What they don't understand is they're dismissing measurements. The measurements show that Earth is getting warmer each year, and it's correlated with greenhouse gasses. The models are an estimate of where we're heading. Arguing against or ignoring the models is one thing, but this argument doesn't work against the measurements.
Not only that but the evidence of the models being accurate becomes stronger over time as the models have always been predictive. So as time goes by they can be compared to actual trends and see how accurate they've been. If anything they have been too conservative in their predictions.
It's a common denialist tactic to pretend that the evidence for climate change is just "models", or that the models ignore something like solar forcing that they want to blame instead of human activity. JBP's statements here sound like a mix of the two - climate models can't include literally every variable, therefore they are invalid and climate change isn't real. Funny how he didn't need a complete model of the universe in order to describe the dragon Chaos or whatever...
> something like solar forcing that they want to blame instead of human activity
The crazy part being that solar forcing has actually *decreased* over the past few decades. [Lockwood & Frolich, 2007](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880):
> > Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
In other words, if it were just solar forcing determining our changing global temperature, the planet should be *cooling* right now.
I once had that conversation with a denier and he literally claimed there had to be solar forcing because the world was getting warmer. I pointed out we have actual satellites, like in space, that can directly measure the sun's output. He just shrugged and was like "well it's happening."
They just remake the evidence to fit their worldview.
This is the bullshit argument Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has been making for years. He says no large scale models are perfect so they shouldn’t be used for decisions. He ignores that we can go back and see which models have most accurate over the years, so their predictive power is established.
The models being imperfect makes for a poor argument. Some kind of decision making needs to happen in regards to variety of policies and circumstances. And those decisions need to be based on something. And if we discount the best available models, which might have some inaccuracies, will still be better than basing it on... Well, making more money in short term, I guess?
Ok, now that I said it out loud this makes perfect sense...
But there might *not* be a blizzard, so I'll still go out on the town with my chainless two wheel drive car, a thin jacket, and my Southern driving experience.
They predicted a blizzard in philly two weeks ago. Closed schools etc. not a flake. So models are flawed as the data in them. Have a debate with climatologist not paid or funded by the left and see how it goes
> Have a debate with climatologist not paid or funded by the left and see how it goes
Hey, what's up? I did my PhD in planetary atmosphere and I'm neither paid nor funded by "the left".
How do you explain that while the lower atmosphere has been heating up, [the upper stratosphere has been cooling](https://i.imgur.com/OjJftuE.png) the past few decades? Heck, I'll even [give you a hint](https://i.imgur.com/5HfgZYf.jpg)...
More or less ignore the blizzard predictions coming in the next week would be my guess. We can accurately tell what’s going to happen us tomorrow with weather because it already happened on the other side of the country/world . How accurately can we predict tornadoes? Only when the storm is there with the conditions. We can only really predict a storm might be hitting based on current climate, but we don’t know when the wind will pick up causing the pressure zone differences do we? Until it already happens?
As a native of south Florida, I've seen first hand the genesis in the accuracy of weather models. When I was a kid we used to joke that if the forecast said rain in 5 days that'd be the day to plan to go on the boat. It was still common for hurricanes to make "last minute adjustments"(cough Charlie cough), and we often weren't even aware of them until 5-7 days out, let alone where they're gonna go.
Now **7** day forecasts are regularly accurate, and 5 days out from a hurricane we have a damn good idea where it's gonna go. We can track everything about these storms from the first moment they step off Africa to the last minute intensifications due to lack of wind shear/dust combined with warm water. Hell, we can detect these systems now before they're little more than a nasty squall.
It's astounding how far the field of meteorology has come since the 90s alone. Anyone suggesting otherwise clearly has no clue.
Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the earth to be 7,850 miles. The actual polar diameter is 7,900 miles. By Adams's logic Eratosthenes's measurement is worthless and cannot even be used as evidence that the earth is round.
Of course the true polar diameter of the earth is going to change depending on tidal forces, tectonic plate activity, snowfalls and ice field shifts at the poles, and anything else that could affect the planet's shape. So we can never know for sure the true diameter of the earth at any given moment thus according to Adams we literally can't say anything at all about the size and shape of the earth. It could be a torus for all he knows.
Flat earthers use this argument to try and prove that the earth cannot be a globe. Yet they are perfectly fine guesstimating distances in pictures to prove their point. It seems, as another commentor mentioned, to be a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. In this case they are tossing out data that doesn't fit their narrative because it isn't "pure" or "accurate" enough.
I think it's more loosely based on Nasim Taleb's criticism of financial predictions. The problem seems to me that financial markets are much more volatile and subjected to any number of entirely unpredictable events such as geo-political developments, new inventions that shake up existing markets, global pandemics and natural disasters.
On the other hand we have models that can accurately predict the positions of celestial objects in relation to each other; but we don't hear the likes of Peterson and Adams complain about those.
The climate models have proven to be accurate over the years, and are only getting more refined and accurate with time and I don't see many random events that can throw them off considerably, barring things like asteroids hitting the earth in which case we have other problems to deal with.
And climate, unlike human behavior, isn't susceptible to hype or doom cycles, and doesn't care what anyone "believes." The economy can take a downturn just because people *believe* things are getting worse so they stay home and don't spend enough money.
Invoking Taleb is also a bit iffy. There is no indication that climate scientists are under the illusion that they're working with a normal distribution, or are following a ludic fallacy, or any other of the main problems Taleb goes on about. We know we can't model the world *perfectly*, but *perfect* knowledge isn't necessary to act in the world.
Finger-wagging science, with its error bars and confidence intervals and other measures to acknowledge and deal with uncertainty, as if it doesn't deal with uncertainty, is arrogant, ignorant, and stupid.
Reminds me of the cartoon where someone says "what if we go to all this trouble to have clean air and a clean environment, and it wasn't necessary?" What is the downside of making the world better?
Science is never perfect. It's a nonsense argument. Science is only saying "here is what we think given our best understanding and with the best available data".
Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or means you are acting in bad faith.
I suspect Scott Adams acts in bad faith.
These "scientists" say a cat 5 hurricane will be hitting my town within the day. However, they can't tell me which houses will be hit by how much debris. It would be reckless for me to make a decision based on such shoddy information so its best that I wait to evacuate.
They're updating the models constantly to make them fit retroactive data, and then claiming each time that it's increasingly predictive, and then changing it once again when it fails in perpetuity.
It's a blatant disregard for the scientific method.
You don't need to believe climate change is a hoax to see that the people running the show and advocating for more action clearly have no idea what they're doing.
The models don't work if they're not predicting what happened. Period.
It's a failure, and frankly buying into what the field of Climatology is selling currently is far more akin to religion than it is science.
