How bad is my batch ?

[3D Anvil]

With respect, that isn't correct.

The mathematics of climate, and climate change, were discovered by Ed Lorenz in 1961 when he found thatclimate can be described by the types of equations that govern fluid dynamics which are nonlinear and "chaotic". These equations require the solution of Navier-Stokes equations for the atmosphere and are extremely sensitive to changes in initial parameters ( the "butterfly effect") and measurement errors so that tiny uncertainties and errors are magnified to the point where prediction is impossible. Nobody has solved these Navier Stokes equations for the atmosphere and nobody has managed to properly model clouds ( and several other things ) so according to Lorenz ( before he died ) climate prediction may be impossible, but even if it is possible, as some scientists think, even they concede we are not there yet: the same math that will solve problems with black holes and containing plasma in fusion generators, which we do not yet have, will be necessary.

The models used today are linear approximations. Climate is deterministic, which is a problem since we don't have solutions to determinitic equations, so they are increasingly stochastic, which inserts randomness rather than chaos, two very different things. The models in practice are NOT accurate and depend on many assumptions set out in the footnotes to the IPCC studies including, for example, linearity, which is, of course, a bogus assumption for a nonlinear system, and bandaid fixes like deep water warming, never observed - plus the data are constantly revised to correct the models retroactively, which would get an undergrad disciplined.

Intuition says pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere must result in some warming but since CO2 is a very small component f greenhouse gasses it can only force change in a nonlinear/chaotic process which defies intuition, as Lorenz described. Prediction is about the math, and we don't have the math.

If you want to discuss this in greater detail we have been discussing this for years in detail with references in the PA.

No disrespect, but:
-----------
In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[4][26][27] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.[28][29] Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods.[30] Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon – by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh – to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan–Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Here, Arrhenius refers to CO2 as carbonic acid (which refers only to the aqueous form H2CO3 in modern usage). The following formulation of Arrhenius's rule is still in use today:[31]

{\displaystyle \Delta F=\alpha \ln(C/C_{0})}

where {\displaystyle C_{0}}

is the concentration of CO2 at the beginning (time-zero) of the period being studied (if the same concentration unit is used for both {\displaystyle C}

and {\displaystyle C_{0}}

, then it doesn't matter which concentration unit is used); {\displaystyle C}

is the CO2 concentration at end of the period being studied; ln is the natural logarithm (= log base e (loge)); and {\displaystyle \Delta F}

is the augmentation of the temperature, in other words the change in the rate of heating Earth's surface (radiative forcing), which is measured in Watts per square meter.[31] Derivations from atmospheric radiative transfer models have found that {\displaystyle \alpha }

(alpha) for CO2 is 5.35 (± 10%) W/m2 for Earth's atmosphere.[32]
-----------
No one claims that the models are perfect, but they are holding up pretty well.

In a nutshell, climate change theory was developed years before the effect became noticeable, and it explains the observations we're seeing. As far as I know, none of the skeptics who doubt the theory have a credible *alternative* theory that explains the observed phenomena.

 

[3D Anvil]

So you think the vax has no negative side affects? So these people that I know that coincedentally died after the vaccine, were just going to die anyway? There's no fallacy here. They got the shot and they died. My son's team mate has clots in his heart, but Noooooo, it has to be everything else but the vax right? ANYTHING, but the vax. Get your head out of your ass man.

I know scores of people who have had the vaccine, and the people I know also know many people who've had it, and none of those hundreds of people have had a serious side effect. So the vaccine is safe.

See, that's not a good argument either. But there have been many controlled, peer-reviewed studies that ARE good evidence that the vaccines are safe.

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

And the long term side effects of having Covid itself are???

less than 1% die. more die from heart disease each year. more die from diabetes.

 

[91bravo]

I know scores of people who have had the vaccine, and the people I know also know many people who've had it, and none of those hundreds of people have had a serious side effect. So the vaccine is safe.

See, that's not a good argument either. But there have been many controlled, peer-reviewed studies that ARE good evidence that the vaccines are safe.

Natural immunity is a thing, nobody is talking about it, because then the establishment wouldn't make any money. Nobody is going to make me put something in my body that I don't want, no matter what their argument is. That's the whole point of this thing. The vax is not for everyone. You do you man.

 

[3D Anvil]

less than 1% die. more die from heart disease each year. more die from diabetes.

