Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
16-03-2020, 20:40   #2086
oriel36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 361
The coronavirus and the practical way to mitigate its spread by other countries has exposed the systemic failure known as experimental modeling/scientific method to which the English academics cling due to its origin in Royal Society circles.

For once, society got ahead of a damaging theory even though there are still others out there like 'climate change' and hypothetical future outcomes rather than dealing with what is in front of people in terms of atmospheric and oceanic pollution as a 'tidy towns' endeavour -

"But the reason that mathematicians are not perceptive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of perception where the principles do not allow of such arrangement....We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are perceptive, and that men of perception are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of perception mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning." Pascal

For once a chink of light broke the strangehold of mathematical modeling and its limitations.
oriel36 is offline  
Advertisement
18-03-2020, 10:42   #2087
Roger_007
Registered User
 
Roger_007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by oriel36 View Post
The coronavirus and the practical way to mitigate its spread by other countries has exposed the systemic failure known as experimental modeling/scientific method to which the English academics cling due to its origin in Royal Society circles.

For once, society got ahead of a damaging theory even though there are still others out there like 'climate change' and hypothetical future outcomes rather than dealing with what is in front of people in terms of atmospheric and oceanic pollution as a 'tidy towns' endeavour -

"But the reason that mathematicians are not perceptive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of perception where the principles do not allow of such arrangement....We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are perceptive, and that men of perception are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of perception mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning." Pascal

For once a chink of light broke the strangehold of mathematical modeling and its limitations.
Mathematical models only work where there are no ‘unknowns’ and where the assumptions that underlie the calculations are proven and robust. For instance, it is possible to model the solar system and predict with accuracy the position of any planet at any point in the foreseeable future.
The only way that the models used for climate predictions can be proven accurate is to look at historical models and compare them with accurate observed data collected over a long portion of time.
It is not possible to directly collect accurate temperature data on a global scale without substantial adjustments being made to the raw data and estimates being made for where no data is available.This is where disputes arise as to what adjustments are being made and how.
It only takes a minor error in the input data or in assumptions being made to render climate models more and more inaccurate the more you roll them forward in time.
The claim that if we reduce or increase atmospheric CO2 by x amount, that the average global temperature will be y degrees in 100 years time is simply preposterous.
Roger_007 is offline  
18-03-2020, 12:09   #2088
oriel36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger_007 View Post
Mathematical models only work where there are no ‘unknowns’ and where the assumptions that underlie the calculations are proven and robust. For instance, it is possible to model the solar system and predict with accuracy the position of any planet at any point in the foreseeable future.
Rude moderators will cut me off quickly and especially when calling into question how experimental modeling ended up subsuming astronomical predictions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The problem with this is that modeling and conclusions become one and the same so that empirical proponents of whatever stripe, in this case for or against 'climate change', are arguing over the models as if they were conclusions.

The predictive positions of the planets, Sun and moon within a geocentric celestial sphere framework were based on the 365/366 day calendar framework using the Sun's motion along the ecliptic plane -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.luc...n_ecliptic.gif

When accurate clocks emerged in the late 17th century, the framework was altered to RA/Dec in order to permit the use of the 24 hour day within the calendar framework to create more accurate predictions of the positions of planets and Sun -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.luc...solar_year.gif


While making astronomical predictions more accurate, it was further adrift between cause and effect linking the Earth's motions to terrestrial sciences like climate, geology and biology. You can see this today with the rubbish attempt to explain the Equinox using a hideous pivoting circle of illumination and an Earth with a zero degree inclination -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html


What matters to the experimental theorists is that observations fit the model hence the backwards manipulation of imaging above to suit a wandering Sun through the background stars.

Asking contributors to deal with what is in front of them is bypassed for hypothetical future outcomes and that is dangerous, at least when it comes to dealing with the current plague much less 'climate change' modeling. I learned my lesson here before when it comes down to the technical ins and outs but mark well that in terms of the spread of the virus, the action of the Irish people and Government was based on immediate conditions rather than future conditions where the virus is expected to conform to modeling and there is a massive difference and distance between the two perspectives.

