^^^oh yeah and those are just day to day threats. you don't really seem to grasp time scales larger than a couple days.

droughts can kill millions.

10/15/2006 2:09:42 AM

^^^ "Chaos Theory: Also referred to as non-linear dynamics, chaos theory is a mathematical concept explaining that it is possible to get random results from normal equations. The main precept behind this theory is the underlying notion of small occurrences significantly affecting the outcomes of seemingly unrelated events.

Chaos theory has been applied to many different things, from predicting weather patterns [emphasis added] to the stock market. Simply put, chaos theory is an attempt to see and understand the underlying order of complex systems that may appear to be without order at first glance" (Dictionary.com).

^^ My point is that so-called experts and even actual experts in any field can be wrong. And I never said that "we should completely give up on" anything, as you put it. I said, "I'm just asking people to think critically, to not just accept the spoon-fed 'news' and the whims du jour of the mainstream media and special interest groups concerning global warming." In addition, I did not say that global warming--if it is caused or worsened by humans--and any other real threats should be mutually exclusive. Decisions must be made to apply scarce resources to those short- and long-term problems that actually exist and can actually be remedied by humans.

10/15/2006 3:12:57 AM

Quote :

"As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorentz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Weather is chaotic, but its statistics - climate - is not."

you don't want to get in an argument with me over this. trust me. i know more than you about it.

10/15/2006 3:15:38 AM

Hey yall, the washed-up liberal studies major is going to lecture us about chaos theory!

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 3:27 AM. Reason : sad]

10/15/2006 3:27:18 AM

^^ You think you know it all, but you obviously don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3100024.stm

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/06/29.html

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 3:28 AM. Reason : ^]

10/15/2006 3:27:38 AM

weather = chaotic

weather for a long time
---------------------- = climate
long time

the average (ie climate) is NOT CHAOTIC

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 3:33 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2006 3:30:58 AM

I really have no problem with what you are saying provided you don't believe that independent observation and rational thought HAS to "disprove" global warming (I'm not saying you do this, but your commentary isn't unbiased).

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 3:32 AM. Reason : ed]

10/15/2006 3:32:13 AM

^^^^ Yes. And in our curriculum we learn to think critically, which is apparently is a skill that you have yet to master. By the way, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, a pretty smart one, too. And he was one of the worst presidents ever. Smart doesn't mean right.

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 3:34 AM. Reason : ^^]

10/15/2006 3:33:38 AM

QUICK CHANGE THE SUBJECT

10/15/2006 3:34:46 AM

^^^ Understood. But is any commentary unbiased?

10/15/2006 3:36:21 AM

so what don't i know again?

10/15/2006 3:38:34 AM

^ From the BBC link:

"The simulations of present climate and past changes will be used to test different versions of the model, and the most realistic will be used to predict the century's climate.

Dr Myles Allen, of the University of Oxford, said: 'Thanks to chaos theory we can't predict which versions of the model will be any good without running these simulations, and there are far too many for us to run them ourselves.

Together, participants' results will give us an overall picture of how much human influence has contributed to recent climate change, and of the range of possible changes in the future.'

David Stainforth, the experiment's chief scientist, said: 'While many model studies in the past have made plausible predictions of climate change, it hasn't been possible to quantify our confidence in these predictions.'"

From the Columbia University link:

"[Edward] Lorenz, M.I.T. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, opened the 1997-98 International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRI) lecture series on Sept. 30 with 'How Well Can We Predict Climate Change?' in the Shapiro Center for Engineering and Physical Sciences. He has been studying irregularities in the atmospheric energy cycle at M.I.T. since 1948, and his research in dynamic atmospheric systems led to his development of the chaos theory and his 1993 book, The Essence of Chaos.

He defined chaos as 'a system that has two states that look the same on separate occasions, but can develop into states that are noticeably different.' In an example of a non-chaotic system, he referred to a golf ball dropped twice from the same height above a fixed point. The golf ball, he said, will fall to the same point both times. He distinguished this from a very different system illustrated by the meandering path of the sheet of paper.

Weather forecasting, like the fall of a golf ball, has short-range accurate predictability. Lorenz asked, 'Can we then continue weather forecasting to reach desired climate prediction?' The audience waited. 'It's not that simple," he said, 'because climatic systems are inherently chaotic.'"

