On 1/1/2012 2:14 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 01/01/2012 20:53, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>>> I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer.  I said that the
>>>> climate will not behave any differently.  One is not the other.
>> That's not particularly logical, John.  If one changes a variable, then
>> the outcome changes.
>
> I think you both agree... somehow.
> John states that the climate's rules are not changed (the reactions
> remain the same, the rules of physics are not updated).
> Jim states that the outcome will be different because the input
> variables are differents.
>
> To simplify, assume climate is a function f(x):= 3*x.
>
> John states: f(x) remains unchanged.
> Jim states: x was pi, next it is 4.
>
> Both are corrects. old f(x) was 3 pi. new f(x) will be 12.
Yeah, but, we are talking about something more complex than that. 
Something that, within certain constraints, has a stable result, but 
which can get far more complex, and seemingly chaotic, if you change the 
variables too much. Its not like we don't know of, or see, types of 
whether that is unusual any place. For example, from what I understand 
there is a certain kind if high altitude cloud that is very rare, and so 
high that, at night it is visible, due to reflecting sunlight from 
around the curvature of the earth (where its not obviously visible from 
the ground). This is, supposedly becoming more common in the last decade 
or so. While it may be true that the fundamental laws stay the same, you 
have two major problems. The first one is, certain uncommon results can 
become more common. The second one is, if those uncommon events have 
secondary effects, such as disturbing other nearby weather systems, 
which they wouldn't normally, or as much, the resulting change is no 
longer predictable, given *expected* results from such proximities.

Post a reply to this message