Last edited by oriel36; 18-03-2020 at 12:13.
oriel36 is offline  
18-03-2020, 19:12   #2089
Nabber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by oriel36 View Post
Rule III.
I prefer these rule 3s

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...?term=rule%203
Nabber is offline  
19-03-2020, 10:06   #2090
oriel36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabber View Post
The limitations of modeling also exposes its disruptive nature including today where polar sunrise happens at the North pole for the one and only time this year.

Like all sunrises, it is due to a surface rotation, however, the polar sunrise event is a function of the orbital motion of the Earth and the fact that when daily rotation and all its effects are subtracted, the entire surface of the planet still turns once each year to the Sun. This includes your location.

It happens that I have immunity from the empirical herd who are lost in these important matters -

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal scientists of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these scientists shut their eyes to the light of truth" Galileo

The Earth doesn't tilt towards and away from the Sun, it turns parallel to the orbital plane as a function of its orbital motion hence the weather will warm up in Ireland in the coming months as that orbital induced rotation combines with daily rotation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

What happens at the South pole in September is about to happen at the North pole presently.
oriel36 is offline  
Advertisement
19-03-2020, 21:17   #2091
pistolpetes11
Moderator
 
pistolpetes11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,866
DONT POST IN THIS THREAD AGAIN or you will banned from the entire forum

Quote:
Originally Posted by oriel36 View Post
Rude moderators will cut me off quickly and especially when calling into question how experimental modeling ended up subsuming astronomical predictions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The problem with this is that modeling and conclusions become one and the same so that empirical proponents of whatever stripe, in this case for or against 'climate change', are arguing over the models as if they were conclusions.

The predictive positions of the planets, Sun and moon within a geocentric celestial sphere framework were based on the 365/366 day calendar framework using the Sun's motion along the ecliptic plane -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.luc...n_ecliptic.gif

When accurate clocks emerged in the late 17th century, the framework was altered to RA/Dec in order to permit the use of the 24 hour day within the calendar framework to create more accurate predictions of the positions of planets and Sun -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.luc...solar_year.gif


While making astronomical predictions more accurate, it was further adrift between cause and effect linking the Earth's motions to terrestrial sciences like climate, geology and biology. You can see this today with the rubbish attempt to explain the Equinox using a hideous pivoting circle of illumination and an Earth with a zero degree inclination -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html


What matters to the experimental theorists is that observations fit the model hence the backwards manipulation of imaging above to suit a wandering Sun through the background stars.

Asking contributors to deal with what is in front of them is bypassed for hypothetical future outcomes and that is dangerous, at least when it comes to dealing with the current plague much less 'climate change' modeling. I learned my lesson here before when it comes down to the technical ins and outs but mark well that in terms of the spread of the virus, the action of the Irish people and Government was based on immediate conditions rather than future conditions where the virus is expected to conform to modeling and there is a massive difference and distance between the two perspectives.
pistolpetes11 is offline  
Thanks from:
22-03-2020, 09:47   #2092
Roger_007
Registered User
 
Roger_007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 18,156
In reference to the title of this thread, I think that the third option has arrived unexpected and unwelcome. It’s called Covid-19.
The arrival of this pandemic has opened all our eyes to the real existential threat to humanity. This one may not kill us all but the next one might.
Where are all those ‘concerned’ young people now with their ‘climate strikes’ and condemnation of the older generations. Where is Greta Thunberg now. Why is she not using her immense influence over the youth of the world to tell young people to behave responsibly to safeguard older people.
Roger_007 is offline  
22-03-2020, 11:08   #2093
dolanbaker
Moderator
 
dolanbaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger_007 View Post
In reference to the title of this thread, I think that the third option has arrived unexpected and unwelcome. It’s called Covid-19.
The arrival of this pandemic has opened all our eyes to the real existential threat to humanity. This one may not kill us all but the next one might.
Where are all those ‘concerned’ young people now with their ‘climate strikes’ and condemnation of the older generations. Where is Greta Thunberg now. Why is she not using her immense influence over the youth of the world to tell young people to behave responsibly to safeguard older people.
From an environmental aspect, the rapid reduction in travel and industrial activity has had quite dramatic affects on the local environment in many areas, if that doesn't wake up people to the damage that human activity is doing, nothing will.