The death rate is about 2%, currently. Last year COVID was the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer. Personally, if we had safe vaccines for heart disease and cancer, I'd be first in line to get them.

 

[3D Anvil]

Natural immunity is a thing, nobody is talking about it, because then the establishment wouldn't make any money. Nobody is going to make me put something in my body that I don't want, no matter what their argument is. That's the whole point of this thing. The vax is not for everyone. You do you man.

The point is that it isn't just about you. It's about you and the people you could infect because you were irrational and didn't get vaccinated. It's about hundreds of thousands of people in the US who died unnecessarily.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

the virus that has less than a 1% casualty rate?

the one that kills fewer people than heart disease? Less than Diabetes?

the virus that the CDC says you're more protected against by natural immunity than a shot? that virus?

I'll roll the dice on 99.7% tha ks

Can you support that less than 1% number? And the 99.7% number . . . ? Maybe it's true with Omicron - I don't know. I ran the numbers about a year ago and at that time Covid's fatality rate across all demographics was about 2.7%.

Anyway, fatality is not the only measure. For many people Covid is asymptomatic. But others wind up in the hospital, in the ICU, on ventilators, suffer consequences for weeks or months . . . but survive. It isn't as simple as "well, it didn't kill me!"

As for "natural immunity" providing strong protection that the vax . . . that was true on Oct. 3, 2021 when Delta was dominant. It was NOT true on May 30, 2021 when the original strain was dominant. AFAIK, no one knows yet what the case is for Omicron. Still, assuming it is true for Omicron and for all strains goinf forward, what does that prove? It proves that if you have had Covid and survived, then the Vax might not provide much if any additional protection for you personally. I think that is pretty much universally the case with anti-viral vaccines. So what? As far as I know, no one has started rounding up unvaccinated folks who have had Covid and putting them in concentration camps. If you've already had the Covid, then do what you think is best.

 

[91bravo]

The point is that it isn't just about you. It's about you and the people you could infect because you were irrational and didn't get vaccinated. It's about hundreds of thousands of people in the US who died unnecessarily.

That's the dumbest post in this thread.

Ok, I'm really done now....don't wanna get dumb through osmosis here.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

Non of this justifies the FDA/Pfizer not releasing their data.

I agree that the FDA should force data release. But honestly , , , you can't blame Pfizer for fighting against it. If you ran Pfizer, you would do the same thing unless you had airtight eternal blanket immunity from lawsuits by slimey, greedy, plaintiffs' lawyers - and double-digit IQ jurors who readily accept post hoc ergo propter hoc regarding something they heard happened to their babysitter's cousin's ex-wife.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

The death rate is about 2%, currently. Last year COVID was the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer. Personally, if we had safe vaccines for heart disease and cancer, I'd be first in line to get them.

Good point.

The point is that it isn't just about you. It's about you and the people you could infect because you were irrational and didn't get vaccinated. It's about hundreds of thousands of people in the US who died unnecessarily.

Another good point.

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

The point is that it isn't just about you. It's about you and the people you could infect because you were irrational and didn't get vaccinated. It's about hundreds of thousands of people in the US who died unnecessarily.

what about the vaccine? doesn't it protect you from the scary virus?

if you have your shots you're safe right?

 

[3D Anvil]

what about the vaccine? doesn't it protect you from the scary virus?

if you have your shots you're safe right?

With Omicron I'm not really safe from *infection*, although the risk of serious illness is markedly reduced. Just the same, I'd rather not have the virus because there may be long-term consequences to the infection, like increased risk of Parkinson's, blood clots, etc. And again, it's not just about me. My parents, for example, are in their late 80s and at much greater risk for multiple reasons.

 

[HJK]

No disrespect, but:
-----------
In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[4][26][27] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.[28][29] Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Claude Pouillet. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods.[30] Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon – by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh – to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan–Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius's rule reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Here, Arrhenius refers to CO2 as carbonic acid (which refers only to the aqueous form H2CO3 in modern usage). The following formulation of Arrhenius's rule is still in use today:[31]

{\displaystyle \Delta F=\alpha \ln(C/C_{0})}

where {\displaystyle C_{0}}

is the concentration of CO2 at the beginning (time-zero) of the period being studied (if the same concentration unit is used for both {\displaystyle C}

and {\displaystyle C_{0}}

, then it doesn't matter which concentration unit is used); {\displaystyle C}

is the CO2 concentration at end of the period being studied; ln is the natural logarithm (= log base e (loge)); and {\displaystyle \Delta F}

is the augmentation of the temperature, in other words the change in the rate of heating Earth's surface (radiative forcing), which is measured in Watts per square meter.[31] Derivations from atmospheric radiative transfer models have found that {\displaystyle \alpha }

(alpha) for CO2 is 5.35 (± 10%) W/m2 for Earth's atmosphere.[32]
-----------
No one claims that the models are perfect, but they are holding up pretty well.

