Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t.
#209, #StandUpLocust, #MurphysFerry, Surah Yunus 10:71
User ID: 2418
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t.
7hr ago
If you don’t have the fundamentals you’re not going to understand the rest.
We could probably have a debate over the details of some of this. I don’t know what your background is, but I’m just an advanced layman who’s more than just a little bit literate on these topics. I agree that mathematically modeling this is hard. Very hard, in fact; but you can still do it well enough to extract valuable data from this. Just a note on such models ln how I see it.
If you look at global circulation models (GCM’s), they use physical data on the chemical composition of the ground, atmosphere, air and sea temperatures, wind velocities, rainfall, river flows, et al., the key variable in all these being greenhouse gases (‘GHG’s’ which we all know) because they absorb and re-radiate heat back to the Earth. The most important GHG is water vapor; but the problem is it’s inherently localized; making it the least controllable and hardest to obtain data on a global average; and it accounts for between 1/3rd or 2/3rd’s of the GHG effect. The next one is CO2, followed by methane and a few other industrial chemicals. If you compare things on a simple molecular basis, methane is more potent than CO2, but it doesn’t remain in the atmosphere for as long (about 5-6 years if I recall), compared to roughly a century for CO2. There’s much less methane in the atmosphere than CO2 but that could change if emissions from the methane clathrates in the sediment under the east Siberian shelf begin to accelerate.
This might be more to your point perhaps but yes it’s known that GCM’s have weaknesses. The first is that they assume vertical atmospheric thermal convection without wholly taking to account the horizontal component of circulation that arises from ocean currents and mixing. The other is that they divide the surface of the globe into icosahedrons but the minimum size of the grid area (with the exception of the poles) is way too large. You can’t simulate small scale behavior within just a few kilometers (which is nowhere near the 10’s of 100’s of meters necessary to predict local precipitation patterns or storm paths). That’s one of just a handful of problems which is why they also rely on comparative models, but the general trend of things has accelerated even faster than scientists forecast after factoring in the uncertainty of their models.
Have you actually examined the details of Nordhaus’ models?
Nordhaus assumed that the majority of the economy (which is to say > 87%) is immune to climate change because it takes place in "carefully controlled environments" (i.e., indoors). That’s an elementary mistake of taking the “climate” to be the “weather.” Climate change can destroy infrastructure, disrupt supply chains and completely upend the availability and distribution of energy and resources, regardless of whether the work occurs under a roof or not.
His math also uses a simple quadratic function to estimate the relationship between rising temperatures and output and his approach is mathematically incapable of adequately capturing tipping points or any non-linear breakdowns. Also the standard discount rates you have in Neoclassical models are bad for the existential timescales involved in climate change. And other economists have actually pointed out that his rates lead to an artificial undervaluation of future damages, and so you can’t accurately estimate economic growth over the long-term habitability of the planet.
The fact that Nordhaus ever won the Nobel Prize is a scientific travesty and sad state of affairs, and behind closed doors was aggressively challenged by others. If you want to understand climate change and why it’s so catastrophic, you have to model and understand the complex interactive feedbacks and it’s abundantly clear that he doesn’t.
Here’s why it’s a problem. (Some basic science)
If you have a steady state equilibrium condition, the first law of thermodynamics (which is conservation of energy) says that inflows of short-wave light into the Earth have to be balanced by energy outflows in the form of infrared heat. Otherwise what happens is the Earth heats up too much or cools down too much. Both of these outcomes are bad. Normally the energy imbalances are small and responses to changes are slow. But now due to human activity, the climate is changing faster than the response to it. One of the problems with comparing the climate at other points in the Earth’s history, is that it doesn’t take stock of cyclical phenomenon like the gains or losses in natural systems like glaciers, forests, deep water, etc. The problem with getting human beings to understand this is most of us have only two modes of psychological operation: complacency and panic.
A better person to listen to and read on this is Nate Hagens (he’s also very entertaining).
Tretiak
If you know you know, if you don’t you don’t.
18hr ago
My father and sibling were frequent users of it late in their life. They both encouraged me to try it a couple of times but I always refused. Heard it was made illegal in California, so no idea how distributors are still getting their product out here above the board. I still advise staying away from it.
Clearly he’s preparing for hyperinflation.
More options
Context Copy link