I am, of course referring to local pollution and nothing else.
dolanbaker is offline  
22-03-2020, 12:31   #2094
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,173
The current coronavirus is an acute crisis that we had plenty of warning about but still did nothing to prevent it from spreading before it was too late.


It is now going to cost astronomical amounts of money to deal with and will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths

Sound familiar?

The biggest difference between Covid 19 and Climate change, is that we will have 1 or 2 years of severe economic impact, but it will end. Climate change is unstoppable and cumulative, and when the penny finally drops, we will be faced with a new permanent reality

All the people who were saying 'it's just a flu' or 'Our health system can cope' or 'we'll have a vaccine before it becomes our problem' are the same as everyone who has, and continues to, deny the reality and seriousness of climate change.

Covid 19 is an acute crisis, a viral infection that takes weeks to spread around the world. Climate change is a chronic disease, that takes decades to manifest itself, but is incurable and if we don't do enough to limit it, it will have economic, social and environmental consequences that will make this crisis look like a mild runny nose

The scientific consensus on Covid 19 is that we need to test extensively and isolate carriers as quickly as possible.

Some countries are ignoring this because they think the science doesn't apply to them. Reality bites and it bites hard, and those countries who delayed and dithered will be the worst affected, ecomically, socially and in terms of loss of life and long term health impacts from lung damage and mental health consequences.
Akrasia is offline  
Advertisement
24-03-2020, 22:27   #2095
SeaBreezes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
The current coronavirus is an acute crisis that we had plenty of warning about but still did nothing to prevent it from spreading before it was too late.


It is now going to cost astronomical amounts of money to deal with and will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths

Sound familiar?

The biggest difference between Covid 19 and Climate change, is that we will have 1 or 2 years of severe economic impact, but it will end. Climate change is unstoppable and cumulative, and when the penny finally drops, we will be faced with a new permanent reality

All the people who were saying 'it's just a flu' or 'Our health system can cope' or 'we'll have a vaccine before it becomes our problem' are the same as everyone who has, and continues to, deny the reality and seriousness of climate change.

Covid 19 is an acute crisis, a viral infection that takes weeks to spread around the world. Climate change is a chronic disease, that takes decades to manifest itself, but is incurable and if we don't do enough to limit it, it will have economic, social and environmental consequences that will make this crisis look like a mild runny nose

The scientific consensus on Covid 19 is that we need to test extensively and isolate carriers as quickly as possible.

Some countries are ignoring this because they think the science doesn't apply to them. Reality bites and it bites hard, and those countries who delayed and dithered will be the worst affected, ecomically, socially and in terms of loss of life and long term health impacts from lung damage and mental health consequences.
I beg to differ.
My views on the seriousness of this virus and its effect on humanity and global economies has been consistent.

And yet not 3 weeks ago (Feb 25) you said the complete opposite about the seriousness of this virus.. (quote the post below)
So... if you were wrong about how to manage the virus, could you possibly be misled with your other views too?

Just saying...

By the way hope your wife is doing ok. Horrible times.

Akrasia:
Nope. It would be completely counterproductive and an overreaction once the virus has already become so widespread that it’s not possible to contain anymore. You want to also close down all businesses, schools, public facilities, restaurants, sporting and recreation facilities.....?

This is a virus that is 98% non lethal and we will probably have a vaccine for it within 18 months.

Shutting down the economy will kill many more vulnerable people than this virus would on its own

If I was dependent on medication right now, I’d be more worried about my meds being unavailable because of restrictions on travel than the risk of me getting Covid 19
SeaBreezes is offline  
25-03-2020, 07:53   #2096
M.T. Cranium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,871
Just wanted to mention that the data for Toronto are now completely posted with the UHI adjustments made to the temperature series, all months and seasons ranked for that now. I am taking a sort of vacation from the work for a week or two as it has been a grind lasting several months. We had planned a real holiday (before the virus outbreak) but of course that is now impossible to execute as we can't even cross the border let alone get anywhere warm. Oh well, it is what it is.

