Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

Chaotic = very complicated.Chaotic does not mean random. In fact, many people, including myself, believe that there is no such thing as random. They're just chaotic. The seemingly random systems are actually chaotic. We just haven't figured out the pattern yet.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

if global warming will not have catastrophic results, then we have advanced technology to not depend on burning dirty things which make our air gross. and we're not using as much energy, which is more efficient. so we're improving efficiency, improving technology, improving our quality of life, AND! we don't have to suffer awful, horrible consequences. how is this bad? it's not a "if global warming is wrong, and you conserved energy, you're going to burn in hell!" kind of thing. it just isn't.

not everything that is an advancement is beneficial. take formula. completely off-topic, but amazing technology. but it's not better than the simple, natural, low-tech original.what isn't an advancement? trying to keep people from killing whales? i have a feeling you're talking about fringe whackos who stop using all technology and go live in caves. no serious person is supporting such nonsense. serious people are suggesting you use your body and walk or bike to work, but that's good for you!

Chaotic does not mean very complicated!It means that tiny differences in the current state result in massive differences in eventual state. So that, in effect, the future is random because it cannot be accurately predicted from the present.It has long been assumed weather is chaotic but analysis of the trends in the accuracy of weather prediction shows that long term prediction is improving at a faster rate than short term prediction. If weather was truly random then improvements in short term prediction and measurement would not help long term prediction. This is not the case.

*sigh*I'm not going to argue with you on this one. You appear to put your faith in the layman definition of chaos. Chaos does not mean random. Again, you are putting your faith too much into the layman version of what chaos means. I don't know what you are smoking, but the reason why long term predictions are getting better is because technology is improving which allow meteorologists to account more initial conditions.The reason a chaotic system like the weather is so hard fo us to predict is because there are simply too many (possibly an infinite) variables for us to account. This is also why the further into the future we try to predict a chaotic system the less accurate we get. Are you pulling a strawman on me? Because despite the fact that I've repeatedly said chaos does not mean random, you keep saying that I say the weather is random.Mr Jack, I'm sorry to say this now, but you've been misinformed about what a chaotic system is. Or may be your brits use the word differently over there. Just so you know, I spent some years working on a project involving chaotic systems.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Brilliant post. We should start a list, and put Senator Inhofe on the top. He's about the loudest voice I know of wh oconsistantly claims that GW is the "second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

Well, I don't really disagree with your statement. It would tend to seem that gradualness is more of a norm. However, given that the time frames we see are so large, its hard to claim this kind of quick temp change has not happened before. It really could be lost in the data.You are right about the little ice age, but then looking at a large temp history record, we are actually in a rare stable period so its hard to say rare cannot happen, also there are some massive climbs and dips throughout. While they might represent 100s or 1000s of years of change, given the nature of the data, it is possible that they involved large spikes (like we see today) over tens of years, followed by dips then climbs, in a sort of zig zag to the top.I hope that makes sense. Uh oh, looks like you stepped into it with that claim. If it makes you feel any better I know what you are saying. I agree that jack seems to be using a different definition.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I hate to call rank, Taz, but I have a Masters of Mathematics from Warwick University, one of the two highest ranking universtities in the UK for Mathematics. One of the things I have studied was Chaos Theory.I am quite familiar with what, exactly, chaos means in the mathematical sense. No, it doesn't. Which is exactly why that isn't what I wrote. Read my last post again. This time don't start by assuming I don't know what I'm talking about. Exactly my point. This is what demonstrates it's a non-chaotic system. In chaotic systems knowing the initial conditions better makes little or no difference and that difference increases with time. This is not the case with weather prediction. As our ability to measure initial conditions has improved our ability to measure longer term conditions has improved in step. This shows that weather is not chaotic but "merely" complicated.

Yes it does. With chaotic systems, the more initial conditions you know the more accurate your predictions will be. The problem is with chaotic systems, there are just too many variables to account, so after a certain amount of time the model breaks down. This is the case with the weather. I'm not disputing with this fact. I'm disputing the fact that just because we can account for more variables that this makes the weather not a chaotic system.Do you or do you not agree that with weather prediction the farther away in time we try to predict the less accurate our results are? Chaotic systems are still systems. They have structure to them if you look at the overall result. But they are certainly not random. With enough calculations, you can predict the outcome in the very near future. But the further away in the future you try to predict, the less accurate your predictions are. This is exactly the case with the weather. There are just too many variables. However, the more variables you can account for, the more accurate your results will be.I don't know where you got the idea that knowing more variables in the initial condition makes little to no difference in the prediction of a chaotic system. I have, and it still looks to me like you think the outcome of a chaotic system is random. Let me quote you directly.

quote:

---

It means that tiny differences in the current state result in massive differences in eventual state. So that, in effect, the future is random because it cannot be accurately predicted from the present.

