Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
"I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable."
"It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy. That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints."
Further illustration: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/10/14/top-french-weathe....
"France's top weatherman, Philippe Verdier has been suspended from work for publishing a book about climate change which suggests that the IPCC might be just a tad unreliable and more than a little politicised."
Climate change is different. We're talking about real danger to the future of human civilization, an issue that will play out in following decades - probably well within lifetimes of most of us here. And many politicians (and businesses) are - I'm sorry for venting out - such big, greedy fucking assholes, that they want to play games with it instead of fucking solving it. They will doom us to misery and death to win a fucking election or make next Q3 sheet look good. Disgusting.
Take eg. a person who had savings from twenty years in 1914's Germany. It would have all gone 10 years later. Likewise when you had savings in stocks in 1929. It took almost 30 years to recover.
Economists are the priests of a science twisted into religion.
I think your post illustrated the problem when dealing with feminism: Everyone assumes it is of 'little consequence'.
But I think it is quite the contrary: It is directly and strongly affecting the relations between the genders/sexes. Regardless of whether you think what it proposes/does/wants/... is a good idea or not:
I think it is not a good idea to think it is just a small issue.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor...
"Researchers do not expect their models to reproduce weather events or El Niño phases exactly when they happened in real life. They do expect the models to capture how the whole system behaves over long periods of time. For example, in 1998 there was a powerful El Niño, when the equatorial Pacific Ocean warms ( we're in another one of that scale now). A simulation wouldn't necessarily reproduce an El Niño in 1998, but it should produce a realistic number of them over the course of many years."
In short, the models aren't supposed to replace the short-term weather forecasts but to model the behavior of the very big and complex system we're living in over more years.
And yes, it's the humanity's use of fossil fuels that is warming the world:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412
"The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880."
What do you mean under the "fuzzy binary answer"? The scientists of the whole world produced much more detailed material:
hence, just what is short term and what is long term? let alone, as pointed out by the Dyson, China and India alone negate anything we can do.
"The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880."
The science identified the reason for it, it was estimated long ago and it's known. Long term means that we can, as maybe too simplified example, expect on the average only once in decades to get the new whole-world all times high (the fluctuations are the property of the system) but that they will steadily come, the trend is: "hotter" on the average. Not every single year.
> predictions for twenty to fifty years out are nothing but hedge bets.
Wrong. CO2 in atmosphere, the impact of it are the facts, and the speed it increases isn't something that can change much without willful action.
> all the alarmism that many spread in the late 90s and early 2000s about how dire the weather would be by now never panned out.
Please any citation of "alarmism" from the real scientists (that is, an example of something such claimed by scientist, that was since disproved and that was believed by more than a few percent of scientists).
The IPCC reports are the result of the world's climate scientists.
They answer your request,
> Please any citation of "alarmism" from the real scientists (that is, an example of something such claimed by scientist, that was since disproved and that was believed by more than a few percent of scientists).
assuming of course that you stand by your closing statement from that post,
> The IPCC reports are the result of the world's climate scientists.
"there is nothing remotely identified" "that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change."
(from the "open letter from 255 members of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel laureates")
or
"Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significant errors."