I don't think we can necessarily draw parallels between the pandemic and the climate challenge. Presumably governments have generalized plans in place for health emergencies then draw in the details when the exact nature of the threat is better known. In this case it would appear that they weren't very well prepared for the need for specific intervention tools (ventilators the primary example).

But with the risk of rising sea levels, the threat is already known and understood. I have taken a different approach as to cause and effect, but would not expect a different effect than any standard warminista who might still believe it can be averted through cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. Whether they're right or not, or I'm right or not, sea levels are either going to rise, or stay steady, it seems quite unlikely that they would fall. So for me, it seems like an absolute necessity for governments to draw up plans to cope with rising sea levels. If they want to believe the orthodox theory and participate in schemes to avoid the outcome, I can't really say or do anything that would change such an approach, but I can say with sincerity that I don't think it will work, and it may be worse for the economy than doing nothing would have been.

Even if they do believe in that, and work diligently towards it, they must be realistic and accept that the intervention could fail (or possibly could be incapable of working). Therefore it remains necessary to have plans in place -- what will happen as and if sea levels do start to rise? Can there be any diversion of any of the surplus water to large-scale desalination and irrigation. I've been told it would be a drop in the bucket, maybe my proposed schemes are a bit larger than what we have thought about in the past, but even so, I could see where a half metre would be about the upper limit of convertible water from the oceans. What about other technological interventions? Increasing the volume of the oceans by taking undersea ridges, possibly, and dismantling them over 20-30 years. Boiling off water into the atmosphere in strategic places to allow the evaporation to seed rainfall that would hit arid land masses. I even thought of this -- and I don't know the consequences, perhaps somebody might -- just pipe a lot of seawater far inland into the Sahara desert and let it loose in selected areas -- most of it would evaporate. If you removed 0.1 metres of ocean surface per year (sounds like a massive amount) how much would return to the oceans through runoff or rainfall created over oceans? My guess is some small fraction of the 0.1 metres, maybe 0.02 metres, for a net gain of 0.08 metres. That's a net drop of 8 cm or a bit over three inches. Would there be any large scale negative impacts from this concept, or any gains, or would it simply be a zero-sum proposition for the arid, desolate Sahara, and a net gain on the sea level front?

I can't see how this would cost any more than is spent on worthless military misadventures at the present time.
M.T. Cranium is offline  
(4) thanks from:
26-03-2020, 10:06   #2097
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaBreezes View Post
I beg to differ.
My views on the seriousness of this virus and its effect on humanity and global economies has been consistent.

And yet not 3 weeks ago (Feb 25) you said the complete opposite about the seriousness of this virus.. (quote the post below)
So... if you were wrong about how to manage the virus, could you possibly be misled with your other views too?

Just saying...

By the way hope your wife is doing ok. Horrible times.

Akrasia:
Nope. It would be completely counterproductive and an overreaction once the virus has already become so widespread that it’s not possible to contain anymore. You want to also close down all businesses, schools, public facilities, restaurants, sporting and recreation facilities.....?

This is a virus that is 98% non lethal and we will probably have a vaccine for it within 18 months.

Shutting down the economy will kill many more vulnerable people than this virus would on its own

If I was dependent on medication right now, I’d be more worried about my meds being unavailable because of restrictions on travel than the risk of me getting Covid 19
My post was responding to this comment "Originally Posted by Ikozma View Post
What are the chances of a complete shutdown of air and sea travel around Europe in the coming months, would it be a possibility?"

We still haven't done this, there has not been a shutdown in all air sea transport around europe. All businesses have not closed, freight and air travel is still happening . We are trying to follow the scientific advice from the epidemiological models, but we are playing catch up.

The Evidence based recommendations from the expert bodies, are to do testing testing testing, and to target isolation at people who have been tested positive, contact tracing to find people who have been in close contact with confirmed cases

Our problem is that when the evidence of a pandemic was emerging, we should have spent much more resources on ramping up production on things like testing kits. Ireland and most other countries were too slow to react and thought they could follow the usual pace of action in the face of a crisis that was predicted with confidence but not certainty

We have the capacity to take emergency measures, but we didn't recognise the emergency quick enough to prevent it

Now we are delaying the spread and mitigating it's impact. The solution was never to shut down all travel and the entire economy, it is to take appropriate measures to reduce the spread of the disease while still keeping the ability to have enough food and medical supplies and other critical services. Earlier action would have allowed less severe measures later on. And much less severe consequences.

