If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   279 days without snow means that Des Moines has shattered a snowless record set in 1889. Thanks, global warming   (blogs.desmoinesregister.com) divider line 162
    More: Scary, Des Moines, global warming, cold fronts, snow, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

3340 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2012 at 6:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-09 01:12:02 PM
Some weather fun from Chicago...

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-09 08:02:45 PM
www.trbimg.com
 
2012-12-09 09:31:41 PM

Deep Contact: [www.trbimg.com image 600x400]


imokwiththat.jpg
 
2012-12-09 09:45:24 PM

DrPainMD: Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

2005 was not the warmest year the planet has ever seen. Sounds like you're the one who's cherry picking.

Jesus motherfarking Christ, you put "on record" in bold and still couldn't figure out what it meant. I obviously have to spell this out for you since you're a colossal moron: 'on record' doesn't include the 4.5 billion year history of the planet just the part we have, you know, recorded.

In other words, yes, you were cherry picking your data as you were complaining about other people cherry picking their data. And I'm the moron?

DrPainMD: Predictions? Based on computer models? Don't get me started. I've been a software engineer for 25 years, and you can't accurately model anything complex unless you know ALL the variables (they don't know this), EXACTLY how all the variables affect each other (they don't know this), and what the EXACT initial state of the variables are (they certainly don't know this).

Speculation is speculation.

The colossal moron strikes again. We don't need perfect information to understand the large scale problems we'll face adapting to a warmer world. No one is trying to predict annual rainfall in Nebraska to the hundredth of an inch. It's more like determining the impact of +2C on water resources and crop yields in vulnerable areas. For example, the heat wave in Europe in 2003 had a huge impact on crop yields. We don't need to know the exact drop in total bushels of corn to understand that higher temperatures and reduced rainfall will negatively affect crops.

This black and white, "it's not perfectly correct therefore it's wrong" approach is completely moronic.

What I'm saying is that climate cannot be modeled accurately, and it has nothing to do with programming technique or computer power. You can't get around the butterfly effect just ...


You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. Scientists aren't trying for hundredth of a degree accuracy in temperature predictions for Seattle, WA for the next 10 years. These types of predictions are about broad effects from certain levels of warming. It's not hard to understand the impact of a +3 C temperature shift on crops sensitive to heat or on water reserves or on glacier mass or diseases that thrive in warm climates. And the predictions aren't "wrong" if instead of a 25% drop in crop yield there is only a 22% drop. Perfect precision isn't the point when talking about these types of broad trends. The climate isn't random just because it's chaotic.

Here's another example of what I mean, from the IPCC report:
www.ipcc.ch
 
2012-12-09 10:18:09 PM

WhippingBoy: lack of snow in 1889


I too was curious
 
2012-12-09 10:23:54 PM

redly1: WhippingBoy: lack of snow in 1889

I too was curious


also interesting
 
2012-12-10 04:16:05 AM

Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: What I'm saying is that climate cannot be modeled accurately, and it has nothing to do with programming technique or computer power. You can't get around the butterfly effect just ...

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. Scientists aren't trying for hundredth of a degree accuracy in temperature predictions for Seattle, WA for the next 10 years. These types of predictions are about broad effects from certain levels of warming. It's not hard to understand the impact of a +3 C temperature shift on crops sensitive to heat or on water reserves or on glacier mass or diseases that thrive in warm climates. And the predictions aren't "wrong" if instead of a 25% drop in crop yield there is only a 22% drop. Perfect precision isn't the point when talking about these types of broad trends. The climate isn't random just because it's chaotic.


You obviously do not have a degree in math (I do). You, also, obviously, are not a programmer with experience creating models of complex processes (I do). Nor do you understand randomness, chaos, or the butterfly effect. Why are you even posting?
 
2012-12-10 09:45:26 AM

Baryogenesis: CruJones: Can someone pull a graph starting in like year 10,000BC? Seriously. I'm curious, I have no idea what it would look like, but starting in the 90s or even 70s for that matter is far too small a sample size.