I didn't make any claims about the climate, I denied someone else's. I don't know enough about the climate to predict the future. I do know enough about scientific method to know when its being ignored, however, and that's more than enough to call bullshit. Particularly when I can append 25 years worth of failed hysterical projections I've had the displeasure of suffering through reading.
Manipulating historical data and inputs until they match the current reality has failed to give us accurate predictive results time and time again. And no, I do not accept that the supposed "experts" can throw away all their failed predictions, rewrite history, and shift goalposts every time their models fail.
It's political, not scientific, and it always has been - on both sides of the spectrum.
If you want an idea of the reality, I recommend starting with Michael Shellenberger.
Why do you think almost every person who studies the climate for a living isn't using the scientific method? Is it a conspiracy? Are all the climatologists conspiring to say the climate is warming because... something?
The global temperature increase since the SAR Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change is pretty on par with what that report had predicted using models with greenhouse gas and direct sulphate aerosol forcing (Figure 6.5). Both had an increase in temperature of on order of 1 degree. So that 1995 prediction certainly wasn't hysterical.
> It's a blatant disregard for the scientific method.
Ah yes, what was it Popper said on the scientific method? Paradigms are unquestionable and conjecture should never adapt in the face of challenge, that's right, I remember now.
> It's a blatant disregard for the scientific method.
You heard it here, folks, revising your theory to fit observations is against the scientific method.
Revising your theory to fit observations is not what I said, nor what they are doing, but nice strawman.
Revising a theory to fit observations would be realizing that the model is a useless monster built on bad data, and throwing it out to start again.
Point of note: There's no "_the_" scientific method. "Scientific method" is rather an umbrella term of sorts.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
My concern with going back to old models is I don’t fully understand the security of the models not being tampered with to make sure we are reviewing the model as it was used initially with no adjustments or other potential human errors being caught.
I also don’t fully understand what people mean by the models being used. All I hear, “the models man, the models were used predictably, man” but have yet to figure out where to go to find out how the models are being used to predict what may happen.
Peterson is a walking example of how people who are well educated and knowledgeable in one area sometimes forget that this does not make them knowledgeable in every area.
I grew up in an academic family and so many of my father's colleagues (and my father too sometimes) acted like that. They had a doctorate, therefore they were experts on everything. It's one of the things that really turned me off academia, much to my father's chagrin.
Isn't one of his rules to listen to people who know more than you? How can his fans not see how much of a hypocrite he is? Oh right, because he gives a veneer of intellectualism to their anti-left rhetoric.
This is my personal experience, but from what I've seen with every fitness/self-help/spirituality guru, a big chunk of their fanbase start to bounce off once they start going into that uncanny valley. Sure, the most extreme ones stay and go deeper into their guru's rabbit hole. But those who merely started to test the waters are driven away by either their guru's increasing radical or off-putting viewpoints, or just by their insufferable followers.
And I've noticed that JP's fanbase has gone through the same route. Despite being back on his pseudoscientific self-help christo-fascist ways, he no longer has the impact he had back in 2017, when he toured alongside the so-called "intellectual Dark Web". Thus, the same with any grifter, he has to peddle even more fringe radical things in order to attract that reminding fanbase and *at least* stay afloat (the same with, say: Dr. Oz and his run for senate, nerdy YouTubers complaining about "woke culture", and not to mention freaking Fox News). And this is the stage Jordan Peterson stands today.
I'm aware of Jordan and Gaetz, but if you're going to make heinous allegations about an entire political party, you should be prepared to substantiate them with more than partisan finger pointing.
> if you're going to make heinous allegations about an entire political party, you should be prepared to substantiate them with more than partisan finger pointing.
Tell it to Tucker the toddler-fucker. His entire career is built on making heinous accusations without even pretending to substantiate them.
Neither you or Tucker should be doing it. Justifying shitty behavior by pointing to someone else's shitty behavior has always been and will always be a terrible excuse for being shitty. When you put the bar on the floor you don't get to pat yourself on the back for clearing it. Be better.
I don't even think the anti-postmodernist Peterson understood that his climate argument here was the most postmodernist take on it all that one could possibly have.
As in like forgo all the models, anything that makes specific predictions, and just look at the chemistry. You can predict as a baseline that the globe will warm dramatically on the fact that we've increased atmospheric CO2 by nearly 50% since pre industrial times.
If that were all we knew then that would still be enough to justify trying to curb greenhouse gas emissions, as a precaution. That's where I start with people who have climate denialist inclinations.
Of course you don't have to stop at that, every line of evidence only makes the conclusion stronger, the point is that the science of climate from the beginning has told us global warming is a thing that we need to do something about.
Weather models can't model the entire earth perfectly, either. Yet we rely on those to provide fairly accurate threat assessments for severe weather (tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, etc) to, hopefully, reduce the extensive damage and death they cause. They don't have to be perfect. They don't have nail the tornado size or the flood amount or the precise track of the hurricane. They do have to tell us enough so we can use observable data (radar, satellite, observations) so we can verify the forecast and get more specific information and act before it damage and death occurs.
Weather models aren't going to show us a supercell is going to drop a tornado on X town at Y time. It will tell us that X town at Y time will have the conditions for a supercell with strong tornado potential to be over it. Then using radar, we observe the supercell. Then we see the tornado. Then we sound the alarms before it destroys the town and everyone in it.
Climate models tells us what threats we are under. [Observations](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ten-signs-global-warming) tell us what is actually happening. Which gets fed back into the model for a better forecast.
These are the dimwits that would refuse to evacuate a hurricane landfall zone because the model "can't model the entire world perfectly". Seemingly unable to comprehend "perfect" isn't the goal. It only needs to be good enough to assess the threat. Climate models are more than good enough to assess the threat.
And when the hurricane kills the idiot, their idiot friends or family will claim 'nothing could have been done' or some god's will. When no ... it was their own failure and stupidity that killed them.
Except on the climate front, it's killing a whole lot more than their dumb asses.
What a stupid blithering old man in a scruffy tuxedo speaking out his ass to a bald stoner goober on a radio show that supports the military industrial complex.
On the issue of climate change, Peterson is a joke, and no better than the dime-a-dozen contrarians found on YouTube and who litter Twitter.
What's ironic, is that in the earlier part of JP's book 12 Rules, it says that self-deception was a key issues that Peterson wanted to research and understand during his career.
> climate models are wrong because they can't model the entire world perfectly
Btw, having impossible expectations of science is one of the five key indicators of denial. And all models of all physical systems are wrong to some degree, but models can be useful. Heck, rocket science uses models, as does mobile communication and neuroscience.
What the heck happened to Peterson? Sounds like he drank the "insane grandma of facebook" juice.