By the way, sarijoul, I own you now. Can you give me the standard deviation on that? Step off.

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 3:50 AM. Reason : [ ]]

10/15/2006 3:48:04 AM

because someone is applying chaos theory to a system doesn't make it chaotic. you don't know what you're talking about.

in turbulence modelling we have these things called time-averaged equations.

they're averaging states that we can't exactly predict 100% accurately, but over a decent time period the prediction can be quite good. these same sorts of models can be applied to large systems (like the planet).

just because it's not simple doesn't mean that it's unpredictable and scientists and engineers are getting further along in being able to do this.

10/15/2006 3:56:57 AM

^ Blah, blah, blah. PWNT.

10/15/2006 4:11:25 AM

it's not like i particularly expect you to understand this. . .

10/15/2006 4:13:42 AM

^ And you do not understand my areas of study, which are English and postsecondary education. In any event, one doesn't have to be a cow to recognize milk.

By the way, I hold a bachelor's degree in business administration, so I understand the fundamentals of statistics. If you weren't so condescending, I might be a bit more receptive to your arguments.

10/15/2006 4:20:57 AM

the point is:
we can't necessarily predict a specific day in the future's weather. we are getting to a point where we might be able to predict the average temperature over a number of years 100 years in the future.

this is of course reliant on assuming some things like human intervention into the system.

but the point of these predictions isn't to know the exact one day or even one year, but more to know the reactions of different stimuli to the system. the science is fairly solid in that regard. a lot of the challenge is simply in scale and complexity. this does not make the system chaotic in itself. it just makes it complex. but not so complex that it is outside of our grasp to get useful results with a feasible level of complexity in the near future.

10/15/2006 4:27:05 AM

Yes, predicting a giant system affected by variables as obscure as cow farts and the flap of butterfly wings and many others over a period of decades. You don't call that fucking chaotic? Come on, sarijoul!

10/15/2006 4:39:10 AM

climate is not chaotic (weather prediction over a short period of time otoh is chaotic for all intents and purposes). climate is affected by far fewer (relatively) variables, such that we should be able to handle in the coming years. if you really want to get down to it everything is chaotic. but what use does the term have at that point.

this argument has basically become one of semantics.

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 4:47 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2006 4:46:37 AM

I propose we do something that is rarely done here: Agree to disagree. What do you think?

I mean, it's not as much fun as calling each other names or going tit for tat ad nauseam, but at this point, it is certainly a more appropriate approach for two educated individuals. Deal?

10/15/2006 4:55:08 AM

sure

10/15/2006 4:59:15 AM

Climate modelling is, as of my last check, still bunk.

Someone call me once they get a model to successfully run backwards (start with today and run back to 1900, successfully matching the observed data).

This is a sensible test and every climate model put to this test has usually failed quite miserably.

10/15/2006 9:48:40 AM

i cant tell if he is being serious anymore

10/15/2006 10:15:25 AM

Quote :

"The 'global warming' crowd uses things like severe strorms or a bad hurricane season to say "SEE!!...GLOBAL WARMING!!"....If this years season had been really bad you can bet we would have heard that...so it seems perfectly legit for someone to ask this question... "

If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?

10/15/2006 10:37:25 AM

Don't argue with hooksaw; he's obviously carefully studied Jeff Goldbloom's famous lecture on Chaos Theory.

And an argument from ignorance is not an argument.

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2006 1:10:23 PM

you mean the so-called hooksaw and the so-called jeff goldbloom

10/15/2006 1:15:18 PM

How can we really know if these people exist?

10/15/2006 1:33:23 PM

An interesting and legit argument. I was thinking the same thing the other day. If you look at the past 50 years, since the "global warming" myth came into existance, you can see that there has been a general trend in fluctuating hurricane seasons. Katrina was an anomale, obviously, as was Hazel, Andrew, Carmen, so on and soforth. There is no proof that they are increasing, and this season shows this.

10/15/2006 3:54:51 PM

i've thought that the hurricane argument on either side is pretty much a red herring. hurricanes are uncommon enough and unpredictable enough that not much can be said for the limited data set that we have. average temperature on the whole is an entirely different story. we have plenty of data regarding global and localized weather trends.

