and of course we are right...
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank AbFab for this useful post:
  #2239  
Old 22.02.2018, 16:05
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
God you're ignorant.

Classical mechanics are deterministic, so what you call a model, can perfectly describe what is going to happen, with absolute certainty of outcome. It is not only deterministic, but perfectly solvable analytically, so you can just substitute stuff in equations, and get results that make sense and are immediately useful.
That is why we can launch something from the Earth, and hit a rock that moves quite fast in the other side of the solar system.
So that is "simple".

Quantum mechanics have deterministic and stochastic parts. So some of it is based on statistics and statistically derived expectations. These expectations don't come from the "rear-view mirror", because empirical evidence has found causality links in statistical findings.

By the way, this is also true for financial/economical models. Of course they can't account for things that have never happened before, but it is still a pretty good way of expecting results.

Proper models fit past curves and are used by "extrapolation", ONLY when causality links have been ESTABLISHED. So the rear-view mirror analogy stands for "models" made by ignorant people for ignorant people, for the sake of sensationalist (but completely non-factual) arguments.



Lastly we come to fluid mechanics. If people think that F = m x a is difficult, and quantum mechanics is insane, they should never attempt to touch fluid mechanics because it blows everything out of the water. If you see a black board with equations on the topic it looks like some sort of elvish. Ask me how I know...

The only real way of interacting with what we know about fluid mechanics, and coming up with useful designs, is by breaking down space in very small cells, and apply simplified forms of the relevant equations and then make the cells interact with each other. This happens numerically and not analytically, so it's not a 1+1=2 type of situation. It's a -load of approximation, assumption, and iterative calculations. That's not to say it's not precise or useful, it's just different and A LOT HARDER.

And in the end, whatever computational simulation (read numerical solution) you end up running, you'll need to validate that in a wind tunnel.

So if you think that designing complex structures to be aerodynamically efficient in very particular ways is "something so simple and with so few parameters" then you are clearly IGNORANT, and you should cease discussing ANYTHING that has ANY sort of connection to science whatsoever.

Because you're ignorant, so whatever argument you're bringing up is invalid, because it has no foundation in anything valid.
Again, when it comes to science.

And by the way:
When scientists say "we believe it to be", or "we are expecting", or something to that tune, it's because they are scientists and they should to be extremely precise with their phraseology.
It does not mean that someone can say "I believe something else", or "you are expecting stupid stuff", unless that someone has done proper research that has been peer-reviewed and validated.
So you agree climate models are inherently inaccurate because the theory is based on correlation not causality and so any model based on correlation is by definition a rear view mirror approach?

"breaking down space in very small cells" Good heavens I think you just invented differential calculus
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2240  
Old 20.04.2018, 13:58
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Only just came across this that was reported in the Basler Zeitung last week. A new research institute is being set up on the Ägerisee to investigate the natural causes of climate change. The director doesn't seem to think CO2 is responsible for the Earth warming up.

Klimaskepsis am Ägerisee
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0