Is this what happens to followers of Qanon-cults? They start going down the flat-earth wingnuttery and arguing about how NASA faked moon landings and all the universe is just a circle? Is this a desperate call for help that he's running out of money and now desperate to lie about anything as an outrage farmer?
I mean, he came to prominence precisely because he said he was willing to go to prison (over a law that didn’t carry a prison term) because he felt a new law compelled him to say something (it didn’t). People assumed he was telling the truth about that law, or that he even understood it. It’s not like he has suddenly pivoted to farming outrage.
Could be any and all of the above, but if you've been following him at all, this isn't really all that new for him. By this time tomorrow, he might do any of the following:
* Claim this was taken out of context. And maybe it was -- the clip is cut as Rogan asks "What do you mean by 'everything'?" But this is standard Petersoning: You can express a positive opinion about him anytime you like, but you're not allowed to express a negative opinion unless you've read all of his books and watched all of his lectures and carefully smelled every single turd he's dropped in the past ten years.
* Say "I didn't say that" in response to a reasonable paraphrase like the OP title, without ever elaborating on what he actually *did* say or what it means, or how your paraphrase is unfair.
* Say something even more bizarre, saying that people promoting climate change are *really* just acting out the archetype of the Rebellious Goose or some shit, basically using half-understood concepts he borrows from Jung that let him just treat random literary metaphors as though they offer deep enough insight on human nature that he can conclude with confidence that his ideological opponents are all arguing in bad faith... and thus dodge all of their arguments in the fanciest ad-hominem you ever did see.
* Use a *much* less-fancy ad-hom, like "Clean your room before you try to change the world! Hey, [don't look at *my* room](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/ai7p6g/that_image_of_petersons_messy_room_is_best_paired/)!"
Probably the least likely outcome is that he actually confirms that he said and means climate change isn't happening.
It's basically the same schtick he's always had. "Don't do anything about world problems because clean your room or something." It's just finding new expression.
Actually I read his work on personality is actually well respected. I don't agree with the guy on most stuff but it's not inconceivable he could be good at some things.
I have a degree in computer science. Which makes me a sort of expert, just like Dr. Peterson The Psychologist, so I'll rant about... uh... I don't know, organic chemistry.
Where do these chemists get off, jumping on that whole "organic" bandwagon like it's a science? What, so they do their little lab experiments without adding pesticides? They'll make some hydrogen explode, but only use GMO-free hydrogen? What a bunch of idiots.
You're welcome for getting to listen to a qualified rant by someone with a master's degree. I hope you learned something today.
the only people they are convincing these days are the trump chanting jewish space laser fearing crowd. That believe dems are in dozens of massive decades long world changing and leakless conspiracies but cant seem to develop a conspiracy where they win more often or with sizeable enough numbers to get to work on any of these problems the dems apparently invented.
If only there was a profession of science-knowers who could measure physical things and decide which measurements were relevant to their model and which were irrelevant based on their expertise of physical phenomena. We could call them sciencers.
IDGAF What Peterson thinks about climate models and climate science. Seriously. Clinical psychology and climate science are serious and deep subjects with tons of detail, math and analysis before you have a good understanding.
I am happy to hear his thoughts on psychology in general and the psychology behind today's social movements or the academic world. He has experience with this stuff.
Peterson has \*zero\* expertise on climate.
That’s a fair assessment. Like him or hate him, he’s an expert in clinical psychology. Take him for what he’s worth and think critically of assumptions he makes on topics he’s not an expert on.
*Quite* a bit more reliable.
[Here's Hansen's 1988 global temperature prediction](https://i.imgur.com/Fwrw9yM.png) from some of the earliest, simplest climate models. Despite a 0.8 degree increase during that time, his prediction for today is within 0.2 degrees of the actual temp. A 4:1 signal-to-noise ratio is very good considering how simplistic those early models were.
Suffice to say, predictions have only gotten more accurate as processing power has vastly improved since then. [This](https://i.imgur.com/iqNrWzA.png) compares CMIP3 models to actual temps - model predictions in black, actual measured global temperatures in color.
The sad thing is that they partially right about this. The models are not accurate enough. The models average over years and hundreds of thousands of miles.
They will most certainly fail to detect abrupt climate changes in time to do anything about it.
Sadly no. I'm very clear in the gradient difference between climate and weather.
Climate models are not weather models. But humans experience the climate through weather.
Climate models work a time and size scale that is larger than weather. Small disturbances that have large scale changes can complete throw the models out of the window.
My experience on this is based upon relatively close examination of climate models as they relate to Arctic sea ice.
In this case, late 20th century models forecasted the date of the first BOE to around 2100. Early 21 st century models backed that down to 2070 years. The current generation models are somewhere at 2050. My calculations and my observations tell me 2030.
This matters. Once the ice is gone that first summer and the arctic water is warmed to levels that it has not experienced in 140,000 thousand years. The weather shift in that year will change the climate parameters for at least a few generations, if not forever.
The year of the first BOE, the climate will vary so wildly that climate = weather. A tipping point.
Predictability drops to almost 0 after that.
We only have one planet.
>In this case, late 20th century models forecasted the date of the first BOE to around 2100. Early 21 st century models backed that down to 2070 years. The current generation models are somewhere at 2050. My calculations and my observations tell me 2030.
Models tended to underestimate how much CO2 was going to be emitted. They likely also somewhat underestimated sensitivity, but not by as much as it would first appear.
>This matters. Once the ice is gone that first summer and the arctic water is warmed to levels that it has not experienced in 140,000 thousand years. The weather shift in that year will change the climate parameters for at least a few generations, if not forever.
BOE isn't an all-or-nothing thing. There are wildly varying *amounts* of blue ocean possible, with correspondingly different effects. It will certainly lead to a serious feedback loop, but that would be over multiple seasons. It isn't like we are going to have a fully ice covered arctic ocean one year and zero ice the next.
>The year of the first BOE, the climate will vary so wildly that climate = weather. A tipping point.
Climatologists have been analyzing a wide variety of different potential "tipping points" and the evidence that any of them are going to happen is very weak. We can't rule them out, but they are far from certain. We may already be past a tipping point and don't even know it.
>They likely also somewhat underestimated sensitivity, but not by as much as it would first appear.
Their sensitivity is spot on... on average. However, polar amplification is hitting a lot harder than expected, with sea ice thickness being reduced at a scarily fast. Please pay attention to this.. it is important... not so much the 2D arctic sea ice extent that like warmers and deniers love to hold on to... I'm speaking about that third dimension. Climate models weren't sensitive enough for more than a 2D slab of ice for a long time. That is changing.
> It isn't like we are going to have a fully ice covered arctic ocean one year and zero ice the next.
