6.Jones wrote: bimboman wrote:
6.Jones wrote:That's an appeal to authority, Mog. The fact that every scientific body agrees on a thing doesn't mean it's true. Equal time should be given to people with dissenting opinions. I've set up a voting system in my house for gravity and electricity, just to be sure.
Should we vote on “tipping points” at least ?
Voting on tipping points... interesting point. Gladwell would say no. Tipping points are chaotic... it's hard to predict when they'll occur. Which is why we need a series of books about them.
However, there is a branch of mathematics which you'll be familiar with - stochastics and dynamics. We can model them, which is what climate models do.
But you're right - there are tipping points beyond which complex systems can change state rapidly and [in theory] irreversibly - hysteresis.
You mean 95% of scientists don’t agree in a date ?
I used to go on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, where scientists [and punters like me] meet to discuss the Arctic. Every year, there's a poll about the minimum extent. The range of opinions is as wide among scientists as it is among punters, and punters are as likely to get it right. That's how chaos rolls. The vital thing is knowing which functions are chaotic.
And to also understand that deterministic chaos also has trends, which can be predicted. So we may not be sure when a tipping point will be achieved, but we can sometimes be sure that it will. For that we have thermodynamics and entropy to thank.
On the subject of sea ice, I need some way to get you the bottle of wine I owe you for getting exactly that prediction wrong. 6 . jones @ protonmail . com. Damn the coronavirus and full steam ahead.