This article says that 21,000 Arctic species may disappear if climate change heats up the Arctic. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140214075511.htm I'm not sure if this is bad, after all if the temperatures increase, there will be a much richer ecosystem in the Arctic...
[quote who="Jafo" reply="2061" id="3441015"]Get back on topic or get off this site.[/quote] Yes okay. It's all technobabble anyway, no reason to fight over this.
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="2056" id="3440943"]Nice to know: mathematical solutions are worthless. Pretty much takes care of the AGW argument. We can all go home now.[/quote] Nah, I said that that particular solution was worthless. Math is very useful, I've said that before, but it's just not perfect. Even a house... someone can design a house that's a perfect 10x10 square meters on paper, but when the construction workers put it together, they
Yes you get too nitpicky. Math by itself is perfect but also perfectly useless. With one exception maybe: it's perfect in an artificial financial setting where everyone follows the rules... Like the simple case where 1 euro + 1 euro = 2 euros. That's accurate. But even this breaks down when you get to high numbers. 1 trillion euros + 1 trillion euros = 2 trillion euros that's for sure, but in practice there's extra inflation if there
Isn't that part of the fun... the challenge to make all those components work... and then the sweet memories of all that frustration and the joy that follows when everything works!
What comes after the sharks?
This article investigated the way clouds are modeled, and states that the current models underestimate the global warming because they incorporate a negative feedback from upper clouds only, instead of a positive feedback from lower clouds... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131231094442.htm They state that therefore, temperatures are likely to rise by 3 to 5 degrees celcius per doubling of
[quote who="Jafo" reply="2044" id="3440383"]Look, we get it. You are trying to answer every doubt re global warming by demonstrating methodology errors/uncertainties as excuses as to why others claim the models aren't working out.[/quote] I don't use it as an excuse... I'm just trying to show that the 0.1 degree celcius error that people are so hysterical about nowadays isn't very significant when you compare it to the 2 to 5 degree warming that'
Whatever... let's just be friends.
Ok... you're talking about Math as a stand-alone tool. Yes that's perfect by itself. When you apply it to real-world problems, it's not perfect anymore because you've to work with uncertainties and approximations... while the mathetmatics itself is self-contained and "perfect", the results have a small margin of error when it comes to comparing the mathematical outcome with reality. I'm not talking about statistics. &nb
The equations that you use have (small) error margins. The strength of a beam of iron is only known with a (small) margin of error. The strength of concrete, is also based on (lab)experiments and equations that are deduced (in labs). My point is: equations and models are very useful in everyday practice. What is so different about GW equations/ models ... so what if their error margins are higher. As long as you have a grip on the
[quote who="Jafo" reply="2035" id="3440272"]No, they are done with mathematics...there's a whole 'industry' called 'Civil Engineering'.[/quote] Modeling == mathematics, a simplifiction of reality. Whether you calculate something by hand or by computer, it's always an estimate. What people here are so upset about, are pretty much peanuts. They're upset that there's a 0.1 degree slowdown in global warming. However, if you're int
I think the problem is that you mistrust other people that you don't know ... but if you don't know them, how can you be sure that they are not to be trusted ...
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="2030" id="3440177"] Geo - the hockey stick was created by a model. A model that created a hockey stick out of any data you fed it. The model used observations and proxy data. What's gobsmacking is that you believe it was nothing but observations. I don't ignore observations - it's those very observations that make me skeptical of the models.[/quote] The articles I've read were based on observations, not models.</p
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="2028" id="3440159"]We'll not have the computational power in a hundred years, probably more, to even get close. This has nothing to do with Moore's Law. You obviously didn't listen to the presentation I linked to on the limits of modeling.[/quote] I did, that was the one with that mathematician right? While the principles that he uses were right, he exagerrated them to a tremendous degree. Models are never perfect. They don't have to b
[quote who="starkers" reply="2025" id="3440048"]The model may have no emotions, but the scientists who created it do... as do those with vested interests, and the desperation is to convince the entire world they've got it right... because there are huge amounts of money to be made once done.[/quote] I think you are wrong here. The people who make those models and publish their results, don't make that much money. Also, people who make models are aware of their limitati
There's no desperation... it's just a model and that has no emotions. The article says that when they input the change in trade winds, the model gave a reduced warming like we're seeing nowadays. Imho that's pretty impressive: the only thing they have to do in their entire modeling, is adjust some wind. The thing that's left is to understand why the trade winds are like that. How hard can that be... I think the current state of the models is quite i
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="2020" id="3439903"]Just more evidence that the models are wrong. [/quote] I think what's interesting about the article is that incorporating just a couple of trade winds, can actually reproduce the observed mitigating (or cooling) effect. It looks to me like such models are already quite capable of modeling our climate.
This shows how stronger trade winds (and increased oceanic circulation) can explain the hiatus in global warming: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140209152454.htm
Imho: if it's a business machine, then go for something that produces little heat. The less heat, the less the fan has to turn, the less noise it will make. When you have to work on your computer all day, then imo it's very important that the computer is as silent as possible. That means: an Intel CPU. And don't go for the fastest one, but one that doesn't produce much heat. And do not buy a super-duper-fast graphics card. Those produce a lot
I can imagine what'll happen then. Mankind has finally eradicated all diseases including the common flu. Then starkers starts melting and then with one *cough*, mankind is back to square one.
Mankind can turn grasslands into desert, but it can also turn deserts into grasslands. Well anyway, I wanted to say something positive for a change... it doesn't have to be true, it's as good a guess as any. Do you think Europe is a terrible place? It's pretty beautiful, even if most of it is completely unnatural... If Europe were natural, you'd only have forest, more forests and even more lots of forests everywhere. I like forests but to
I think that in 200 years from now, humans will have turned the Earth into a beautiful garden. (like much of Europe is nowadays). It'll probably be a tropical garden / paradise with white sandy beaches everywhere. The current coastal cities will act as the seeds of giant reefs/habitats for fish, creating a rich coastal flora and fauna.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html A quad-core i5 seems ok for most game. An octo-core AMD looks also interesting to me. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html the difference in performance between the best AMD an
I just thought the Mammoth story was interesting... I'll put it into an equation: Climate >> Humans > Mammoth Now input this knowledge into our nice black box function that describes the Mammoth and then we get the inevitable outcome: MammothBB(Climate, Humans, Ice Age) = Mammoths go extinct. It's just a bit sad that it's only a black box function, we don't know what happens exactly, we only know the outcome. Well