10/15/2006 4:05:53 PM

Ahaha

In BigGirlWorld, a one year sample of X not only disproves a 10 year trend of X, but also disproves a 100 year trend of Y that's only loosely correlated to X.

An interesting and legit argument indeed!

10/15/2006 4:12:13 PM

wait so is hookhsaw saying we shouldnt worry about terrorism becase its not on the list fancy either?

[Edited on October 15, 2006 at 6:34 PM. Reason : ???]

10/15/2006 6:33:09 PM

^don't argue with him. he has a HS level understanding of statistics (and a cartoon understanding of chaos theory)!

10/15/2006 9:43:34 PM

^ First, I'll address your latter "point," as it were. I was smart enough to quote a person who does understand chaos theory. Here it is again for the ill-informed:

From the Columbia University link:

"[Edward] Lorenz, M.I.T. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, opened the 1997-98 International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRI) lecture series on Sept. 30 with 'How Well Can We Predict Climate Change?' in the Shapiro Center for Engineering and Physical Sciences. He has been studying irregularities in the atmospheric energy cycle at M.I.T. since 1948, and his research in dynamic atmospheric systems led to his development of the chaos theory and his 1993 book, The Essence of Chaos.

He defined chaos as 'a system that has two states that look the same on separate occasions, but can develop into states that are noticeably different.' In an example of a non-chaotic system, he referred to a golf ball dropped twice from the same height above a fixed point. The golf ball, he said, will fall to the same point both times. He distinguished this from a very different system illustrated by the meandering path of the sheet of paper.

Weather forecasting, like the fall of a golf ball, has short-range accurate predictability. Lorenz asked, 'Can we then continue weather forecasting to reach desired climate [emphasis added] prediction?' The audience waited. 'It's not that simple," he said, 'because climatic systems are inherently chaotic [emphasis added].'"

Second, concerning your former drivel, I never claimed to be a statistician. As to my cartooning or my understanding thereof or what have you, I am the recipient of a North Carolina Press Association award for journalistic illustration, which was presented to me by then-Governor Hunt, for my work, among other honors. If I were you, I wouldn't be so down on a so-called cartoon understanding of things--people with such an understanding win Pulitzers every year.

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 4:22 AM. Reason : [i]]

10/16/2006 4:20:22 AM

someone could shit in a box and give it a pullitzer. it doesn't mean that person deserves any more or less respect.

10/16/2006 9:52:53 AM

so how does this take away from the fact that we should be conscious about our environment and what we do to it?

10/16/2006 9:53:54 AM

WEATHER IS CHAOTIC SO SCIENTISTS KNOW NOTHING!!!!
IT IS A THEORY IT IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!!

but honestly. there is much to be learned about weather (and climate) prediction. but across the board there are correlations that don't fail (like increased CO2 yields increased temperatures). i don't see why we shouldn't strive to decrease our impact on the environment.

10/16/2006 10:13:39 AM

but that would take away from the rights of giant corporations!

OH NOIEY!!!!!!!!!!!

10/16/2006 10:35:48 AM

^^^^ Yes, that's why award recipients are introduced as "Pulitzer Prize-winning author," "Oscar-winning actress," or "Nobel Prize-winning scientist"; include these types of honors in their CVs; and have these types of honors listed in their epitaphs. But in sarijoul's world, these achievements are of no consequence, are not deserving of an additional form of respect. Meanwhile, back in the real world. . . .

10/16/2006 11:04:43 AM

god forbid i can decide on my own what artists deserve my respect and which don't.

russel crowe got an oscar for instance. i don't like his acting. lord of the rings won an oscar for best editing and best score a couple years ago. i hated the editing and score of that movie.

see for people who can think for themselves, awards shows (and awards) are often just entertainment. i can make my own judgements about who i respect and who i don't.

10/16/2006 11:10:44 AM

Quote :

"i don't see why we shouldn't strive to decrease our impact on the environment."

Of course we should, this is not at issue. The question is what you intend to do about it. If you want to increase the federal gasoline tax from 18 cents to 20 cents, go right ahead. If you want to slap a $1 per ton tax on coal go right ahead.