In a nutshell, climate change theory was developed years before the effect became noticeable, and it explains the observations we're seeing. As far as I know, none of the skeptics who doubt the theory have a credible *alternative* theory that explains the observed phenomena.

You are citing Wiki?
Look up Lorenz and the progress of science, and math, since the 19th century.
No, the models do not hold up well. In fact, they are completely different than they were 10 years ago, and they still don't work beyond a very narrow period of time and, as I said, are based on quite a few assumptions. None of this is addressed by Wiki.

I am not a "skeptic" who has "no alternative", as you so charmingly put it. I predicate my views on the real science and math and my views are actually mainstream and are admitted by the current leading authorities, like Palmer. The alternative is to continue to work on solving the problems in the known math and physics which, as I said, is being done using the same approaches to other nonlinear math problems like black holes and fusion, not to pretend we have a certainty and understanding we actually do not have. That's an issue less of science than politicization of science, which is not appropriate for outside the PA.

Come over to PA where we have a thread on this that incudes the actual peer reviewed articles and ( mostly ) literate discussion.

Until then, let me ask that you read the leading peer reviewed paper written by Palmer and citing Lorenz himself , which is as hardcore and mainstream as you can get:

Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction

Following Lorenz's seminal work on chaos theory in the 1960s, probabilistic approaches to prediction have come to dominate the science of weather and climate forecasting. This paper gives a perspective on Lorenz's work and how it has influenced the ways ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2011 Dec 13; 369(1956): 4751–4767.
doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
PMCID: PMC3270390
PMID: 22042896

Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction​

Julia Slingo1,* and Tim Palmer2,3
"Finally, Lorenz's theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable."

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

With Omicron I'm not really safe from *infection*, although the risk of serious illness is markedly reduced. Just the same, I'd rather not have the virus because there may be long-term consequences to the infection, like increased risk of Parkinson's, blood clots, etc. And again, it's not just about me. My parents, for example, are in their late 80s and at much greater risk for multiple reasons.

so... you can still be infected after vaccination?

you can still spread the virus after vaccination?

how many boosters are needed to make those things go away?

 

[3D Anvil]

I am not a skeptic who has no alternative, as you so charmingly put it.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't post an alternative theory as to why temperatures have been rising, given that it can't be explained by solar activity, Milankovich cycles, cosmic rays, or any of the many known phenomena that affect climate.

And in fact, the models *have* been pretty good, and are getting better as we learn more.

"Now, for the first time, a group of scientists — Zeke Hausfather of UC Berkeley, Henri Drake and Tristan Abbott of MIT, and Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies — has done a systematic review of climate models, dating back to the late 1970s. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, it tests model performance against a simple metric: how well they predicted global mean surface temperature (GMST) through 2017, when the latest observational data is available.

Long story short: “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication.”

I'd be happy to come over to PA, if you tell me what PA is.

 

[HJK]

so... you can still be infected after vaccination?

you can still spread the virus after vaccination?

how many boosters are needed to make those things go away?

The scary part is that vaccination does reduce the risk and extent of infection and also the risk and extent of transmission, but not completely.
Four vaxxes, properly spaced, are better than three but you probably can't do that indefinitely ( that has not been studied )
They are working on tweaking the vaccines for the new mutations of omicron.

This does raise the disturbing possibility that if vaccinated people still have active and transmissible viruses that could give rise to accelerated mutations that can beat the vaccine in a similar way that bacteria that survive an antibiotic can be selected or even "learn" by mutation to defeat those antibiotics.

We really need to kill or stop this thing before it gets worse.

 

[3D Anvil]

so... you can still be infected after vaccination?

you can still spread the virus after vaccination?

how many boosters are needed to make those things go away?