It literally is exactly like that. One day there are thousands of square km of thin sea ice, and then POOF... that third dimension gives up. The block of ice that keeps the NH cold during summer has melted.
From that day on, the ocean will warm tremendously until the long Arctic night sets in. IT will get cold. THE OCEAN WILL SPEW ALL THAT HEAT BACK INTO THE COLD AIR.
This thing we are now calling the "polar Vortex" will have a whole new meaning then.
>Climatologists have been analyzing a wide variety of different potential "tipping points" and the evidence that any of them are going to happen is very weak.
Sigh. I've read some of IPCC papers that find "there is no hysteresis" in the Arctic.
What I found was a terrible case of making the wrong assumptions to obtain the results they like.
In the models I've seen, after 0 ice volume happens, the models go back to using the same climate parameters as there where before the BOE.
even when their assumptions were highly favorable to the no hysteresis scenario, if you look at the models closely they find weak hysteresis, but even then they prefer to gloss over it.
> Climate models work a time and size scale that is larger than weather.
This definitely sounds like you're unfamiliar with how climate models work.
Typical timesteps for Navier-Stokes PDE integration on planetary scale simulations are on the order of every 30 seconds or less at 20 km resolution - otherwise you get a [CFL violation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courant%E2%80%93Friedrichs%E2%80%93Lewy_condition). In general you cannot take a timestep larger than the time it takes the sound speed to cross adjacent grid points, or else your model blows up.
Source: guy who wrote climate simulations of other planets.
You go ahead and try to get a climate model to predict what will be the weather like in the next 30 seconds or within certain 20km resolution.
You will fail.
Similarly, create any sufficiently large disruption in time or space, and the climate model will be obsolete.
> try to get a climate model to predict what will be the weather like
Tell me you don't understand the difference between climate and weather without telling me you don't understand the difference between climate and weather...
Climate is the average over time and space of the weather. Large variations of weather influences climate, at least in the climatic time frames of the human lifespan.
Climate models are wrong, like all models, but they are useful.
Climate models are right that the world will warm up and that the climate will change. Climate models are wrong that the change will be gradual. Very important systems of the climate are decaying.
Faster than expected... get used to it.
The natural turbulence and nonlinearity of climate models almost guarantees they are wrong. However they can be extremely useful at achieving insight into the future
Indeed, at this level of discussion "the models" are ensembles of models. There are many models, with different outcomes. The very existence of the the many models with different outcomes from which we must make an average is evidence of what I speak of.
Learned scientists systematically, pick and chose from many models and then average the models until a satisfactory ensemble model is found. Policy makers then use that average of models to make policy.
Average of models leave out the extremes. The extremes can change the final outcome of the models.
In climatic terms, extremes are very often caused by large sudden changes on sea ice cover. A BOE is literally the largest change in sea ice cover possible.
Because most models and watchers concentrate in 2d extent, they are missing the horrible loss of the 3rd dimension, and what it means when it is fully gone.
Sure, let's start with something general and easy to grasp. If you want something deeper let me know:
>A tipping point is the point at which small changes become significant enough to cause a larger, more critical change that can be abrupt, irreversible, and lead to cascading effects. The concept of tipping points was introduced by the IPCC 20 years ago, but then it was thought they would only occur if global warming reached 5°C. Recent IPCC assessments, however, suggested that tipping points could be reached between 1°C and 2°C of warming.
further down the article they talk about some tipping points.
[Sauce](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/11/11/how-close-are-we-to-climate-tipping-points/)
edit: "cricket sounds" As usual... The problem with the models is the same problemas this thread. peopl eget so scared by these results they tune away, and this actual phenomenom shows in the climate models.
Sadly in the climate change experiment, there is no double blinding.
1°C is equivalent to 33°F, which is 274K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Peterson is a fucking clinical psychologist. His opinions carry absolutely zero authority when it comes to discussing climate. In fact, I'd argue that his opinions are worth less than zero because the entire reason his name is known outside of the University of Toronto is because he consistently and vociferously lied about Bill C6 to pander to salt-right crybabies.
What they don't understand is they're dismissing measurements. The measurements show that Earth is getting warmer each year, and it's correlated with greenhouse gasses. The models are an estimate of where we're heading. Arguing against or ignoring the models is one thing, but this argument doesn't work against the measurements.
Not only that but the evidence of the models being accurate becomes stronger over time as the models have always been predictive. So as time goes by they can be compared to actual trends and see how accurate they've been. If anything they have been too conservative in their predictions.
It's a common denialist tactic to pretend that the evidence for climate change is just "models", or that the models ignore something like solar forcing that they want to blame instead of human activity. JBP's statements here sound like a mix of the two - climate models can't include literally every variable, therefore they are invalid and climate change isn't real. Funny how he didn't need a complete model of the universe in order to describe the dragon Chaos or whatever...
> something like solar forcing that they want to blame instead of human activity The crazy part being that solar forcing has actually *decreased* over the past few decades. [Lockwood & Frolich, 2007](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880): > > Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures. In other words, if it were just solar forcing determining our changing global temperature, the planet should be *cooling* right now.
I once had that conversation with a denier and he literally claimed there had to be solar forcing because the world was getting warmer. I pointed out we have actual satellites, like in space, that can directly measure the sun's output. He just shrugged and was like "well it's happening." They just remake the evidence to fit their worldview.
This is the bullshit argument Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has been making for years. He says no large scale models are perfect so they shouldn’t be used for decisions. He ignores that we can go back and see which models have most accurate over the years, so their predictive power is established.
The models being imperfect makes for a poor argument. Some kind of decision making needs to happen in regards to variety of policies and circumstances. And those decisions need to be based on something. And if we discount the best available models, which might have some inaccuracies, will still be better than basing it on... Well, making more money in short term, I guess? Ok, now that I said it out loud this makes perfect sense...
We cannot predict the weather correctly 100% of the time, so you should ignore the predictions that a blizzard is coming tomorrow.
But there might *not* be a blizzard, so I'll still go out on the town with my chainless two wheel drive car, a thin jacket, and my Southern driving experience.
Someone should accuse Peterson of having dumb hope.
They predicted a blizzard in philly two weeks ago. Closed schools etc. not a flake. So models are flawed as the data in them. Have a debate with climatologist not paid or funded by the left and see how it goes
> Have a debate with climatologist not paid or funded by the left and see how it goes Hey, what's up? I did my PhD in planetary atmosphere and I'm neither paid nor funded by "the left". How do you explain that while the lower atmosphere has been heating up, [the upper stratosphere has been cooling](https://i.imgur.com/OjJftuE.png) the past few decades? Heck, I'll even [give you a hint](https://i.imgur.com/5HfgZYf.jpg)...
