The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That doesn't answer Xist's question, and it makes the author appear insecure in saying anything at all.

Which author, Wikipedia? Your Humble Servant?

In continuous time dynamical systems, chaos is the phenomenon of the [blah,blah]. This picture of dynamical chaos works not only for deterministic models but also for models with external noise, which is an important generalization from the physical point of view because [reasons].

Let's try Edward Lorenz:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Which author, Wikipedia? Your Humble Servant?

Let's try Edward Lorenz:

I didn't read the Wiki considering the attempt to humiliate the layperson.

The Lorenz quote is a witty way to say that complex systems are beyond our ability to accurately predict future outcomes.

Perhaps my objection to chaos is not allowing me to further ponder what is being said. My belief is there is no chaos; only sufficiently complex systems to befuddle mere humans. There is infinitely more we don't know than we do, so it's only natural to conclude that things happen because, random.

The impact of global climate change, our ability to shape its trajectory, and predictions of how it will affect other organisms, environments, human well-being, and economics (to name just a few of millions of considerations) is well outside our deductive ability. If every person devoted themselves to the study of various aspects of global climate change, we will still be missing the majority of the picture.

Some inductive predictions can be made based on past history which suggests the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, with various impacts to species.

This isn't to say that study of global climate change is worthless, only that despite our best efforts, we will still be wrong about the future.

Bulldozing rainforests concerns me more due to the direct loss of the rich biodiversity than the immeasurable impact on the outdoor thermostat.

Finally, it's human nature to resist change. In the past I have said things like home networks are stupid and will never be a thing, or internet on a phone is stupid and just a fad. People on this forum are convinced self-driving cars are the worst idea and will never catch on. My point is that it's natural for us to see a change in the climate and assume the worst. Is there equal funding for research on probable benefits of global warming? Doomsday profits get much more attention than those espousing a slow and steady general upward trend in well-being. What headline would quote my academic paper saying things next year will be mostly what they are this year, but ever-so-slightly better for most people?

[freebeard]

I didn't read the Wiki considering the attempt to humiliate the layperson.

AKA raise the level of discourse?

Perhaps my objection to chaos is not allowing me to further ponder what is being said. My belief is there is no chaos; only sufficiently complex systems to befuddle mere humans. There is infinitely more we don't know than we do, so it's only natural to conclude that things happen because, random.

Chaos Theory is the tool to understand the zone between unchanging crystalline order and random entropy. That's where all the action is.

Chaos theory was born from observing weather patterns, but it has become applicable to a variety of other situations. Some areas benefiting from chaos theory today are geology, mathematics, microbiology, biology, computer science, economics,[64][65][66] engineering,[67] finance,[68][69] algorithmic trading,[70][71][72] meteorology, philosophy, anthropology,[11][12] physics,[73][74][75] politics, population dynamics,[76] psychology,[10] and robotics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Applications
Bolded for being on-topic.

[Xist]

Funny. The first thing that came to mind when I saw "chaos theory" was dating.

[freebeard]

So which is your favorite Spice Girl?

[jakobnev]

Chaos theory makes me think of Jurassic Park.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The Lorenz quote is a witty way to say that complex systems are beyond our ability to accurately predict future outcomes.

Perhaps my objection to chaos is not allowing me to further ponder what is being said. My belief is there is no chaos; only sufficiently complex systems to befuddle mere humans. There is infinitely more we don't know than we do, so it's only natural to conclude that things happen because, random.

The impact of global climate change, our ability to shape its trajectory, and predictions of how it will affect other organisms, environments, human well-being, and economics (to name just a few of millions of considerations) is well outside our deductive ability. If every person devoted themselves to the study of various aspects of global climate change, we will still be missing the majority of the picture.

+1 on the first part, but I disagree at the end. Mankind is only where we are today because of learning from our world. The reason we don't know everything is that we're still learning, and the reason we didn't know everything thousands of years ago is that it takes time.

And yes, the fact that we're still learning means that we're wrong about a lot. In fact, the more we learn, the more things we can see we're wrong about. But I don't see that as a good enough reason to give up and stop trying.

[freebeard]

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

The quote reduces a complex field to tautological triteness. But it doesn't say that.

I'll go out on a limb here; there's no conflict between free will and determinism, as the former requires the latter in order to function. One can consider Universe as a giant clockwork or pinball game, except for intent. It operates on a quantum level and cascades up to the macro level.

Ontopic: What causes the butterfly to flap it's wings which causes the storm halfway around the world later?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

+1 on the first part, but I disagree at the end. Mankind is only where we are today because of learning from our world. The reason we don't know everything is that we're still learning, and the reason we didn't know everything thousands of years ago is that it takes time.

And yes, the fact that we're still learning means that we're wrong about a lot. In fact, the more we learn, the more things we can see we're wrong about. But I don't see that as a good enough reason to give up and stop trying.

I did state in the same post you are quoting that I'm not objecting to the study of the consequences of global warming or climate change.

"This isn't to say that study of global climate change is worthless, only that despite our best efforts, we will still be wrong about the future."

My overall point is that it is human nature to assume any change is bad, and we're conditioned to believe that many things are trending in a negative direction given the overwhelming negative focus from the media.

*Below not directed at Charlie.

I question whether global warming is a net (all things considered) bad, and if it makes sense for humanity to give it the amount of attention it currently consumes. My skepticism of global worrying is born out of my dislike for waste and inefficiency, not out of love for burning fossil fuels or drilling in ANWAR. It's entirely possible (probable) to devote an inordinate amount of time, effort, and resources, and unduly strain relationships with others under the pretense of preserving the environment as it stands today.

There are many more immediate concerns affecting well-being that deserve greater attention. Most of us will die of cardiovascular disease or cancer, which should be of great concern to us. Much of crime and poverty is related to substance abuse or mental disorder, and this directly impacts both the dependent/disordered victims, and the victims of their crime.

I can go on and on with things more deserving of attention, again, not to say that climate change is deserving of no attention, just that it is outsized. I'm also calling for rational media coverage of the topic of climate change. A news outlet shouldn't fear offending their left-leaning base by reporting on, say, the benefits of global warming.

The news should be concerned with the facts, and as Ben Shapiro often says "the facts don't care about your feelings".

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'll go out on a limb here; there's no conflict between free will and determinism, as the former requires the latter in order to function. One can consider Universe as a giant clockwork or pinball game, except for intent. It operates on a quantum level and cascades up to the macro level.

Ontopic: What causes the butterfly to flap it's wings which causes the storm halfway around the world later?

Now I've successfully steered the conversation towards something interesting . I see free will and determinism as a paradox; both valid, but in opposition to each other. In my view, we are free to choose what we were always destined to choose. While I acknowledge that destiny implies that individual actions were inevitable, I don't see it as grounds for dismissing accountability. Holding people accountable for actions has an enormous influence over the behavior they are destined to choose.

That which causes the butterfly to flap its wings is the very thing that causes everything; the first cause. Now the question is, what came before the first cause?

[freebeard]

Now I've successfully steered the conversation towards something interesting .

What do you mean, I've had to drag you kicking and screaming....

THE GEOMETRY OF MEANING
A Selected Excerpt


REFLEXIVE UNIVERSE
A Selected Excerpt

Both by Arthur M. Young, co-inventor of the Bell helicopter and a member of the mysterious Council of Nine.