Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "PBS Terra" channel.

@jasonreed7522 No scientist would call simulations "predicting the future". No scientist would use the term "math and physics/science" as mathematics and physics are sciences. Stop pretending that you are a scientist.
13
So you are a clairvoyant ?
9
@terenceiutzi4003 LOL> You are confounding tectonic dynamics with climate changes. Parallelly you are jumping between processes which take place in tens of millions of years with processes which occur in tens of thousands of years, or, if we take the grand solar minima, within mere hundreds of years. These are 3-5 orders of magnitude of difference, in the unlikely case you know what that is. In reality sea levels sink when average temperature decreases. Just as it happened during the recent Ice Ages. Conversely if the average temperature rises, so do sea levels. As ice melts when it gets warmer, you know.
9
@terenceiutzi4003 Oh really ? Now please kindly explain how a decrease of temperatures during the Mm made the sea levels higher ?
6
@ScottBarker If you think that trends are perpetual then this is utterly unscientific.
5
@thomascromwell6840 First of all aeronautic simulations are part of experimental physics. Models about which we debate here are not. Such models indeed have some predictive power, unless the system is highly dynamic and complex. As we have just experienced, even short-term predictions about hurricane Milton were off mark. Now the opening posting of this thread implies climate predictions over two or more generations, not just 24 hours as in case of Milton. The validity of such decade long predictions is very low, to put it politely. See, people generally cannot handle the fact that we do not know the future. And some scientists love to scare people to then offer salvation. It is a quasi-religious process. No wonder the once high prestige of science is waning given such misuse.
5
If you chose you can see reality as a "a constant ecological catastrophe". But that smells of hysteria.
4
@terenceiutzi4003 Do the thinking! Lower temperatures => lower sea levels. You stated the exact opposite : "During the Maunder minimum, the sea level was 25 feet higher than today".
4
@jaymacpherson8167 One thing is analysis, which by its very nature is ex post. And clearly even an explanatory model is a hypothesis. To use such models to predict the future is non-scientific. Scientist who declare the results of their extrapolations to be predictions, who express themselves in an apodictic way, actually harm science.
4
@1xDRCx What is really hilarious is scientists loosing their professional caution and their intellectual honesty by trying to play prophets. I will listen to a scientists who states that based on his imperfect model and under the assumption that all variables outside the model will remain constant this or that will happen. I will not listen to a scientist who categorically states that something will happen. Unfortunately the general level of understanding what science can deliver and what it cannot is weak. People place quasi religious faith in science as if it were some omnipotent tool.
3
@ianmclean5541 Everyone can see that I am full of arguments. And hardly anyone delivered counterarguments. You did not even try. Instead you came up with a childish ad personam followed by a infantile emoji. However in the unlikely case you have argument, feel free to forward them. I you haven't, feel free to remain silent.
3
@JohnSmith-cn4cw Or they could handle it like the Netherlands, of which 1/3rd lies under sea level, yet shows no signs of turning worthless. Or they could move to California, which, according to scientists, will be hit by a devastating earthquake nearly certainly in the near future. Or they could move to say, Ireland, which will turn into frozen tundra when the Gulf Stream collapses, as many scientists predict. See, there is a vast supply for "scientific" predictions and widespread readiness to wallow in various fears.
3
Oh really ? So you have some kind of analysis which proves that ?
3
@tessellaa O please illuminate me where I can look up an analysis which proves your claim about the worst scenarios materializing. Even though I am already dead from the ozone hole. And acid rain. And countless other catastrophes which alarmists have predicted in the last decades.
3
@jaymacpherson8167 I am talking from the position of epistemology. Again - scientists who think that they are in the prediction business harm science. Even more so, if they anticipate specific results while modelling, as you admit to do. See, you probably want to be heard. Yet the louder you shout, the less credible you are. I do hope you direct your energy to find a balance, instead of accusing any critical person of ignorance.
2
@OldJackWolf The weak points of your line of arguments are two assumptions: a) that we can explain what has happened - whereas the warming process had slowed down for a period of 10 years or so and no one knows why, and b) that by extrapolating trends one can predict the future.
2
@jaymacpherson8167 Your rebuttal is only fair if one considers that slight sarcasm is considered aggression nowadays. Now let me underline that I was not speaking against formulating expectations in general nor against taking reasonable precautions. Yet I do not buy insurance for systemic risks (like hurricanes) because insurance companies tend to go bankrupt when a major one occurs. And other insurances I buy to enjoy peace of mind and not because I actually expect harm. Re modelling: In case of global warming there are so many variables outside of our control and so many feedback loops (omitted in many models, be it for simplicity, be it for lack of knowledge), that I am not overly concerned. On top the fact that most modelers only highlight potential negative results of climate change is proof enough that they tend to lean to the negative. And they find a broad audience: After all wallowing in angst seems to make many people very happy. Even though their widespread obesity is probably a much higher risk than global warming. Finally I have been exposed to so many false scientific predictions in my life that I am past taking yet another alarm all too seriously.
2
@OldJackWolf Let me suggest you sharpen your reading skills. Then you will discover two things: a) that I did not claim that there was a cooling and b) that I did not negate the role of greenhouse gases.
