Science is settled, chud.
>climate 'science'>models are less than 50% accurate
>>16539004We have good models it's just that we don't have the computational power to resolve it well enough at local levels>t. works at supercomputing center that does climate research
>>16538983>>16539004>normalfags discover chaotic systemscongratulations
>>16539113Can't justify trillion dollars in (((green))) technology spending? Call it a chaotic system
>>16539107>We have good modelHow do you know this is true?
>>16539122A chaotic system has a precise definition and not just for envsci garbage. The canonical example is a double pendulum.
>>16538983So your argument is that climate change isn't real because the models are too conservative and the climate is actually changing faster than we predicted? I bet if you sit down and think about that for a minute you can find a flaw in the reasoning.
>>16539107>can predict weather down to hours and inches>cannot predict climateAll that computing but fail to add up.
>>16539211No, i think you guys are retarded to think its caused primarily by human activity.
>>16539344Nobody says it's primarily human activity. The argument is that human activity is a significant enough factor to affect it and cause irreversible changes. This has already happened even before industrialization. The abos in Australia literally turned it into a desert by setting fires to forests when hunting shit.
>>16539358Since it's a chaotic system, ANY activity is significant enough to cause irreversible changes, and it's not possible to quantify the significance of human activity either, since, well, you guessed it, it's a chaotic system.
>>16539113>chaotic systemsIs that what kids are calling "I don't a clue wtf is going on but imma pretend I do" nowadays
>>16539389No. It’s what kids these days call differential equations where small perturbations of initial conditions cause positive feedback loops and exponential deviation as the parameter keeps increasing.
Its moving so fast that all the predictions of shit being underwater havent come true.
>>16539396>coping wordcelListen buddy, either your models make accurate predictions, or they don't.You have some idea wtf is going on in the former case, or you have absolutely no idea wtf is actually going on in the latter.Too many varibles? Everything is feeding off everything? Just say you can't do it, it's not hard. No need to bullshit everybody.
>Climate is erratic and random>This is somehow a good enough argument for people to believe it's getting worseIncredible
>>16539405Let me say this in a language a Fox News boomer would understand >me have equation in model>equation need me measure thing to work>me measure thing>me measurement tool chinesium garbage, big error>equation no like error, error grow big over time>me can’t predict thing at long time because error too bigwas that better?
>>16539408>me can’t predict thingCould have stopped right there.
>>16539409Me can predict thing at short time but no long time. Me can predict weather tomorrow but not in 10 years.
>>16539411Man can't predict climate but can put forth policy based on it. Got it!
>>16539411So why did you tell everyone their houses is going to be underwater in 10 years.
>>16539412Man at top stupid and don’t understand math. Man at top understand money. Many man at smart people place understand math but also understand money. Smart man convince big man smart man thing important. Big man pay smart man more money and get more money for big man too.
>let China, India and various other thirdies fart into the air and do whatever they want with the oceans>omg why our models don't work anymorewell maybe your models should have been more racists you fucking faggots
>>16539411>but no long timeuh huh
>>16539424Yes, that’s why they failed. It’s literally snake oil salesmen fearmongering to get more funding. That doesn’t invalidate the fact that weather is a chaotic system.
>>16539425>That doesn’t invalidate the fact that weather is a chaotic systemIt's a meaningless coping term. EVERYTHING is a chaotic system, until somebody figured out a model to predict it, then it ceases to be a chaotic system.
>>16539389Just a reminder to anyone scrolling that this is the average /sci/ user outside the generals
>>16539426>until somebody figured out a model to predict it, then it ceases to be a chaotic system.
>>16539426>until somebody figured out a model to predict it, then it ceases to be a chaotic systemA chaotic system being predictable doesn't mean it's not chaotic. Indeed, predictability is definitionally required for chaos.Chaos is sensitivity to initial conditions, not unpredictability. If you know the initial conditions exactly, any chaotic system should be completely predictable. Indeed, if you can't predict a system you know the exact initial conditions for, it's not chaotic.
>bros can't predict hurricanes more than 5 days in advance>turn out to be wrong>farming doomsday predictions decade after decadePeak science at play here. Don't hate the player hate the game.
>>16539358>Nobody says it's primarily human activity.typical globohomo knee-jerk reaction. 'nobody says' applied to a message drummed incessantly by the entire MSM, right?>The argument is that human activity is a significant enough factor to affect it and cause irreversible changes.this was never the argument.
>>16539453>this was never the argument.typical globohomo knee-jerk reaction.
>>16539424We still have some time before the 2030 and 2070 ice age predictions happen :)
>>16539464Not my problem, /x/ tells me I'll be boarding alien ships with sexy nordic babes before 2030.
>>16539426>EVERYTHING is a chaotic system, until somebody figured out a model to predict it, then it ceases to be a chaotic system.You have fundamentally misunderstood what a chaotic system is. It's not a matter of making a better model and suddenly long term predictions become possible. It is fundamentally chaotic. What we CAN do with chaotic systems is get better at predicting long term trends. Small details will always be impossible at a fundamental level.For decades our climate models predicted an increase in average global temperature. For decades we have observed an increase in average global temperature.The discrepancy is *how much* the global temperature has risen. Observed temperatures have generally risen significantly faster than our models predicted decades in advance.Getting a better prediction of how fast temperatures will rise is something we CAN do by collecting more data at higher precision for the initial model state, developing models that factor in more parameters and account for more interactions, and running the models at higher resolution. These kinds of improvements won't make the results say that global temps will start falling or stay the same, but they WILL give us a more accurate general trend.NOTHING will ever make it possible to predict how many inches of rain you get in a specific storm in a specific location 10 years in advance. But using that example, we CAN say with high confidence that a given, general location will -on average- receive more or less rain over the next 10 years than it did during the previous 10 years.
>>16539433>If you know the initial conditions exactly, any chaotic system should be completely predictable. Indeed, if you can't predict a system you know the exact initial conditions for, it's not chaotic.>>16539426>>16539475This explains it perfectly. A chaotic system is by definition deterministic. If you replicate *exactly* the same initial conditions, a chaotic system will behave *exactly* the same way when you try to duplicate it's behavior. Unfortunately in the real world its physically impossible to measure *all* initial conditions *perfectly*. If you measure the temperature of a specific spot and it's even 0.000000000001% off, eventually your simulation will wildly deviate from the actual real world behavior. That's why we try to predict weather only on short time scales, and at longer time scales we only try to predict trends.Non-deterministic systems *do* exist. If you have an unstable isotope, you can say -statistically- when it is likely to decay. You can make a computer model that predicts how a certain amount decays over time. If you measure which atoms decayed at which time however, your model will NEVER match up with the real thing, even if you *did* have an absolute *perfect* measurement of the state of the entire system. If you physically replicated the same thing again, somehow matching *perfectly* everything to the first run, it will still behave slightly differently. This is because radioactive decay is fundamentally non-deterministic. But on average, the behavior of the system as a whole can still be predicted with very high accuracy.
>>16539358>setting thing on fireThe native american did the same thing and half of US is covered in old growth tree.
>>16538983Look if human's were smart enough to make good models they'd just solve the problem instead
>>16539565That's because fire is good for forests and that anon is a dipshit spouting a racist conspiracy theory.
>>16538983Climate moves at the speed of science and politics.
>>16539718last week I had global cooling and it snowed and we had strong, cold winds, this week it's global warming again