---

But with chaotic systems, we can predict to a certain extent where the result will be. We can predict in a general sense.Just do a google search. I'm not the only one who thinks the weather is a chaotic system.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Wrong. Chaos Theory.With a chaotic system it doesn't matter how many variables you do or don't know; over time every tiny error will become significant. If you know every variable, but can only measure it within 3 decimal places you can't say with anything approaching certainty what it will do in the the future. You just get a narrowly wider window of accuracy; and the accuracy of your predictions falls off in a knowable way - which is not the way weather predictions fall off.This isn't a matter of knowing the variable or not. It's a question of being chaotic or not. In a non-chaotic system, similar initial conditions will have similar outcomes; in a chaotic system they won't - which means, if you don't have perfect information your future is indistinguishable from random despite being deterministic.

Well, you managed to quote mine me there and ignore the rest of my post. That's the point with chaotic system. The weather is a perfect example of such system. You can very accurately predict the weather a few minutes from now. You can reasonably predict the weather a few days from now. But a few weeks from now, the weather is a total mystery.Did you even read that wiki link?

quote:

---

Chaotic behavior has been observed in the laboratory in a variety of systems including electrical circuits, lasers, oscillating chemical reactions, fluid dynamics, and mechanical and magneto-mechanical devices. Observations of chaotic behaviour in nature include the dynamics of satellites in the solar system, the time evolution of the magnetic field of celestial bodies, population growth in ecology, the dynamics of the action potentials in neurons, and molecular vibrations. Everyday examples of chaotic systems include weather and climate.[1] There is some controversy over the existence of chaotic dynamics in the plate tectonics and in economics.[2] [3] [4]

---

But this is the problem. With chaotic systems, there are just too many variables for us to account. There will always be variables we haven't considered. Um, how so? Like I said before, the weather a few minutes from now is very predictable. The weather a few days from now are reasonably predictable. But try to predict the weather a few weeks from now and it will make a liar out of you. But Jack, in a non-chaotic system we can reasonably say that the determining variables in the initial condition are finite to such extent that we can virtually account for them all. A chaotic system, on the other hand, are harder to predict and the farther into the future we try to predict the less accurate we are because the the initial conditions that we did not account for become significant enough to change the result as time go on.Just do a google search. Every academic site you're going to stumble into about this subject will tell you that the weather is a chaotic system.Again, perhaps you brits are using a different definition of chaos? Um, no. The results may appear random, but the overall result will give you a definite structure. Random mean random. Chaos in a social sense is indistinquishable from random. Chaos in a physical or mathematical sense are predeterministic.I don't know why we are even arguing about this. Just do a google search for crying out loud. Even the wiki link you linked me to says that the weather is a chaotic system because (1) it is deterministic based on some simple rules and (2) it very sensitively depends on initial conditions.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

I asked you to be civil in another thread.

---

You reap what you sow. If you want a civil discourse, then it would behoove you to be civil.

quote:

---

I've grown tired of your accusations of playing dumb and asking if I think you're stupid.

---

Then stop playing dumb and treating the readership as if they were stupid. You claimed that you were trying to explain your use of the word "universal" when you didn't use the term. How is that a hallmark of "civil discourse"?You got caught making a silly argument. The appropriate response is to say, "Oops. I'm sorry. I'll try not to do that again," not come up with cockamamie excuses that are easily shown to be false in an attempt to save face.Same old same old with you.

quote:

---

Apparently you did not understand what I was doing.

---

On the contrary, I understood it all too well. That's why your actions have been to obfuscate and distract at every opportunity.

quote:

---

I was using rainfall in a rain forest of an example of how an examination might proceed

---

Ahem. The rainforest example was something that I brought up, not you. Once again, you try to come up with an excuse that is easily shown to be false.

quote:

---

just to show that the existence of the phenomena does not mean what kind of specific factors were related.