Yeah, the risk of infection is reduced by more than half for those who are boosted. Risk of severe disease is reduced by more than 90%. So there's less likelihood of infecting others, and much less likelihood of stressing the hospital system.

How many boosters are necessary to make things go away? Tough question. If everyone who was eligible was fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity it would probably be over already, or at least very soon.

 

[HJK]

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't post an alternative theory as to why temperatures have been rising, given that it can't be explained by solar activity, Milankovich cycles, cosmic rays, or any of the many known phenomena that affect climate.

And in fact, the models *have* been pretty good, and are getting better as we learn more.

"Now, for the first time, a group of scientists — Zeke Hausfather of UC Berkeley, Henri Drake and Tristan Abbott of MIT, and Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies — has done a systematic review of climate models, dating back to the late 1970s. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, it tests model performance against a simple metric: how well they predicted global mean surface temperature (GMST) through 2017, when the latest observational data is available.

Long story short: “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication.”

I'd be happy to come over to PA, if you tell me what PA is.

So much to say in answer., so little time.
My "alternative" theory is the same theory as Lorenz. Climate is a complicated nonlinear "chaotic" system that may be impossible to predict and currently cannot be predicted beyond a very short timeframe.

You have to go behind general statement like the one you quoted to see what the actual basis of that statement is.
If you cannot do that and are relying on the "executive conclusion", the one they prepare for general consumption, you are employing the fallacy of plea to authority repeating their unquantified value judgements. You must go behind the platitudes and claims to the hard proof, and read the "fine print". The point and the proof are in the math and the assumptions.
If they predicted temperature so well, why did they have to posit deep water warming?
Why did they miss the hiatus?
Are they suggesting they haven't revised the models and data to make them fit better?
If the models were so good in the 1970s, why are they different now?
How did they get around Lorenz's objections and the nonlinearity?
Did they discover the solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations?
How did they handle modeling clouds/
Show me where in your analysis those objections are answered, They aren't

So why would they make such a statement in a palatable publishable way if it doesn't hold up to the actual math and data?
For that you have to come to the Political Forum, aka the PA ( Political Arena ).
They have a narrative, and it doesn't match the rigorous analysis, which is out there.

Look at the graph of earth's temperature over a longer scale of many thousands and even millions of years, before man. ( you can start with the one I put in my first comment that shows several swings like the contemporary one clearly not caused by man) You will see constant change from ice ages to heating, just like now. There are many known planetary cycles due to radiation, planetary and orbital motion and no doubt some yet to be discovered. Again on the math side, nonlinear systems and chaotic functions constantly change and historically climate has had warm periods and cold periods without being man made CO2 and even without CO2 drivers. Because of sensitivity to initial ( and changing ) conditions, differences in solar radiation, geothermal effects, naturally occuring CO2, the earth's rotation and even the earth's wobble can have exactly the kind effects we are observing. We aren't seeing linear temperature increases, as you would expect with a simple 19th century increase in CO2 and heat retention. We are seeing dramatic variations, both warm and cold, that cannot and are not explained by linear increased warming despite the polar vortex babble which can't account for most of it that goes beyond ordinary "weather" variation..

Oh, BTW. It certainly is possible that human CO2 emissions have triggered serious climate change. That would be the butterfly effect. But nonlinear systems have tipping points where the system oscillates between focii, called a"Strange attractors" and once the system has reached a tipping point, decreasing the forcing like CO2 doesn't reverse anything, it just triggers the jump to the next strange attractor, an irreversible change, and without knowing the actual deterministic equation, a linear and even a stochastic model will not be able to predict it. What that means, as a matter of known math, is that the predictions and the measures to stop and reverse global warming could be and probably are useless. The only thing we can be sure of is that they can't be sure. Not until they meet Lorenz's concerns and satisfy his equations.

What that leaves is a cost benefit analysis based on the risk the predictions are correct and the possibility the "cure" will work weighed against the cost of the proposed measures. That is inherently political, so come to PA for a fuller conversation.

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

Yeah, the risk of infection is reduced by more than half for those who are boosted. Risk of severe disease is reduced by more than 90%. So there's less likelihood of infecting others, and much less likelihood of stressing the hospital system.

How many boosters are necessary to make things go away? Tough question. If everyone who was eligible was fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity it would probably be over already, or at least very soon.

''probably'' isnt too convincing.

 

[HJK]

''probably'' isnt too convincing.

Ya, but that's really all we've got