A 30 year sample size actually isn't too short to talk about climate trends. Remember, we're talking about the effect that human CO2 emissions have on global temperatures. Longer time scales have different forcings to consider, like orbital fluctuations driving past ice ages and interglacial periods. Looking at a 10,000 year timescale won't help us figure out what will happen in the next 10, 25, 50 or 100 years.

But, for reference:


Shouldn't that chart only go back to 6000 years or do?
 
2012-12-10 11:35:50 AM

DrPainMD: Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: What I'm saying is that climate cannot be modeled accurately, and it has nothing to do with programming technique or computer power. You can't get around the butterfly effect just ...

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. Scientists aren't trying for hundredth of a degree accuracy in temperature predictions for Seattle, WA for the next 10 years. These types of predictions are about broad effects from certain levels of warming. It's not hard to understand the impact of a +3 C temperature shift on crops sensitive to heat or on water reserves or on glacier mass or diseases that thrive in warm climates. And the predictions aren't "wrong" if instead of a 25% drop in crop yield there is only a 22% drop. Perfect precision isn't the point when talking about these types of broad trends. The climate isn't random just because it's chaotic.

You obviously do not have a degree in math (I do). You, also, obviously, are not a programmer with experience creating models of complex processes (I do). Nor do you understand randomness, chaos, or the butterfly effect. Why are you even posting?


Obviously, you are also not a grammar nazi (I do).
 
2012-12-10 09:08:54 PM

DrPainMD: You obviously do not have a degree in math (I do). You, also, obviously, are not a programmer with experience creating models of complex processes (I do). Nor do you understand randomness, chaos, or the butterfly effect. Why are you even posting?



You claim to understand chaos but choose to ignore the possible effects a rapid 40% increase in a key parameter may have on a more or less stable system? Strangely unattractive.
 
2012-12-11 07:22:09 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: DrPainMD: You obviously do not have a degree in math (I do). You, also, obviously, are not a programmer with experience creating models of complex processes (I do). Nor do you understand randomness, chaos, or the butterfly effect. Why are you even posting?


You claim to understand chaos but choose to ignore the possible effects a rapid 40% increase in a key parameter may have on a more or less stable system? Strangely unattractive.


I'm not ignoring it; it wasn't the subject of my post.
 
2012-12-11 02:14:19 PM

DrPainMD: common sense is an oxymoron: DrPainMD: You obviously do not have a degree in math (I do). You, also, obviously, are not a programmer with experience creating models of complex processes (I do). Nor do you understand randomness, chaos, or the butterfly effect. Why are you even posting?


You claim to understand chaos but choose to ignore the possible effects a rapid 40% increase in a key parameter may have on a more or less stable system? Strangely unattractive.

I'm not ignoring it; it wasn't the subject of my post.



Your argument of the moment is that climate can't be predicted. But when you also make arguments like this...

DrPainMD: Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

2005 was not the warmest year the planet has ever seen. Sounds like you're the one who's cherry picking.


...your obsession with trivializing anthropogenic effects becomes obvious.

As for this...

DrPainMD: What I'm saying is that climate cannot be modeled accurately, and it has nothing to do with programming technique or computer power. You can't get around the butterfly effect just like you can't accelerate past the speed of light. That's not moronic, that's the way it is. Using models to predict climate change so you can prepare for it won't work, because the climate, while always changing, will not change the way the models predict; you're preparing for an event that won't happen. Again, I've got 25 years experience... how much do you have (let me guess: none)? Let's make it interesting: take whatever prediction (say 10 or 20 years into the future) you think is the best one, and I'll wager any amount you'd like that it turns out to be wrong. I'll even give you good odds.


...you're just plain wrong.

Back to my original comment, you claim that climate change is not predictable due to chaos while ignoring the likelihood of even more significant climate change occurring as a result of chaos. My question to you now is, does anthropogenic CO2 release affect climate or not?
 
Displayed 12 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report