---

Indeed, but you wandered away from the example to focus on trivia. The example presented to you was not a diminished rainfall in the rainforest. It was the complete absence of rain thus meaning that it is no longer a rainforest but rather a desert.Thus, it is not a question of "variation." "Variation" means that there are some expectations for maxima and minima. When you blow through those boundaries, it is no longer "variation" but something that is being actively driven.

quote:

---

You avoided this point I made and discussed multiple phenomena. That makes no difference to ascertain the specific causative factor.

---

That makes no sense. If the specific causative factor should result in multiple phenomena, how does the existence of those multiple phenomena make no difference to whether or not the specific causative factor occurred?

quote:

---

Hot weather is not a factor in rising global temps, it is the result of factors.

---

Of course. Nobody said otherwise.

quote:

---

One more response from you like this and I will have to assume you have no interest in rational conversation.

---

Coming from you, that's rich. Since when have you ever been interested in "rational conversation"? You claim you've changed, but by your actions will you be known and so far, you haven't shown a single shift.Same old same old.Welcome back, holmes.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It may be that we're wrong, but we don't have any reason to think that we are

---

​

Okay then, even with out any reason to think so, what if “Global Warming” is wrong?

---

That makes no sense. All evidence points to it being an actuality and despite repeated attempts to show that it is false, we haven't managed to find any evidence against it......and you want to treat the question of it being wrong as just as legitimate a possibility as it being right?What if 2 + 2 = 5? I mean, I know all the evidence shows that it's really 4, but what if it's 5? Shouldn't we change our public policy to allow for the possibility? I mean, think of all the benefits we could get if we got 5 instead of 4! If I put in two bucks and you put in two bucks, suddenly we've got five!

quote:

---

And by “wrong”, the question means “not catastrophic”.

---

What part of the vanishing glaciers in just a few years is not "catastrophic"? What part of the hottest years on record happening continuously is not "catastrophic"?

quote:

---

Or, we could just discuss it as a hypothetical situation.

---

Oh, let's not play dumb. This isn't just an exercise of curiosity. We wouldn't have people treating Mr. Weather Channel as a legitimate source if it were just a way to wile away a couple hours.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Companies like Green Seal charge shit-tons of money

---

What does that have to do with anything? You're wandering off into trivia as if the existence of people who want to bilk people out of money means that there's no there there.There are plenty of scam artists out there who claim they can get you to lose weight. That doesn't mean there's no benefit to dropping excess weight. It means you have to be careful and pay attention.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Especially one that reduces our dependence upon foreign oil?

---

​

It’s not only about oil.

---

You're right. There's coal. Considering that electricity in the US is significantly generated by coal, don't you think that the development of other energy sources such as solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind would allow us to reduce the amount of coal we burn?And then there's natural gas. Again, if we could figure out a way to generate heat without releasing carbon dioxide, wouldn't that be an advancement?Are you really nitpicking over the source of carbon dioxide?

quote:

---

Are you trying to make me sound stupid?

---

Seeing as how I can't post for you, it is impossible for me to make you sound stupid no matter how hard I try. That responsibility lies squarely on your shoulders.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

If weather was truly random then improvements in short term prediction and measurement would not help long term prediction. This is not the case.

---

Actually, the opposite is true. In a random system, long-term predictions are easy. It's the short-term ones that are impossible.If I have a fair die, the long-term prediction is that the results should break down equally among the faces and that prediction is very accurate. It's what the next roll of the die will be that is so difficult to predict.Chaotic systems are those that are sensitive to initial conditions. They are, in some sense, the opposite of random systems: Short-term predictions are easier than long-term. The logistic map is a good example:x_n+1 = r_n(1 - x_n)When x starts between 0 and 1, we see interesting effects as r increases from 0. The sequence converges until r passes 3 when it suddenly starts oscillating between two values. As r increases, it bifurcates again into an oscillation around four values, then eight, and then when r hits about 3.54, true chaos happens. There is no way to predict what the long-term outcome will be. Short-term, we have a very good prediction of what the next result will be. We've got a formula to tell us. But the only way to figure out the long-term result is to run through it.As mentioned elsewhere, the reason why we are getting better at our weather predictions has to do with our ability to take more precise measurements and a more complete model.But just to be clear, weather is not the same thing as climate.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.