But if it is your intention to raise the gasoline tax from $0.18 to $4.00 then we will fight you tooth and nail. To inflict that much harm upon the American people you had better have strong evidence that not doing so with cause far greater harm, which is in dispute. Climate modeling is uncertain, so even if Climate modeling predicts an apocalyptic future, which it doesn't, you must discount it in accordance with its certainty, which is small, and then again with the probability of arrest, which is also small, and then discount the future value.

Hence why some researchers conclude more good can be done for mankind by expending our energy fighting corruption and alleviating poverty.

10/16/2006 11:14:42 AM

L.F. Richardson:

Quote :

"Big whirls have little whirls That feed on their velocity, And little whirls have lesser whirls And so on to viscosity."

Point 1 - On global warming
Some people act like hurricanes are the only evidence for global warming, and that one year tells the whole story. There are icecore samples, direct correlations between Co2 and temperature, shrinking icecaps, etc. No one can dispute the increasing amounts of Co2 that we are adding to the atmosphere. The questions seem to be impact, and expense.

Point 2 - On Chaos theory 101
I don't think that many nonscientists understand chaos theory -although they like to throw it around. An example of chaos conditions: When you incrementally turn up the temperature on a pot of water, linear convection occurs. At some point though, when you turn the temp up a just a little more the pot goes into a mad boil. You've passed a boundry into a nonlinear state where that small change had huge effects.

Chaos occurs in instances of time, until the energy in the system goes back below the boundry level and things move back to a relatively linear state. Chaos is a series of instanious occurences. If you measure weather over time (climate?) then you are averaging the effects of instantaneous chaotic events. Averages over long periods of time are, by definition, are not chaos.

I, by the way, do believe that global warming is a reality. And I don't think the real costs to make improvements would be as high as the naysayers would have you believe.

In other words:

Quote :

"Profits now = Profits now"

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 12:34 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/16/2006 12:23:23 PM

From the 1950's to the 1960's global temperatures dropped during the "automobile boom"

How do you explain that? Why wouldn't temperatures rise with such a large increase in emissions?

10/16/2006 4:34:13 PM

GOBAL COOLING!!

DIDNT YOU WATCH THAT MOVIE WITH JAKE!

10/16/2006 4:37:58 PM

in other words you dont have an answer

10/16/2006 4:41:38 PM

neither of us are scientists.

all we have is second hand info so I have no answer and Im sure you have no answer either.

10/16/2006 4:54:06 PM

because while it was an automobile boom in the US. it is not an automobile boom worldwide.

worldwide auto production has increased steadily for the past 50 years.




not to mention cars last longer now, so the "fleet" of cars on the road is increasing even faster than that graph indicates.


[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2006 5:03:34 PM

Quote :

"worldwide auto production has increased steadily for the past 50 years."

that 50 years would include the time from the mid 50s to the mid 60s where temperatures lowered

so again...how do you explain that?

10/16/2006 5:53:09 PM

there are natural oscillations in climate from year to year

10/16/2006 6:06:37 PM

TreeTwista,

The fact that termperature increases correlate with increases in CO2 is not in dispute.

You should find something that is in dispute to argue ... like whether it's man's fault, or whether that is the cause of the temperature rise, or whether the whole thing is just nature's cycle ... or whether it would cost too much to do anything about it, etc ...

[Edited on October 16, 2006 at 6:23 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/16/2006 6:21:28 PM

^x9 Damn cogent argument, BoBo. I'm inclined to believe that our planet MAY be warming.

My main point of dispute is the incessant need of some to blame global warming--if it is in fact happening--only on or primarily on humans. Even if we all magically agreed tomorrow that humans are responsible for the warming in question, what could we actually do about it? We do have the ability to affect weather in a minor way, but we certainly cannot exert long-term control over the climate of the world. To think we could is sheer arrogance!

And concerning chaos theory, of course I don't fully understand it. I never claimed that I did. I simply quoted the man who literally wrote the book on chaos theory and he apparently claims that it has a correlation to climate prediction. Hell, I often quote Poe; yet, I am not a master of trochaic meter, either.

Again, predicting a giant system that may be affected by variables as obscure as cow farts and the flap of butterfly wings and many others over a period of decades is inexact, to say the least. Therefore, I find the certainty about global warming that some espouse to be maddening.

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 1:17 AM. Reason : ^]

10/17/2006 1:16:47 AM