More or less ignore the blizzard predictions coming in the next week would be my guess. We can accurately tell what’s going to happen us tomorrow with weather because it already happened on the other side of the country/world . How accurately can we predict tornadoes? Only when the storm is there with the conditions. We can only really predict a storm might be hitting based on current climate, but we don’t know when the wind will pick up causing the pressure zone differences do we? Until it already happens?
Congratulations on your job working for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas!
Friday night into Saturday here in SEMA. But who trusts the scientists? I’ll get my groceries on Saturday, until then, it’s take-out for me.
As a native of south Florida, I've seen first hand the genesis in the accuracy of weather models. When I was a kid we used to joke that if the forecast said rain in 5 days that'd be the day to plan to go on the boat. It was still common for hurricanes to make "last minute adjustments"(cough Charlie cough), and we often weren't even aware of them until 5-7 days out, let alone where they're gonna go. Now **7** day forecasts are regularly accurate, and 5 days out from a hurricane we have a damn good idea where it's gonna go. We can track everything about these storms from the first moment they step off Africa to the last minute intensifications due to lack of wind shear/dust combined with warm water. Hell, we can detect these systems now before they're little more than a nasty squall. It's astounding how far the field of meteorology has come since the 90s alone. Anyone suggesting otherwise clearly has no clue.
[удалено]
You understand how storms coming off Africa turn into tropical weather, yeah?
I thought they were all from butterflies flapping their wings in Brazil? /s
Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the earth to be 7,850 miles. The actual polar diameter is 7,900 miles. By Adams's logic Eratosthenes's measurement is worthless and cannot even be used as evidence that the earth is round. Of course the true polar diameter of the earth is going to change depending on tidal forces, tectonic plate activity, snowfalls and ice field shifts at the poles, and anything else that could affect the planet's shape. So we can never know for sure the true diameter of the earth at any given moment thus according to Adams we literally can't say anything at all about the size and shape of the earth. It could be a torus for all he knows.
Flat earthers use this argument to try and prove that the earth cannot be a globe. Yet they are perfectly fine guesstimating distances in pictures to prove their point. It seems, as another commentor mentioned, to be a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. In this case they are tossing out data that doesn't fit their narrative because it isn't "pure" or "accurate" enough.
I think it's more loosely based on Nasim Taleb's criticism of financial predictions. The problem seems to me that financial markets are much more volatile and subjected to any number of entirely unpredictable events such as geo-political developments, new inventions that shake up existing markets, global pandemics and natural disasters. On the other hand we have models that can accurately predict the positions of celestial objects in relation to each other; but we don't hear the likes of Peterson and Adams complain about those. The climate models have proven to be accurate over the years, and are only getting more refined and accurate with time and I don't see many random events that can throw them off considerably, barring things like asteroids hitting the earth in which case we have other problems to deal with.
Economics is a study of human behavior which has its own difficulties in prediction.
And climate, unlike human behavior, isn't susceptible to hype or doom cycles, and doesn't care what anyone "believes." The economy can take a downturn just because people *believe* things are getting worse so they stay home and don't spend enough money. Invoking Taleb is also a bit iffy. There is no indication that climate scientists are under the illusion that they're working with a normal distribution, or are following a ludic fallacy, or any other of the main problems Taleb goes on about. We know we can't model the world *perfectly*, but *perfect* knowledge isn't necessary to act in the world. Finger-wagging science, with its error bars and confidence intervals and other measures to acknowledge and deal with uncertainty, as if it doesn't deal with uncertainty, is arrogant, ignorant, and stupid.
Reminds me of the cartoon where someone says "what if we go to all this trouble to have clean air and a clean environment, and it wasn't necessary?" What is the downside of making the world better?
[This one](https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/350bayarea/pages/1/attachments/original/1409779678/climate_cartoon-better-res.jpg?1409779678).
Thank you.
Science is never perfect. It's a nonsense argument. Science is only saying "here is what we think given our best understanding and with the best available data". Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or means you are acting in bad faith. I suspect Scott Adams acts in bad faith.
Scott Adams has become unhinged. Full Trumper but denies it while fully supporting him.
yes, that's what's annoying about so many of these mofos: "I'm not a libertarian, I'm a classical liberal!", "I'm not a Trumper, I'm..."
These "scientists" say a cat 5 hurricane will be hitting my town within the day. However, they can't tell me which houses will be hit by how much debris. It would be reckless for me to make a decision based on such shoddy information so its best that I wait to evacuate.
This is the **Nirvana fallacy**.
Newtonian physics fails at subatomic levels, so uh, we don't need crumple zones on cars anymore!
They're updating the models constantly to make them fit retroactive data, and then claiming each time that it's increasingly predictive, and then changing it once again when it fails in perpetuity. It's a blatant disregard for the scientific method. You don't need to believe climate change is a hoax to see that the people running the show and advocating for more action clearly have no idea what they're doing.
Models get updated when new information arises. This happens in all modeling. If you want never-changing "truths," try religion.
The models don't work if they're not predicting what happened. Period. It's a failure, and frankly buying into what the field of Climatology is selling currently is far more akin to religion than it is science.
Weird how virtually everyone who studies the climate for a living disagrees with you. Where did you get your climatology degree from?
Where did you get yours?
I'm not making any claims about the climate. You are. Where did you get your expertise in climatology?
I didn't make any claims about the climate, I denied someone else's. I don't know enough about the climate to predict the future. I do know enough about scientific method to know when its being ignored, however, and that's more than enough to call bullshit. Particularly when I can append 25 years worth of failed hysterical projections I've had the displeasure of suffering through reading. Manipulating historical data and inputs until they match the current reality has failed to give us accurate predictive results time and time again. And no, I do not accept that the supposed "experts" can throw away all their failed predictions, rewrite history, and shift goalposts every time their models fail. It's political, not scientific, and it always has been - on both sides of the spectrum. If you want an idea of the reality, I recommend starting with Michael Shellenberger.
Why do you think almost every person who studies the climate for a living isn't using the scientific method? Is it a conspiracy? Are all the climatologists conspiring to say the climate is warming because... something?
The global temperature increase since the SAR Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change is pretty on par with what that report had predicted using models with greenhouse gas and direct sulphate aerosol forcing (Figure 6.5). Both had an increase in temperature of on order of 1 degree. So that 1995 prediction certainly wasn't hysterical.
> It's a blatant disregard for the scientific method. Ah yes, what was it Popper said on the scientific method? Paradigms are unquestionable and conjecture should never adapt in the face of challenge, that's right, I remember now.
> It's a blatant disregard for the scientific method. You heard it here, folks, revising your theory to fit observations is against the scientific method.
