Talk-Polywell.org

cyberax ... you've lost all perspective. The Earth is vast.

A computer model image on your screen is not the actual size of the planet, and the numbers you are cranking out are based on the assumptions that went into it, not what nature is in reality doing.

The climate change movement has a direct parallel with the financial mathematics movement that just bust the Western economies. The new mathematics and super-computers bedazzled the less savvy practioners (like yourself) into believing their own bullsheit.

Ask yourself, what are the chances that humanity has just developed super-computers that are big enough to predict the end of the world, at exactly at the same time the catastrophe is about to arrive?

Next to zero.

It is simply a "novel toy" phenomena. "Hey guys watch this, I can predict the end of the world with my new graphics engine!"

I just wanted to post in this thread.

How can a site dedicated to fusion be so obsessed with climate change?

icarus wrote:cyberax ... you've lost all perspective. The Earth is vast.
A computer model image on your screen is not the actual size of the planet, and the numbers you are cranking out are based on the assumptions that went into it, not what nature is in reality doing.

So? Solar System is unimaginably more vast, yet we can predict positions of planets with less-than-kilometer precision.

Climatologists understand perfectly well that they are working with imperfect models. Yet some basic assumptions hold whether you're working with the whole world or with a beaker of chemicals in your lab.

The climate change movement has a direct parallel with the financial mathematics movement that just bust the Western economies. The new mathematics and super-computers bedazzled the less savvy practioners (like yourself) into believing their own bullsheit.

Economics are FAR FAR FAR more complex than climate modeling. For one thing, weather doesn't change when you publish a forecast.

Ask yourself, what are the chances that humanity has just developed super-computers that are big enough to predict the end of the world, at exactly at the same time the catastrophe is about to arrive?

Logical fallacy. Your chances to live to see the world-wide catastrophe are also next to zero, yet it doesn't mean that such catastrophe can't happen.

It is simply a "novel toy" phenomena. "Hey guys watch this, I can predict the end of the world with my new graphics engine!"

Nope. Computers are just another tool.

So? Solar System is unimaginably more vast, yet we can predict positions of planets with less-than-kilometer precision.

Yes. And if the climate equation was as simple as F=ma the climate scientists could do as well.

But climate has numerous variable inputs: solar output in multiple bands. Cosmic rays.

Multiple feedbacks. Albedo, water vapor, ocean currents etc.

Multiple storage elements land, ocean, air.

Multiple energy redistribution elements ocean currents, wind, heat transfer from air to water, water to air, air to land, land to air, etc.

Imponderables like land use and volcanoes.

Economic feedbacks and imponderables.

Most of the systems involved are both chaotic and not measured well.

etc. etc. etc.

Now - give me the right assumptions out of that morass and I will predict anything you want. Except the actual climate.

joedead wrote:I just wanted to post in this thread.

How can a site dedicated to fusion be so obsessed with climate change?

:D

Some people want to use climate change as a reason to promote Polywell.

There seems to be some lack of unity relative to that idea.

So far, CO2 concentration is not rising up very fast because of buffering effects of oceans. But it's not going to continue forever, we already have coral reefs dissolving because of rising seawater acidity.

Quite right. Huge worry. Something must be done.

I propose increasing atmospheric CO2 by 10X so it will be closer to the conditions in which coral evolved. A few ppm a year is not near enough change on the time scales we are worried about. Fortunately China and India are willing to help. No worries mate.

===

Coral producing species change depending on local conditions. When local conditions are no longer conducive to one set of coral producers another set takes over. But you can produce a lot of hysteria in the transition. Which is all to the good.

What is needed is a government bureau to insure the output of hysteria doesn't decline in case global warming peters out. There are a lot of folks who will feel deprived if there is not something to worry about. Hysteria deprivation is a horrible thing. It can lead to massive depression. So there is something to worry about right there. Thank the Maker.

PS: oh, and the world is still heating, global warming has not stopped in 1998.

It is a very good thing climate science is not evidence based. And that only computer models that predict warming need be taken into account. You know what theories that are non-falsifiable are called? Give me a hint.

