Jump to content

The Prediction Thread


Coss
 Share

Recommended Posts

And another prediction, over the next 8,000 years the oceans will rise something in the order of 100 ft or 33 metres - ish.

Based on the information at the link. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/8000-year-old-boat-building-platform-found-coast-britain-180972989/

And given that diving archaeologists will generally use normal air and restrict the depth, at which they find things to less than 120 ft.

So we can expect more sea level rise independent of any Global panic about human effects on climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Less of a prediction - more of the this is the appropriate thread for the post, having content related and so on...

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Not a post about climate change  being real or not.

 

This link is posted to demonstrate what I've always held to be true in the climate argument. The science is not in.

Now there is some science that is surprising. It doesn't go one way or the other to solve the, pro or anti argument, but in a short period of time, it shows that change, does indeed happen.

 

 It also shows that predicting the future is not something that science is particularly good at. Science is good at demonstrating , fact.

 

So the gist of the article at the above link is that - there is more snow arriving at Antartica, than ice leaving, and, wait for it, if that changes, there could be less in the future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Coss said:

Less of a prediction - more of the this is the appropriate thread for the post, having content related and so on...

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Not a post about climate change  being real or not.

 

This link is posted to demonstrate what I've always held to be true in the climate argument. The science is not in.

Now there is some science that is surprising. It doesn't go one way or the other to solve the, pro or anti argument, but in a short period of time, it shows that change, does indeed happen.

 

 It also shows that predicting the future is not something that science is particularly good at. Science is good at demonstrating , fact.

 

So the gist of the article at the above link is that - there is more snow arriving at Antartica, than ice leaving, and, wait for it, if that changes, there could be less in the future...

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

I guess you missed this part of the article. I guess science can't predict a solar eclipse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solar eclipses yes, but climate is hugely complex and the computing power, is yet to be developed, to get the accuracy, that something like, following eclipses has.

Or: calculating the periodicity or the orbits of 1, 2, 3 or more planets, is child play compared with calculating the movement of atoms, in the atmosphere and the myriad of variables that affect them.

and "But it might" is key, in your quoted sentence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are forgetting thermodynamics and statistical mechanics! It is a far simpler problem to determine the final mean temperature at a particular CO2 concentration.

Take an ice cube from the freezer and place in a glass (in a 25C room). To predict the shape of the ice cube as it melts is a very difficult problem. However predicting the final temperature is very easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll play your silly game:

1/. Clouds - the amount and nature of cloud cover will affect how much of the suns energy is reflected, and therefore how much of the climate entropy is sun derived

2/. Plankton density - the amount and nature of the various plankton species ( and there are a gajillion tons of the stuff) will determine how much CO2 is converted into Biomass and how much Oxygen is available. Contrary to popular belief, plants don't only produce Oxygen, but they use it too for growth and such, along wth CO2, which they convert to sugars (Photosynthesis) which they use some of too. So how much plankton, there is, has a direct bearing on CO2 levels and O2 levels. The more O2,  the more plants grow, world wide, like.

3/. Permafrost - Chicken and Egg, as permafrost melts, it released CO2 into the atmosphere, as a lot of permafrost is dead mosses and stuff, they decay, releasing CO2.
Is it - warmer, means melting permafrost, means more CO2?   or   is it - more CO2, means more warm, means melting permafrost?

My contention is that as examples, for the three above (and there are more) phenomena, to be accurately measured, we require computing power we don't have. The best we can do is model on a sample of data. Thats like predicting anything, it's a prediction, not fact, not science, ask any pollster.

I defy anyone to name me a computer or group of computers, that could calculate any of the above three examples, to any degree of certainty, and that's assuming we have a big enough data set to start with. I think that this is where the AI of the future will prove its utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...