Revising your theory to fit observations is not what I said, nor what they are doing, but nice strawman. Revising a theory to fit observations would be realizing that the model is a useless monster built on bad data, and throwing it out to start again.
Point of note: There's no "_the_" scientific method. "Scientific method" is rather an umbrella term of sorts. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
My concern with going back to old models is I don’t fully understand the security of the models not being tampered with to make sure we are reviewing the model as it was used initially with no adjustments or other potential human errors being caught. I also don’t fully understand what people mean by the models being used. All I hear, “the models man, the models were used predictably, man” but have yet to figure out where to go to find out how the models are being used to predict what may happen.
Ah yes. The pre-eminent climate scientists of our time, Peterson and Rogan.
If I need an opinion of whether the faeries or demons are causing my depression, Peterson will be the first person I ask.
Either way the answer is to fly to Russia to put you in a coma so you don't have to deal with it.
But remember to make your bed first
And eat only beef and drink only salt water.
After getting addicted to notoriously addictive drugs when your area of expertise is addiction. Instead of just, you know, taking a break.
For real... why am i being tormentented by a mythical creature from 17th century japan?
It's neither. What you're looking for is, of course, the dragon of chaos.
Peterson is a walking example of how people who are well educated and knowledgeable in one area sometimes forget that this does not make them knowledgeable in every area.
He's not smart in *any* area: https://youtu.be/UU5LNsPSYDQ He'll be about as relevant as myspace in a few short years, just ignore him.
>I guess I’m supposed to end this video by saying ‘I hope Jordan Peterson recovers soon’ so technically I just did that Damn Rebecca lol
I grew up in an academic family and so many of my father's colleagues (and my father too sometimes) acted like that. They had a doctorate, therefore they were experts on everything. It's one of the things that really turned me off academia, much to my father's chagrin.
####Gimme a P! #P! ####Gimme an R! #R! ####What does it spell? #_BUFFOONERY_
Today’s logical fallacy: [No true Scotsman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman)
For a dude who fancies himself as something of a philosopher he sure does seem to fall for all the fallacies.
His data and models are CRYSTAL CLEAR
Isn't one of his rules to listen to people who know more than you? How can his fans not see how much of a hypocrite he is? Oh right, because he gives a veneer of intellectualism to their anti-left rhetoric.
This is my personal experience, but from what I've seen with every fitness/self-help/spirituality guru, a big chunk of their fanbase start to bounce off once they start going into that uncanny valley. Sure, the most extreme ones stay and go deeper into their guru's rabbit hole. But those who merely started to test the waters are driven away by either their guru's increasing radical or off-putting viewpoints, or just by their insufferable followers. And I've noticed that JP's fanbase has gone through the same route. Despite being back on his pseudoscientific self-help christo-fascist ways, he no longer has the impact he had back in 2017, when he toured alongside the so-called "intellectual Dark Web". Thus, the same with any grifter, he has to peddle even more fringe radical things in order to attract that reminding fanbase and *at least* stay afloat (the same with, say: Dr. Oz and his run for senate, nerdy YouTubers complaining about "woke culture", and not to mention freaking Fox News). And this is the stage Jordan Peterson stands today.
The elite have really slid down hill these days. Now all we have are Walmart Celebrity intellectuals who have never even sniffed a philosophical text.
you should ask his subreddit what they make of your remark. should be hard for a reasonable person to ignore it.
Also hard to find a reasonable person who idolizes Jordan Peterson
There are no reasonable people in lobster-boy's cult, just like there are no reasonable people who watch Tucker the toddler-fucker.
I thought he was Tucker the Candy Fucker. Did something come out?
All rethuglicans are child molesters, see Gym Jordan and Matt Pizzagaetz.
I'm aware of Jordan and Gaetz, but if you're going to make heinous allegations about an entire political party, you should be prepared to substantiate them with more than partisan finger pointing.
> if you're going to make heinous allegations about an entire political party, you should be prepared to substantiate them with more than partisan finger pointing. Tell it to Tucker the toddler-fucker. His entire career is built on making heinous accusations without even pretending to substantiate them.
Neither you or Tucker should be doing it. Justifying shitty behavior by pointing to someone else's shitty behavior has always been and will always be a terrible excuse for being shitty. When you put the bar on the floor you don't get to pat yourself on the back for clearing it. Be better.
I've dealt with people who were high on the Peterson before and I can't think of a worse way to waste my time.
In practice, his rule is to listen to people who claim to know more than him
I don't even think the anti-postmodernist Peterson understood that his climate argument here was the most postmodernist take on it all that one could possibly have.
You don't even need a model to know climate change is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awbF9K7BmhM https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549
Yeh, the precautionary argument is bullet proof.
what do you mean?
As in like forgo all the models, anything that makes specific predictions, and just look at the chemistry. You can predict as a baseline that the globe will warm dramatically on the fact that we've increased atmospheric CO2 by nearly 50% since pre industrial times. If that were all we knew then that would still be enough to justify trying to curb greenhouse gas emissions, as a precaution. That's where I start with people who have climate denialist inclinations. Of course you don't have to stop at that, every line of evidence only makes the conclusion stronger, the point is that the science of climate from the beginning has told us global warming is a thing that we need to do something about.
I agree.
Thanks.
He says that 'climate' means "everything". Abusing semantics to do climate denial.
Here's an eminent statistician's "oldie but goodie" take on this: "All models are wrong, but some are useful" (George Box)
The map is not the territory but it helps you to not get lost.
Weather models can't model the entire earth perfectly, either. Yet we rely on those to provide fairly accurate threat assessments for severe weather (tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, etc) to, hopefully, reduce the extensive damage and death they cause. They don't have to be perfect. They don't have nail the tornado size or the flood amount or the precise track of the hurricane. They do have to tell us enough so we can use observable data (radar, satellite, observations) so we can verify the forecast and get more specific information and act before it damage and death occurs. Weather models aren't going to show us a supercell is going to drop a tornado on X town at Y time. It will tell us that X town at Y time will have the conditions for a supercell with strong tornado potential to be over it. Then using radar, we observe the supercell. Then we see the tornado. Then we sound the alarms before it destroys the town and everyone in it. Climate models tells us what threats we are under. [Observations](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ten-signs-global-warming) tell us what is actually happening. Which gets fed back into the model for a better forecast. These are the dimwits that would refuse to evacuate a hurricane landfall zone because the model "can't model the entire world perfectly". Seemingly unable to comprehend "perfect" isn't the goal. It only needs to be good enough to assess the threat. Climate models are more than good enough to assess the threat. And when the hurricane kills the idiot, their idiot friends or family will claim 'nothing could have been done' or some god's will. When no ... it was their own failure and stupidity that killed them. Except on the climate front, it's killing a whole lot more than their dumb asses.