2
@SBK_ALL_DAY He is clearly not. His simplistic way of expressing himself give him away as an impostor.
2
@branchingoutnurseries4403 And that is only true if the Gulf Stream will not collapse, if volcanic activity will not change, if there will be no further solar minimum and if countless other important factors will not kick in.
2
@thomascromwell6840 First of all an aeronautic simulation is not a model. But part of experimental physics. Now short-term models have some predictive power, unless the system is complex and/or dynamic. That is why the 12- 24 h predictions about hurricane Milton were off mark. Weather forecasts for more than three days are not worth much, with the possible exception of a stable (=not dynamic) situation of say a pronounced high. But even then they give you probabilities and not predictions proper. Now the validity of predictions reaching over two or more generations about very complex systems, as in the opening posting of this thread, is low. On top they tend to be heavily skewed towards personal preferences. Just as Jay said - he is already expecting some outcome when modelling. More generally many people just cannot cope with the fact that we cannot predict the future. For them science is the ersatz religion. Many long to be prophets of doom within this ersatz religion. First scaring people to then offer them salvation. No wonder the prestige of science is declining. No wonder that when one outlines the limits of science some people react quite emotionally.
2
@OldJackWolf You are one of these people who think that lower inflation means lower prices, correct ? Apparently you do not understand that slower growth is not decrease. And you have missed the riddle of the marked slowdown of warming which we had encountered.
2
@ryox82 Comparing ? No. The argument is that when even weather forecast for the next few days fail then predictions about a much more complex system, the climate, over time periods of decades are even less trustworthy. Now if you do not understand what system, complexity, time horizon mean, then you did not get my valid and lucid argument. BTW - if you just cannot do without ad personams, please kindly refrain from debating with me, ok ?
2
@ontheruntonowhere You are lost in the US culture war. To an extent which impedes you from even understanding what we are debating here. Let me help you: Jay somehow apodictically predicts a massive sea level rise in some decades. I claim that science cannot make such long-range predictions, as climate is too complex. And as climate models cannot factor in all important variables. From here the debate could move to the issue if we should act on simulations we have, even if they are not very valid, yet the best we have so far. Or if we should just live with the fact that the far away future is uncertain. The stakes are high on both sides of the bet. If you think that you can contribute to this debate please do so. If however you cannot approach other opinions without bitterness, then kindly refrain from debating.
2
@robertmartinjr.4537 I am very well aware about the so called Ice Ages and the corresponding changes of sea level. Are you aware that some scientists predict another glacial period approaching, which would more than offset the effects of the current warming ? Are you aware that some scientist predict that the Gulf Stream will collapse soon , which would make Western Europe dramatically cooler ? So our descendants might encounter a higher or lower or rather unchanged sea level. To categorically predict what will be the case is highly speculative, to put it mildly. More generally I remember very well how often the general public was mislead by experts of various kinds. I think we should reflect more about the limits of our knowledge. And how to act given these limits.
2
@k_roc200-32 I will. Just as people who buy property in earthquake prone California should. And people in Ireland which will be enveloped Labrador-like harshness if the Gulf Stream collapses. BTW - you look like Michelle Obama. Could it be that you are.. ? ;)
2
I have already died from the Ozone hole. Actually before that I was dead from acid rain. And before that we ran out of ressources, just as the Club of Rome has predicted. Fortunately I can move to the moon. Just as leading scientists have predicted in the 1970s.
2
@jasonreed7522 Now that is nonsense. You are manifestly not a scientist. No scientist would call simulations "predicting the future". No scientist would use the term "physics/science" as it makes no sense. Physics is one of the sciences. Stop pretending.
1
@jaymacpherson8167 Your rebuttal is only fair if one considers that slight sarcasm is considered aggression nowadays. Now let me underline that I am not speaking against formulating expectations in general nor against taking reasonable precautions. Yet I do not buy insurance for systemic risks (like hurricanes) because insurance companies tend to go bankrupt when a major one occurs. And other insurances I buy to enjoy peace of mind and not because I actually expect harm. Re modelling: In case of global warming there are so many variables outside of our control and so many feedback loops (omitted in many models, be it for simplicity, be it for lack of knowledge), that I am not overly concerned. On top the fact that most modelers only highlight potential negative results of climate change is proof enough that they tend to lean towards the negative. And they find a broad audience: After all wallowing in angst seems to make many people very happy. Even though their widespread personal obesity is probably a much bigger risk than climate change. Finally I have been exposed to so many false scientific predictions in my life that I am past taking yet another alarm all too seriously.
1
@Guvament_bs Correct. teren confounds how much of a floating ice cube is submerged with the share of ice globally which is floating on oceans. While the former is around 90% the latter is approx. 5%.
1
@conormcmenemie5126 And today oceanologist are scaring us that the Gulf Stream will collapse in few years, which would make Western Europe as cold as Labrador. See, there are scientific models to cater to every fear, be it of too warm, be it of too cold. Good that I have been already fried by the sun shining through the ozone hole, just as other scientists-turned-prophets have predicted !
1
@someguy-g4r What cooling?
