swansont

It's Watt, so no, that's not adequate. He's glossing over quite a bit here. In the IPCC assessment (as shown in figure 10.4) you have adjustments both below and above 1. The average of all the models for CO2 is above 75%, so the statement that based on this temperatures are more than 25% overestimated is wrong. It also ignores that when the analysis is extended over a longer period and GHGs are combined instead of broken up, the adjustment average is about 0.98. A big problem here is that you haven't defined what level of accuracy you need when you say "models have failed to predict the last 15 years accurately" (I will echo what others have said that 15 years is too short of a scale to work with). Let's go with Watt's inflated 25% scaling. Does that imply that you think the models are inflated by 25% but otherwise (i.e. with the scaling included) can be considered accurate? Neither do I, but that's not what anybody has suggested discussing. Merely parroting what someone else wrote, though, isn't sufficient. If you can't assess their work, how do you have any confidence they're right?

How you defend the modeling depends on how it is attacked. The models I linked to use 1990 as a start. 25 > 15 There is no possible way to validly claim the models incorrectly predict the future, since there is (by definition) no data from there. So the only possible claim is that models started in the past aren't working to predict today's temperature. The problem is, you haven't shown any quantified objections. What's missing in all this is a look at an actual model, with the data we have in hand, and a demonstration of what's working and what's not. All we have seen here is vague claims: "I haven't read of anyone", "The argument by some", "Some say", etc. We see quote mining, but when some context is shone upon the quotes, they can be seen to be meaningless objections. Is there any science you wish to discuss here? I have some: We know the CO2 levels back then — in 1990, about 350 ppm. Today it's 400. Temperature has gone up by about 0.4 ºC in that time, and that's including the "pause". That's the equivalent of a little more than 2 degree sensitivity to doubling (according to the formula given here http://www.skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html)Of course, if we regress to the mean then this will end up being higher. Right smack dab in the middle of the range predicted by the IPCC. Even at 2, it's within the bound they gave. http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/co2_data_mlo.jpg http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/04/updated-global-temperature.png

Pointing out that temperatures have not risen as high as they should under the worst-case scenario is a meaningless objection if we are not actually emitting CO2 and other GHGs at the rate under which that scenario is modeled. In order to assess models, you have to compare temperatures with predicted ones based on actual CO2 levels

! Moderator Note Personal attacks in debates are also an epic failures, and against our rules. Stop it. Attack the issues, not the people discussing them. And do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

Whenever I see people pretending to do this sort of analysis on e.g. gatorade commercials, they are measuring respiration while the subjects are on a treadmill.

Here's what I don't get. It's all well and good to present a quote like this "Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections," Brown said. "Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario." But it's meaningless if one doesn't actually assess it. What are the "most severe IPCC projections"? Are we actually in a situation where the world is following that scenario, and yet temperatures are lower than projected? Without looking into that, throwing around quotes as if the mean something is pointless. Because the simplest answer is that we just aren't following the worst-case scenario. The IPCC says "The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol." https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html Meaning that it's not unreasonable that these worst-case scenarios are projecting much more CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, and not one where we've built up many hundreds of GW of solar and wind that have been installed, and added natural gas, instead of (or replacing) coal. The most severe IPCC projection has CO2 emissions doubling by 2015 (relative to 1990) Is that what is happening? No. We're in the middle of the tangle of that graph, not the top,with emissions having gone up by about 50% https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf(page 7) https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JOXTXgEBbteOhSfHWdBx4vNH5BM=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3508526/Global_CO2_emissions.0.png

Evidence, please.

Your ideas have to achieve agreement with nature. Had a chance to look up the definition of work yet?

The consequences of being determined or undetermined is exactly what we see, so we can tell this. The article doesn't say what you apparently think it says.

That's moving the goalposts, though. We need to compare with the typical supply of nutrients. Do humans at any point in their development grow a meter per day? Or a week? A month? Why should a fetus? Another thing to consider is that the bamboo growth is mainly up, i.e. In one dimension. Human growth is three dimensional.

Just a guess, but: Bamboo doesn't have to develop a nervous system, or internal organs, like a brain. That peobably help with the growth speed

Perhaps, but the suns are going to block each other many times over the course of the year.

! Moderator Note As this is posted in Biology, please keep religion out of it.

Looking for reasons/purposes is outside the realm of science. As for why, it's inherent in QM. You can have superpositions of particle states that involve more than one particle.

Lost? I'm sure it's around here somewhere. What are you talking about?

Purpose isn't the right word. Physics effects don't really have a purpose. We something about know why it happens, since it falls out of quantum mechanics, and we know we can do it, because it's been done experimentally.

Entangled particles are not in a definite state. Once you measure, they are. You can't have entanglement if you can tell the difference between the particles. There is no "connection" to measure. That's one of the weird aspects of it. Yes, you can entangle more than two particles.

Once you measure the entangled property, it is no longer in a superposition. That breaks the entanglement.

Possibly more chaotic, but we'd still have seasons. It would depend on the parameters. Also, remember that this wobbling is over a fairly long time scale, The nature of the seasons might change over millions of years, but not from one year to the next. That has certain evolutionary impacts, to be sure, but not immediate ones. Take an orbit that changed the distance to the sun by ~10% between aphelion and perihelion, but no axial tilt. That's about a factor of 20% change in power. Some pretty significant temperature swings would probably result over the course of a year. The distinction would be that there is no difference between the hemispheres — it would be e.g. winter everywhere when the planet was far from the sun. How much of an effect would wobble be for such a planet?

Sometimes. The whole line of inquiry is overly broad and simplistic. The topic is no doubt more nuanced than this.

Depends on what you mean by vanity; many kids end up preferentially playing with the box the toy came in rather than the toy itself. Not much vanity involved in owning a box. But if you mean non-essential, then yes — it's not food, clothing or shelter. Playing with the box also lends itself to refuting the notion that they must think the toy is the real world object it represents. The box can be almost anything. It's fodder for imagination. I was under the impression that children play (in part) as a form of imitation of adult behavior. They may play "house" and have one pretend to go off to work, even though they have no real clue what that means. A child plays with a tractor or truck, with only a minimal notion of what's actually involved with what a real truck does. And the kid can pretend and make that tractor or truck do things that no real one could do, such as fly. Imagination not constrained by reality.

Because that's what the peak emission is, at around 550 nm. That's around the division between green and yellow. The moon stabilizes the earth, but to say the moon causes the seasons is a stretch. The seasons are caused by the tilt. One could envision seasons (of a sort) being caused by an elliptical orbit that's more pronounced than ours. Two suns might just mean the orbit needs to be further away, or the suns have a lower power output (i.e. cooler, more reddish in color)

! Moderator Note A reminder that this was moved out of speculations, so let's continue seeing some links to back up statements, and, unless you're an active researcher in this field, "one idea I have had" is not appropriate in the science section, and also not appropriate in someone else's thread.

No, not really. And your opinion doesn't matter. It's what you can show with models and data.

So much for this, then https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177