IGX "...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."

I see it differently. Using your analogy the patient (planet) is sick (has a fever, literally). You believe that reducing exposure to some factor (CO2) will bring improvement. I, on the other hand, am not sure the patient is sick in the first place, not convinced that the fever is caused by CO2 and want to see reasonable evidence that if we reduce CO2 by introducing fairly drastic measures (that are not likely to be successful) the fever will subside. So, exactly, it's not CO2 that is "the drug" it's the attempt to reduce it.

Lastly, don't hang on Taleb's ideas too much. While he says a lot of interesting things he also manages to say shit of unbelievable magnitude without giving it much thought.

_________________

What the fuck is with the reasoning by analogy? The patient has a fever?

The Earth is not a human being. It's a complex system with all sorts of feedbacks including biological feedbacks.

Where are the closed form equations that underpin the models? Where are the Nobel prizes in Physics or Chemistry?

We need this to estimate a best remedy.

_________________
Data talks, bullshit walks.

Poor people are dirty and boorish, and there's way too many of them. That's why. But carbon sequestration is a straightforward path to reduction in atmospheric carbon that requires no "regressive" practices. As if iPhones, fast food, and vacation junkets measure progress...

_________________
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

Not interested in getting into this argument. Hell, I don't even know where you guys get the time to write all this.

Nonlinear fluid dynamics is not my area of expertise. I do have enough experience with it, I'm guessing more than anybody on here, and its modeling to have a good sense of its utility and limitations. I also personally know some of the folks involved in the highest levels of this work. Not a noteworthy resume but enough to make some general observations.

The equations are well known. The primary governing equations are Navier-Stokes. It's a nonlinear partial differential, making it very sensitive to initial and boundary conditions. The same equation is used for modeling fluid flow in seemingly such disparate areas as fluid (air) flow over an aircraft design or the dynamics in a chemical reactor. The important thing to note is all these areas of study are heavily supported by empirical work. You'd be a fool to climb into an airplane designed solely from a model without there being extensive wind tunnel work. It's because the nonlinear properties of the equations make exact solutions highly elusive. Further, the solutions are developed by brute force calculation, no closed form solution exists for all but trivial, pedantic problems.

Two points here. You need the empiricism to pin the model and even that pinned model can diverge . This observations can be in a laboratory experiment or, as is the case with the climate, direct observation of the object under study. Next, in spite of this inability of the model to predict the evolution of the system over all time, for all forcing functions and boundary conditions does not render its predictions useless or unhelpful. If you require a 100% predictive model then don't get on an airplane. There's no guarantee it will fly or stay up if it does.

That said, anybody who tries to tell you the models can predict the exact amount of ice melting, ocean temperatures or levels, especially 50 years from now, is blowing sunshine up your ass. BUT, the inclusion of anthropological CO2 sources sure does drive those models to better predictions. We can include other things, like variations in sun intensities, wherein there's evidence of temperature rise in other planetary systems, but they don't come near as close as those human-driven forcing functions. We don't need exactitude to gain insight from the model.

Given all that, good sense says effort should be expended in minimizing those CO2 sources. There are ways of so doing that don't turn economies on their collective ears and require research that has the possibility of yielding other dividends in technology as do most such large research efforts. The only exception to such thinking is if there are reasons to believe that the suggested methods of minimizing CO2 production could result in doing harm to the climate rather than good. I'm not aware of any.

TL;DR but ya:
Dumbfuck nerds screech like castrated teens that you need to know everything perfectly in order to have a decent idea of how to improve a situation, but that's why they end up with ugly chicks. They're losers waiting for shit to just happen.

_________________
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

_________________
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

So far predictions by all existing CO2-climate models have been dismal. I would not be boarding a plane designed with models of similar quality. Neither will I do anything to a patient that is likely to produce result similar to the climate models. But for some it makes sense to keep doing the same thing - pouring more data into a computer - and expect a different result. Good luck.

Alas, opinions differ. Some of us are dumbfuck nerds, some are brainwashed patsies. The former tend to try have a discussion, the latter mostly lean on emotional, catastrophe and insult. A new word: pedophrasty: the use of children's welfare to make the argument stronger. Very useful for CO2 debates: "I feel sorry for our children ..." To each his own.

I believe that climate shtick distracts us from problems that are a) more pressing, b) have solid cause and effect evidence base and c) are more manageable. Pollution, overpopulation, overuse of resources - very obvious three. Makes more sense to me to apply effort here instead of trying to change the weather in the next hundred years.

Happy coming 2019, everyone.

_________________

Yes, you've said all of that already. What you haven't touched on is: (i) is carbon a greenhouse gas; and (ii) are we dumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Hint: the answer to both of those questions is yes.
No, about the above, not really.

You weren't having a discussion. You were talking about what you wanted to talk about--modeling--and not about the basic facts and the constructive next steps.
Sell it to yourself however you like. Limiting pollution would include limiting air emissions. Limiting population would limit air emissions. Limiting overuse of resources would limit air emissions. So fuck it, let's do those three things. I'm on board.
You too my Russo-Afro-Australasian fren!

_________________
"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

_________________