1
@robertmartinjr.4537 I am well aware about the so called Ice Ages. The place I lived some years ago (moderate climate today) bears marks of having been at the end of a glacier. What our descendants will see, is highly speculative. As scientists also predict a cooling of the Gulf Stream and fluctuations in solar activity. Science just isn't capable of predicting what will happen in some decades. Just look at what some scientists have predicted about our times some decades ago - most of it turned out to be wrong. Of course there were so many contradicting predictions that some turned out to have been correct, just by chance. I can cope with the uncertainty of future and with the fact that our predictive power is limited. Yet scientists who play prophets, harm the authority of science.
1
@johncoviello8570 I do not question the cause-effect part of the modelling. Yet I do question, again, a) the completeness of variables in the models and b) the representation of feedbacks in it. In other words the usual ceteris paribus clause is not realistic.And the idea to extrapolate whatever happens now does not yield probable results, as complex systems are not linear. I can well remember the gloomy extrapolation-based scenarios the Club of Rome has published in the early 1970s and how unrealistic they turned out to be.
1
@wen-chiaooboyle2320 Do not feel inferior just because I use precise terms. However you failed to address my arguments why I hold predictions about complex systems behaving over decades to be of little value as having low probability. The fact that their limited value is known by their authors does not enhance their value.
1
@HealingLifeKwikly "Even a grand solar minimum only causes a few ..": If that is an argument to substantiate that no other factors than CO 2 in the atmosphere count for much then I do wonder then how the so called Ice Ages came around. If that refers to one of the countless variables I have referred to then obviously it does not weaken my argument. On top there is no way to determine what the impact of a one factor change was. As in the same time other factors also have changed. Nature just does not deliver events in isolation. Finally one of the characteristics of highly complex system is that one seemingly minor variable changing can have dramatically overall effects.
1
@HealingLifeKwikly "With all due respect, you have "which is more complex" backwards. ..": Of course simulation of how one or very few variables will affect a system is child's play. Just as the various predictions of the Club of Rome were child's play. And for sure some ex-post modelling will deliver results similar to what actually had happened. Just as tossing a coin will deliver the result of "head" with a respectable ratio in the range of 50%. Yet the issue is not the easiness of simulations nor their occasional correctness. The issue is long-range predictive power for an extremely complex, multi-variable system of which not all variables are even known. And this predictive power is not higher than predicting the results of coin tossing.
1
@hollandoats4738 They can't. Who thinks they can is an idiot.
1
@JFS1215 I disagree as to the validity of long term predictions about complex systems. And I have very good reasons to do so: Many recent scientist' predictions were wrong (especially such predictions which represented a wide consensus, i.e. there was considerable social pressure behind it). Examples": 1) the Club of Rome's predictions (approx. from the early 70s) that we shall run out of natural resources 30 years from then on. 2) Scientists' predictions from the 1970s that we will land people on the Mars by 2000. 3) German scientists' alarm that acid rain will kill forests in Germany, even if sulfur emissions would be stopped immediately. None of these materialized. I suggest you acquaint yourself with these and other examples to learn about the limits of modern science. Looking at these failures from a general epistemological perspective we can say this: We are good at analytic thinking, at simple cause-effect detection and linear extrapolations. However we are beginners when it comes to understanding complex systems. Actually we are only beginning to understand our digestion system. Isn't it amusing that we do not really know how our own bellies work, yet some of us venture to predicting how the climate will be in some decades ? Which leads me to the psychological issue: Many people just cannot cope with the fact that the future is uncertain, despite scientific progress. In their desperation they treat scientists as ersatz-prophets. And sure enough some scientists cater to this expectation and deliver quasi-religious prophesies of doom. Such unscientific behavior harms science. However most people behave rationally. They discount the never ending stream of doom predictions, live a angst-free normal life and contain real risks, like obesity. Among them many member of the elites, who readily buy waterfront properties, despite publicly fueling the current climate hysteria.
1
@plusixty8992 Pondering about the predictive power of particular sciences we cannot treat "science" as one uniform category. What works in some particular sciences does not work in others. Take physics: We can explain and predict how an apple will behave once we drop it. And yes, we now can observe that light is being gravitationally bent, just as Einstein's hypothesis has predicted. Yet we cannot predict how stocks will behave tomorrow - even though economics / econometrics are sciences. Nor can we predict the outcome of elections, even though sociology, political science and statistics are sciences. Nor can we predict the paths of nascent hurricanes - despite all scientific meteorology. Neither can we predict how some ongoing war will end - even though there is a science of history. Scientists who venture to predict outcomes of stocks, elections etc. mostly fail. And harm the authority of well-applied science. Correspondingly there are differences in the objects of the particular sciences: Think about the behavior of a dropped apple versus the complexity of the stock market, of people voting, of hurricanes proceeding, of wars raging. And then you will get closer to understand how the nature of things predicted delineates the limits of science.
1
@havable I am quite familiar with econometrics. Even Bayesian statistics which at the times I was studying economics was en vogue. But that is a side issue. However you fail to address my arguments. Instead you use your energy to imagine my person. You must be American, as you are avoiding debate.
1