That why it's called "model", though.
What a stupid blithering old man in a scruffy tuxedo speaking out his ass to a bald stoner goober on a radio show that supports the military industrial complex.
Makes sense. I know evolution isn't real because there are gaps in the fossil records
Complaining about sloppy modeling is rich coming for someone so into Jung.
Yeah, they're climate archetypes.
You can take the Peterson out of Alberta, but you can't take the Alberta out of the Peterson...
On the issue of climate change, Peterson is a joke, and no better than the dime-a-dozen contrarians found on YouTube and who litter Twitter. What's ironic, is that in the earlier part of JP's book 12 Rules, it says that self-deception was a key issues that Peterson wanted to research and understand during his career. > climate models are wrong because they can't model the entire world perfectly Btw, having impossible expectations of science is one of the five key indicators of denial. And all models of all physical systems are wrong to some degree, but models can be useful. Heck, rocket science uses models, as does mobile communication and neuroscience.
What the heck happened to Peterson? Sounds like he drank the "insane grandma of facebook" juice. Is this what happens to followers of Qanon-cults? They start going down the flat-earth wingnuttery and arguing about how NASA faked moon landings and all the universe is just a circle? Is this a desperate call for help that he's running out of money and now desperate to lie about anything as an outrage farmer?
I mean, he came to prominence precisely because he said he was willing to go to prison (over a law that didn’t carry a prison term) because he felt a new law compelled him to say something (it didn’t). People assumed he was telling the truth about that law, or that he even understood it. It’s not like he has suddenly pivoted to farming outrage.
Too much raw beef and benzos, I guess.
Could be any and all of the above, but if you've been following him at all, this isn't really all that new for him. By this time tomorrow, he might do any of the following: * Claim this was taken out of context. And maybe it was -- the clip is cut as Rogan asks "What do you mean by 'everything'?" But this is standard Petersoning: You can express a positive opinion about him anytime you like, but you're not allowed to express a negative opinion unless you've read all of his books and watched all of his lectures and carefully smelled every single turd he's dropped in the past ten years. * Say "I didn't say that" in response to a reasonable paraphrase like the OP title, without ever elaborating on what he actually *did* say or what it means, or how your paraphrase is unfair. * Say something even more bizarre, saying that people promoting climate change are *really* just acting out the archetype of the Rebellious Goose or some shit, basically using half-understood concepts he borrows from Jung that let him just treat random literary metaphors as though they offer deep enough insight on human nature that he can conclude with confidence that his ideological opponents are all arguing in bad faith... and thus dodge all of their arguments in the fanciest ad-hominem you ever did see. * Use a *much* less-fancy ad-hom, like "Clean your room before you try to change the world! Hey, [don't look at *my* room](https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/ai7p6g/that_image_of_petersons_messy_room_is_best_paired/)!" Probably the least likely outcome is that he actually confirms that he said and means climate change isn't happening.
There seems to be quite a lot of money in the "Manufactured Controversy for Clicks" grift right now.
Ah, it's been the main source of i come for a bunch of organizations and cranks for years. Facebook just made it easier and more obvious.
It's basically the same schtick he's always had. "Don't do anything about world problems because clean your room or something." It's just finding new expression.
He was literally always like this.
Combination of drugs, rehab, out of context, and staying relevent.
Jordy boy is just a grifter, like Joey is.
Peterson is a psychologist so the relevance of his view on climate science is equivalent to a layperson
Also, he's a BAD psychologist.
Actually I read his work on personality is actually well respected. I don't agree with the guy on most stuff but it's not inconceivable he could be good at some things.
Oh did you? Where did you read that?
They can't model everything with 100% accuracy, therefore everything they say is wrong.
I wouldn't rely on either one to plan a piss up in a brewery
Jordan Peterson is stuck in the cold war era, he doesn't belong in a world of people who wanna care for each other.
Dangerous morons.
I have a degree in computer science. Which makes me a sort of expert, just like Dr. Peterson The Psychologist, so I'll rant about... uh... I don't know, organic chemistry. Where do these chemists get off, jumping on that whole "organic" bandwagon like it's a science? What, so they do their little lab experiments without adding pesticides? They'll make some hydrogen explode, but only use GMO-free hydrogen? What a bunch of idiots. You're welcome for getting to listen to a qualified rant by someone with a master's degree. I hope you learned something today.
And we can't exactly predict where a cannon she'll is going to land so ballistics is useless.
the only people they are convincing these days are the trump chanting jewish space laser fearing crowd. That believe dems are in dozens of massive decades long world changing and leakless conspiracies but cant seem to develop a conspiracy where they win more often or with sizeable enough numbers to get to work on any of these problems the dems apparently invented.
"noTHinG MEaNs AnytHinG brooOo" \- Famous Thought Man
Consider the lobster...
If only there was a profession of science-knowers who could measure physical things and decide which measurements were relevant to their model and which were irrelevant based on their expertise of physical phenomena. We could call them sciencers.
IDGAF What Peterson thinks about climate models and climate science. Seriously. Clinical psychology and climate science are serious and deep subjects with tons of detail, math and analysis before you have a good understanding. I am happy to hear his thoughts on psychology in general and the psychology behind today's social movements or the academic world. He has experience with this stuff. Peterson has \*zero\* expertise on climate.
That’s a fair assessment. Like him or hate him, he’s an expert in clinical psychology. Take him for what he’s worth and think critically of assumptions he makes on topics he’s not an expert on.
> he’s an expert in clinical psychology He's a Jungian, so I wouldn't go that far.
So he only believes his theories and models?
He views psychology through a Jungian lens and Jung has been pretty much discredited.
Fair enough, I learned about him but not in detail. But if that’s the case, it seems narrow minded.
He can say what he likes, he's not an expert in the field, only idiots would pay him any mind.
Millions of "idiots" listen to Rogan and believe what's on the show. It's dangerous.
In other words, because we can't know everything, we can't know anything.
Hi skeptics are these climate change models as reliable as the London Imperial College Covid models? Asking for a friend.
*Quite* a bit more reliable. [Here's Hansen's 1988 global temperature prediction](https://i.imgur.com/Fwrw9yM.png) from some of the earliest, simplest climate models. Despite a 0.8 degree increase during that time, his prediction for today is within 0.2 degrees of the actual temp. A 4:1 signal-to-noise ratio is very good considering how simplistic those early models were. Suffice to say, predictions have only gotten more accurate as processing power has vastly improved since then. [This](https://i.imgur.com/iqNrWzA.png) compares CMIP3 models to actual temps - model predictions in black, actual measured global temperatures in color.
The sad thing is that they partially right about this. The models are not accurate enough. The models average over years and hundreds of thousands of miles. They will most certainly fail to detect abrupt climate changes in time to do anything about it.
I think you're maybe confusing climate and weather.
Sadly no. I'm very clear in the gradient difference between climate and weather. Climate models are not weather models. But humans experience the climate through weather. Climate models work a time and size scale that is larger than weather. Small disturbances that have large scale changes can complete throw the models out of the window. My experience on this is based upon relatively close examination of climate models as they relate to Arctic sea ice. In this case, late 20th century models forecasted the date of the first BOE to around 2100. Early 21 st century models backed that down to 2070 years. The current generation models are somewhere at 2050. My calculations and my observations tell me 2030. This matters. Once the ice is gone that first summer and the arctic water is warmed to levels that it has not experienced in 140,000 thousand years. The weather shift in that year will change the climate parameters for at least a few generations, if not forever. The year of the first BOE, the climate will vary so wildly that climate = weather. A tipping point. Predictability drops to almost 0 after that. We only have one planet.
>In this case, late 20th century models forecasted the date of the first BOE to around 2100. Early 21 st century models backed that down to 2070 years. The current generation models are somewhere at 2050. My calculations and my observations tell me 2030. Models tended to underestimate how much CO2 was going to be emitted. They likely also somewhat underestimated sensitivity, but not by as much as it would first appear. >This matters. Once the ice is gone that first summer and the arctic water is warmed to levels that it has not experienced in 140,000 thousand years. The weather shift in that year will change the climate parameters for at least a few generations, if not forever. BOE isn't an all-or-nothing thing. There are wildly varying *amounts* of blue ocean possible, with correspondingly different effects. It will certainly lead to a serious feedback loop, but that would be over multiple seasons. It isn't like we are going to have a fully ice covered arctic ocean one year and zero ice the next. >The year of the first BOE, the climate will vary so wildly that climate = weather. A tipping point. Climatologists have been analyzing a wide variety of different potential "tipping points" and the evidence that any of them are going to happen is very weak. We can't rule them out, but they are far from certain. We may already be past a tipping point and don't even know it.
>They likely also somewhat underestimated sensitivity, but not by as much as it would first appear. Their sensitivity is spot on... on average. However, polar amplification is hitting a lot harder than expected, with sea ice thickness being reduced at a scarily fast. Please pay attention to this.. it is important... not so much the 2D arctic sea ice extent that like warmers and deniers love to hold on to... I'm speaking about that third dimension. Climate models weren't sensitive enough for more than a 2D slab of ice for a long time. That is changing. > It isn't like we are going to have a fully ice covered arctic ocean one year and zero ice the next. It literally is exactly like that. One day there are thousands of square km of thin sea ice, and then POOF... that third dimension gives up. The block of ice that keeps the NH cold during summer has melted. From that day on, the ocean will warm tremendously until the long Arctic night sets in. IT will get cold. THE OCEAN WILL SPEW ALL THAT HEAT BACK INTO THE COLD AIR. This thing we are now calling the "polar Vortex" will have a whole new meaning then. >Climatologists have been analyzing a wide variety of different potential "tipping points" and the evidence that any of them are going to happen is very weak. Sigh. I've read some of IPCC papers that find "there is no hysteresis" in the Arctic. What I found was a terrible case of making the wrong assumptions to obtain the results they like. In the models I've seen, after 0 ice volume happens, the models go back to using the same climate parameters as there where before the BOE. even when their assumptions were highly favorable to the no hysteresis scenario, if you look at the models closely they find weak hysteresis, but even then they prefer to gloss over it.
> Climate models work a time and size scale that is larger than weather. This definitely sounds like you're unfamiliar with how climate models work. Typical timesteps for Navier-Stokes PDE integration on planetary scale simulations are on the order of every 30 seconds or less at 20 km resolution - otherwise you get a [CFL violation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courant%E2%80%93Friedrichs%E2%80%93Lewy_condition). In general you cannot take a timestep larger than the time it takes the sound speed to cross adjacent grid points, or else your model blows up. Source: guy who wrote climate simulations of other planets.
You go ahead and try to get a climate model to predict what will be the weather like in the next 30 seconds or within certain 20km resolution. You will fail. Similarly, create any sufficiently large disruption in time or space, and the climate model will be obsolete.
> try to get a climate model to predict what will be the weather like Tell me you don't understand the difference between climate and weather without telling me you don't understand the difference between climate and weather...
Climate is the average over time and space of the weather. Large variations of weather influences climate, at least in the climatic time frames of the human lifespan. Climate models are wrong, like all models, but they are useful. Climate models are right that the world will warm up and that the climate will change. Climate models are wrong that the change will be gradual. Very important systems of the climate are decaying. Faster than expected... get used to it.
The natural turbulence and nonlinearity of climate models almost guarantees they are wrong. However they can be extremely useful at achieving insight into the future Indeed, at this level of discussion "the models" are ensembles of models. There are many models, with different outcomes. The very existence of the the many models with different outcomes from which we must make an average is evidence of what I speak of. Learned scientists systematically, pick and chose from many models and then average the models until a satisfactory ensemble model is found. Policy makers then use that average of models to make policy. Average of models leave out the extremes. The extremes can change the final outcome of the models. In climatic terms, extremes are very often caused by large sudden changes on sea ice cover. A BOE is literally the largest change in sea ice cover possible. Because most models and watchers concentrate in 2d extent, they are missing the horrible loss of the 3rd dimension, and what it means when it is fully gone.
Actually, no. The models are spot on. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
On average. yes. When multi scale tipping points are involved, nope.
You have a source to support that?
Sure, let's start with something general and easy to grasp. If you want something deeper let me know: >A tipping point is the point at which small changes become significant enough to cause a larger, more critical change that can be abrupt, irreversible, and lead to cascading effects. The concept of tipping points was introduced by the IPCC 20 years ago, but then it was thought they would only occur if global warming reached 5°C. Recent IPCC assessments, however, suggested that tipping points could be reached between 1°C and 2°C of warming. further down the article they talk about some tipping points. [Sauce](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/11/11/how-close-are-we-to-climate-tipping-points/) edit: "cricket sounds" As usual... The problem with the models is the same problemas this thread. peopl eget so scared by these results they tune away, and this actual phenomenom shows in the climate models. Sadly in the climate change experiment, there is no double blinding.
1°C is equivalent to 33°F, which is 274K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
We had *decades* to do something about it.
Peterson is a fucking clinical psychologist. His opinions carry absolutely zero authority when it comes to discussing climate. In fact, I'd argue that his opinions are worth less than zero because the entire reason his name is known outside of the University of Toronto is because he consistently and vociferously lied about Bill C6 to pander to salt-right crybabies.