We are watching two worlds playing out before us. In one world, we have countries who took action early and reduced the spread of the disease, these countries will suffer a much lower cost, economically, and in human suffering compared with the countries who did nothing or pretended it wasn't happening long after the evidence was overwhelming on the need to act.

In many many ways, this crisis is very very similar to the climate change crisis, except it's happening in a much shorter timescale.

Last edited by Akrasia; 26-03-2020 at 10:13.
Akrasia is offline  
26-03-2020, 10:15   #2098
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,173
There are some important differences however, Coronavirus will have either a vaccine, or good treatments within months (estimates are 18 months for a vaccine, treatments hopefully much sooner)

Climate change does not have a cure, the damage we are doing now is basically irreversible in human timescales.
Akrasia is offline  
26-03-2020, 10:28   #2099
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium View Post
Just wanted to mention that the data for Toronto are now completely posted with the UHI adjustments made to the temperature series, all months and seasons ranked for that now. I am taking a sort of vacation from the work for a week or two as it has been a grind lasting several months. We had planned a real holiday (before the virus outbreak) but of course that is now impossible to execute as we can't even cross the border let alone get anywhere warm. Oh well, it is what it is.

I don't think we can necessarily draw parallels between the pandemic and the climate challenge. Presumably governments have generalized plans in place for health emergencies then draw in the details when the exact nature of the threat is better known. In this case it would appear that they weren't very well prepared for the need for specific intervention tools (ventilators the primary example).

But with the risk of rising sea levels, the threat is already known and understood. I have taken a different approach as to cause and effect, but would not expect a different effect than any standard warminista who might still believe it can be averted through cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. Whether they're right or not, or I'm right or not, sea levels are either going to rise, or stay steady, it seems quite unlikely that they would fall. So for me, it seems like an absolute necessity for governments to draw up plans to cope with rising sea levels. If they want to believe the orthodox theory and participate in schemes to avoid the outcome, I can't really say or do anything that would change such an approach, but I can say with sincerity that I don't think it will work, and it may be worse for the economy than doing nothing would have been.

Even if they do believe in that, and work diligently towards it, they must be realistic and accept that the intervention could fail (or possibly could be incapable of working). Therefore it remains necessary to have plans in place -- what will happen as and if sea levels do start to rise? Can there be any diversion of any of the surplus water to large-scale desalination and irrigation. I've been told it would be a drop in the bucket, maybe my proposed schemes are a bit larger than what we have thought about in the past, but even so, I could see where a half metre would be about the upper limit of convertible water from the oceans. What about other technological interventions? Increasing the volume of the oceans by taking undersea ridges, possibly, and dismantling them over 20-30 years. Boiling off water into the atmosphere in strategic places to allow the evaporation to seed rainfall that would hit arid land masses. I even thought of this -- and I don't know the consequences, perhaps somebody might -- just pipe a lot of seawater far inland into the Sahara desert and let it loose in selected areas -- most of it would evaporate. If you removed 0.1 metres of ocean surface per year (sounds like a massive amount) how much would return to the oceans through runoff or rainfall created over oceans? My guess is some small fraction of the 0.1 metres, maybe 0.02 metres, for a net gain of 0.08 metres. That's a net drop of 8 cm or a bit over three inches. Would there be any large scale negative impacts from this concept, or any gains, or would it simply be a zero-sum proposition for the arid, desolate Sahara, and a net gain on the sea level front?

I can't see how this would cost any more than is spent on worthless military misadventures at the present time.
The problem with climate change is that there are some very plausible low probabilty High Impact scenarios that could take place if we get to certain tipping points, and Nobody knows what those tipping points are

The only way to reduce the risk, is to reduce our climate change impact by reducing emissions
Akrasia is offline  
26-03-2020, 19:52   #2100
Nabber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
Climate change does not have a cure, the damage we are doing now is basically irreversible in human timescales.
What damage is that?
Nabber is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet