ben_WG

One can hope that the bilateral risk reduction dialogue between the US and Russia, still going on despite all other conflicts, would at least prevent the described Russian confusion over the American launches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Risk_Reduction_Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Risk_Reductio...

The Schrödinger equation emerges from classical mechanics most closely (well ok that's a bit subjective) from the Hamilton Jacobi frame work, and it was indeed here that Schrödinger saw, in hindsight, because in the beginning he pretty much guessed it, the biggest connection to classical dynamics. This is also related to the optic-mechanical relation that abstracts mechanics to the point it becomes comparable to optics.

Hamilton Jacobi theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%E2%80%93Jacobi_equa...

Optic-mechanical analogy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_optico-mechanic...

Schrödinger equation from HJ theory: https://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/wheeler/documents/Quant...

Do I get this right, you are blaming the women to be immature and irresponsible for...couch surfing at someone's place? I don't think that's sound. People should absolutely be confident that staying at someone's place via couch surfing will not lead to them being raped. Or is this bar too high for men, because boys will be boys? I really don't see the rope's other end.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand correctly. Do you mean a) examples for increasing frequency of weather extremes? Or b) present day damages attributed to climate change (which can only be attributed in probability: this heat wave is X times more likely thanks to human emissions..)

If it's a), examples are that the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the past 13 years; also increasing are the volatility of rainfall, the likelihood, duration, and intensity of heat waves, the arctic temperature, the temperature in the tundra, the acidity in the oceans, etc..

If it's b) you can look at area of bush and forest fires, duration of droughts, areas of flooding, desertification etc. which are all increasing, and which cause tangible damage.

Of course you have a good point; it's nontrivial to "distribute" the damage of, say, the flood in Pakistan last year, into: climate change, bad urban planning, high population density, bad political response etc. But the bottom line is: the climate is changing quicker than we are adapting to it. The fact that many factors come together, and that it's complicated, doesn't mean that this isn't a factor.

I think one of the main misconceptions is that the discussion is too centred on average global temperature, or average rainfall. It's the increasing frequency of wild fluctuations (droughts, floods, heat waves) that creates the challenges.

If you like I can dig out references etc., I just wasn't sure what kind of specific examples you were looking for.

That's a good point regarding scientific claims about the future, thanks. You are right that the future of a complex system is impossible to predict precisely, and maybe that's often misleadingly communicated.

I think in terms of negative consequences, though, the effects of anthropogenic climate change are already here in the present. Although it is scientifically debated to what extent one can attribute single weather extremes to co2 emissions, it's not really disputed that today's climate, which is already severely impacting humans negatively, is due to past human emissions.

Basically: it's already happening right now, and to identify the mechanisms responsible for the present climate does not require belief that goes beyond other scientific insights that are otherwise widely accepted.

Global warming is not a matter of belief, but of trust in the scientific community. What you may be criticising is how some media report on the climate catastrophe, which itself has been scientifically studied since the 1970s and has been concluded to be caused by humans as much as scientists can agree on anything. Whether people "believe" in global warming is only relevant in terms of policy, just like it took some time in the late 19th century for people to accept that some illnesses are caused by bacteria and implement policy accordingly. Understanding the mechanisms of a threat is the first of many steps, but the threat itself doesn't care about whether you believe in it.