http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=434
Acute water shortage conditions combined with thermal stress should adversely affect wheat and, more severely, rice productivity in India even under the positive effects of elevated CO2 in the future.
Indian Agriculture Ministry 2013
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/wheat-output-in-india-set-to-drop-for-first-time-in-eight-years.html
Seven years of record crops have expanded state wheat stockpiles to about 31 million tons as of Feb. 1, spurring the government to increase exports to empty warehouses for the new harvest starting March
IPCC Chief, 2013
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend…
Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said ... global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming…
He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.
I’m not a climate change denier, but it consistently surprises me how many people who would otherwise be reasonably wary of technological utopianism, are willing to put their faith in our ability to accurately predict the future. Flawed and failed predictions and hysterical warnings are common place, any time a cyclone or forest fire happens it gets blamed on climate change by people who really ought to know better.
We all know the flaws and agendas of the climate change denier camp, perhaps it’s time to start looking at the interests, ideologies and agendas on the other side.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:The models are flawed and inadequate
says who? scientists?
Ironicwarcriminal posted:The models are flawed and inadequate
yeah because of feminism they need to use "normal sized women" now, it sucks
gyrofry posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:The models are flawed and inadequate
says who? scientists?
he soundin like a real scientist fuck to me
gyrofry posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
The models are flawed and inadequate
says who? scientists?
Any sort of person who looks at hurricane Sandy and their first thought is reflexively to do with climate change, after that comes all the piety and alms and arguments about how we’re being punished for our sins by the climate God.
Despite the fact that hurricanes, some much stronger than Sandy, have hit the place for millennia.
Edited by wasted ()
we expected meat and corn byproduct costs to rise and prophets of doom like yours truly believed it to be a sign of things to come.
perhaps it was. nothing really happened. i think it's just more proof that the scientific-capitalism system is actually solvent in the long run. wrap it up IWC
Ironicwarcriminal posted:gyrofry posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
The models are flawed and inadequate
says who? scientists?Any sort of person who looks at hurricane Sandy and their first thought is reflexively to do with climate change, after that comes all the piety and alms and arguments about how we’re being punished for our sins by the climate God.
Despite the fact that hurricanes, some much stronger than Sandy, have hit the place for millennia.
Imo the real reason many people's first thought after a hurricane or heat is is global warming is because it's the easiest way to make conversation. Hey, how about that heat! Haha that global warming's a real killer. How's your wife treating ya? It probably is some sort of thought reflex
It's also a really easy way to pump out an article at deadline, or a newscast. You can always interview some climate activists and deniers with real impressive titles eager for any chance to talk the the press.
e.g. raising global temperatures per greenhouse effect melt icebergs affecting reducing ocean salinity which raise the freezing point of water and also raise specific heat (less heat req'd to raise temp). in part that may mean less evaporation as water would be more tightly bound to oceans though increasing surface temperature may increase evaporation as well.
regardless, it may also allow for warmer oceans during the winter which lead to 'lake effect' like snow by temperate coast regions. this is all really bs though because god knows what im missing from describing this very connected phenomina in such an atomic way.
either way, it' technically hard to create rigorous predictive models for weather and climate. as much empirical data exists, as our ability to sufficiently model and time step forward such a model are tremendously limited. in a very map-terrirtory paradox way, any sufficiently accurate model would require the complexity of the entire system itself which itself can be mapped to only known orders and relations.
what is known that there certainly is some anthropocentric effect and it would naively appear to be wise to limit it, as far as climate change is concerned. absorbed CO2 in arctic ices seem to indicate this and certain changing the atmosphere is something we tend to do well, especially aussies and ozone.
guidoanselmi posted:either way, it' technically hard to create rigorous predictive models for weather and climate. as much empirical data exists, as our ability to sufficiently model and time step forward such a model are tremendously limited. in a very map-terrirtory paradox way, any sufficiently accurate model would require the complexity of the entire system itself which itself can be mapped to only known orders and relations.
is this really true?
jools posted:guidoanselmi posted:either way, it' technically hard to create rigorous predictive models for weather and climate. as much empirical data exists, as our ability to sufficiently model and time step forward such a model are tremendously limited. in a very map-terrirtory paradox way, any sufficiently accurate model would require the complexity of the entire system itself which itself can be mapped to only known orders and relations.
is this really true?
Squalid pretty much responded to this the way I would have. Two small things to add:
1. You can look back in time in your data set and develop empirically driven modifications. For example, at t-5 your model failed to predict t-4 within whatever margin. Going through your algorithm, you find nothing at fault in your predictive theory except that it lacked something unknown. The nature of this unknown is poorly understood, but with certain weighting to meet the data set, the model resumes satisfactory prediction.
In loose terms, it's a multidimensional program of dead reckoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_reckoning) except that you're applying it to a genuinely open-ended system. Whereas DE may work for systems that are closed and non-ergotic (with the given energies there's a finite space in all available space accessible), the climate is open (either through our lapses in understanding of various interactions would mean that certain dimensions weren't taken into account, leaving our space open in other unaccounted dimensions, or alternatively because it's simply open) and fails the assumptions for predicting non-ergotic systems. for fun there's some wiki articles off of ergotic theory and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_dynamical_system
2. Once upon a time I was doing some modeling of network protocol behavior in hopes that we could test implementations of our software virtually rather than in reality at real speed. In doing so, I ultimately stumbled upon writing the exact same algorithms and I actually produced a larger (and likely more complex) system than reality itself. Whereas the real thing worked, the model crashed when I added too many network nodes.