In any case the population in America is losing faith in global warming. Steadily. The current situation is 44% lack the faith. And 41% still believe. And the trend is with the non-believers.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ol-public/

It is very disruptive when people go through a crisis of faith. Church attendance and donations decline. Priests have to get real jobs.

Yes I agree with you 100% that

Computers are just another tool.

However, please remember GIGO.

Regards
Polygirl

Cyberax, you made the following statement.

PPS: nearly 100% of climate scientists (and not TV meteorologists) agree on global warming.

Please define "Climate Scientists" , then provide a complete list of all the names of these "Climate Scientists" who agree and disagree on global warming, their level of education and the number of scientific papers they have published. So that a percentage calculation can be done. Making a statement does not make it true.

In addition you made this statement

Usually it makes sense to trust experts.

Well the following people are experts, 650 Scientists, but then I always keep this in mind ,Appeal to Authority and in particular the section on the nature of the fallacy.


Regards
Polygirl

PolyGirl wrote: Please define "Climate Scientists" , then provide a complete list of all the names of these "Climate Scientists" who agree and disagree on global warming, their level of education and the number of scientific papers they have published.

Here you go: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

There are lot of similar polls with similar results but I'm too lazy to look the up.

MSimon wrote: Yes. And if the climate equation was as simple as F=ma the climate scientists could do as well.

The main thermal balance equations are about that simple. I.e. if you let more heat to be retained then temperature goes up.

It only gets more complex when you try to calculate what exactly if going to happen.

etc. etc. etc.

That "etc. etc. etc." only affects the speed and fine details of changes. It doesn't affect the end result much.

MSimon wrote: Quite right. Huge worry. Something must be done.
I propose increasing atmospheric CO2 by 10X so it will be closer to the conditions in which coral evolved.

They evolved as free-living species. And they seem to be able to revert to that stage: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... d_mode.php

I.e. corals will survive, but not coral reefs.

A few ppm a year is not near enough change on the time scales we are worried about. Fortunately China and India are willing to help. No worries mate.

Yeah, nothing to worry about. Nothing at all. After all, all these pesky climate scientists are obviously in conspiracy to crash the world economics.

MSimon wrote: It is a very good thing climate science is not evidence based. And that only computer models that predict warming need be taken into account. You know what theories that are non-falsifiable are called? Give me a hint.

Uhm... Climate science _IS_ evidence-based. And so far the theory that CO2 causes global warming is absolutely fine.

There were attempts to use cosmic rays, Sun's activity, Earth's internal heat to explain global warming. However, all of them have been disproved.

In any case the population in America is losing faith in global warming. Steadily. The current situation is 44% lack the faith. And 41% still believe. And the trend is with the non-believers.

So? Something like 50% of Americans believe in creationism and doubt evolution. Should we fire all that scientists studying biology?

Or maybe we should ask Australians? 80% of them support the idea of global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07 ... t_that.php

Uhm... Climate science _IS_ evidence-based. And so far the theory that CO2 causes global warming is absolutely fine.

So why when I give you evidence you don't like including more complete models and the head of the IPCC saying we are at least temporarily headed for cooling do you deny it.

A lot of people notice that the AGW followers can't stand contrary evidence.

And speaking of evidence: when are the AGW "scientists" going to compute the effect of CO2 plus feedback after subtracting out the PDO and other ocean currents. It has been known for 10 years. You would think some one might have calculated it by now. They have changed their models but not their public estimate. That is not science. It is a cult.

Science is based on doubt. AGW is based on certainty.

There were attempts to use cosmic rays, Sun's activity, Earth's internal heat to explain global warming. However, all of them have been disproved.

They have been disproved?

Some sites to begin learning about the sun.

http://solarcycle24.com/
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
http://www.nso.edu/
Article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/l ... h-by-2015/

In my opinion, 99.99999999% of the Earth's climate is the result of where we get 99.99999999 of our heat from; our sun. The amount of cosmic rays impacting our atmosphere is also influenced by the sun's magnetosphere; which in turn affects cloud cover.

I for one, am preparing for a colder climate.