Klimatske promjene, zagađenje i uništavanje životne sredine

[Kinik]

Just now, Plavi Golub said:

... 

 

Kakve ovo veze ima se temom?

 

...

[Plavi Golub]

Pa da pomogne opstem razumevanju. Sve sto je out of scope tvog interesovanja automatski postaje cetvorenje dlake, ali nije zgore da se zapljune i ideoloski obelezi. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Plavi Golub

[Anduril]

43 minutes ago, Veshtodel said:

 

Ajme covece, pa to sto naucnici koriste induktivni metod u svojim istrazivanja uopste ne znaci da tim putem dolaze do valjanih saznanja. Koristiti nesto i uraditi nesto nekim metodom nije isto. Ljudi napisali da se u nauci koristi indukcija, i koristi ste, a ja napisao da je naucni metod zasnovan na hipoteticko deduktivnom metodu. I sad ako naucnici koristi indukciju, mora da su u pravu i sve znaju 😄 

Sta sa tim? Kakve to veze ima sa diskusijom? Appeal to accomplishment logicka greska, sramota za jednog naucnog radnika. 

Tacno, samo ti ja napisah da na velikim skalama i sa kompleksnim pojavama takve verovatnoce nemaju nikakvog smisla. 

 

Znaci naucnici koriste induktivni metod, ali time uopste ne dolaze do nekih saznanja jer ti ne verujes u to.

Nisi naveo nikakav citat niti kako se sa problem indukcije u nauci danas barata 50 godina posle Poperovih teza.

Dakle, imas svoje misljenje o necemu iako je ono u osnovi bezvredno bez adekvatnih dokaza ili referenci.

 

Sto se appeal to accomplisment tice, naveo sam taj podatak kao odgovor na tvoje infantilno ad hominem prozivanje o kratkom kursu epistemologije.

Kad budes imao hiljade citata, konkretne rezultate koji menjaju svet na bolje i neki kredibilitet u nacnom svetu mozes ponovo da se javis, a do tada nastavi sa bezvrednom pricom ispred dragstora i filozofiranjem.

[Plavi Golub]

Mislim nije da ne postoje ljudi koji su skloni izvlacenju para za istrazivanja upitnog benefita i utemeljenja. Od kad je sveta i veka postoji i zickanja. 

 

Licno imam gomilu primedbi na nerealne zelje, male i globalne.  

 

Ideologija se utoliko uvlaci da se filtrira ko su oni koji su bitni da se zastite, i oni koje ce biti aproksimirani po sistemu shit happens (ko sa onim pucacinama) ili u saradnji sa diktatorskim rezimima jednostavno precrtati.

 

Mnoge multinacionalne kompanije svesno ili podilazeci lokalnim (ne)kulturama posluju po potpuno razlicitim ekoloskim i bezbednosnim standardima u razlicitim delovima sveta.

Sto izaziva prave male lokalne ekoloske katastrofe, posledice po mikroklimu i trovanja stanovnistva sa odlozenim dejstvom. Ruku na srce ima i onih casnih koji pokusavaju da rade svuda isto, ali u sudaru sa neznanjem i korupcijom ispadne lose.

 

Ajde sto neki na kvarno prljaju ono sto moze da dodje do svih ljudi oni na ovaj ili onaj nacin, istovremeno stvaraju ekonomsko socijalne probleme za koje se onda vesto okrivljuje imigracija.

[Olosh]

On 8/11/2019 at 6:57 AM, Veshtodel said:

 

Mozda ne bi, ali se takvi problemi cesto rese sa trial and error pristupom i + covek ne uzima 100% ucesca u tome, vec se neke stvari dese takoreci same od sebe, sistem ih sam resi, adaptira se, nastane spontani poredak. To je zapravo ona nevidljiva ruka koju spominju liberalni ekonomisti, a prisutna je u celom univerzumu. 

 

Verovatno mislis na cinjenicu da prirodni sistemi i njihovi delovi mogu da budu ( i jesu ) u stanju ravnoteze. 

Kad bi se graficki predstavila ta stanja, verovatno se mogu prikazati kao 'udubljene' zone na nekoj matematickoj povrsi.

Mozda zone niskog utroska energije, ili sl.

Ovo sto ti kazes je otprilike sledece:

Ako nas nesto izbaci iz ovog stanja ravnoteze, niko nema pojma u kojoj drugoj kotlini cemo zavrsiti. To je tacno,

ali zakljucak koji ne donosi nikakvu novu pretpostavku, sa naucnog stanovista bez upotrebne vrednosti.

 

Ali ajde da vratimo pricu malo pre 'ispadanja iz stanja ravnoteze' i da vidimo kolika je to energija potrebna da nas

izbaci iz sina, npr.

Nase trenutno stanje je jedino stanje gde se mozemo eventualno baviti naukom, na proverljiv nacin.

+

Sto se tice nase klimatske ravnoteze, postoje vrlo jake indicije da sastav atmosfere, geografija kontinenata npr.

direktno uticu na klimu na zemlji.

Uz ostale energetske izvore, to je ono sto cini podlogu za to nase 'stanje ravnoteze'.

 

Neosporne su cinjenice da ce smese razlicitih gasova i odredjenim procentima 

imati jedinstvene fizicke parametre, kao sto su gustina, toplotni kapacitet, ili provodljivost.

Promena u sastavu atmosfere dovela bi do promene u temperaturi ili pritisku,

i to su takodje cinjenice.

Povecanje nivoa ugljen dioksida u atmosferi (onaj deo koji se tice aktivnosti coveka) shodno tome donosi

drugaciji sastav atmosfere i potencijal za pojacani efekat staklene baste.

 

Geografija kontinenata takodje doprinosi toj nasoj energetskoj ravnotezi.

Arktik je okovan kontinentima i ledom i kontrolisano je 'curenje' hladnih

vodenih struja prema ekvatoru. Ovo nije minorno, jer morske struje imaju

ogroman uticaj na klimu, npr. Golfska struja na severnu hemisferu.

 

Na jugu, opet povoljna situacijajer je stanje ravnoteze uspostavilo kretanje hladnih

vodenih struja u krug, oko antarktika.

+

Znaci iz naseg ugla postoji ogroman potencijal da postavljamo i odgovaramo na pitanja koja se ticu

nivoa katastrofe koja bi mogla da nas izbaci iz trenutnog klimatskog stanja.

 

Pitanje je koliko uzimamo kao cinjenice neke stvari. Da li neko veruje da je razdaljina izmedju nas i Sunca toliko i toliko,

(8 svetlosnih sekundi), da se jezgro zemlje sastoji od gvozdja, da ima tu i dosta silicijuma, iako nikad nismo bili tamo, niti blizu.

Da je starost zemlje ~ 4.57 milijardi godina.

Da li je na ova pitanja odgovoreno na zadovoljavajuci naucni nacin, valjda bez indukcije?

Da li je evolucija cinjenica, na nacin na koji je to gravitacija npr. ?

Sta tebe licno navodi da ovo eventualno prihvatis kao cinjenicu, ili da odbacis ?Cuo si od nekoga, kao i ja ?

 

 

 

 

[Veshtodel]

17 hours ago, Anduril said:

Znaci naucnici koriste induktivni metod, ali time uopste ne dolaze do nekih saznanja jer ti ne verujes u to.

 

Jok, nego da se induktivnim metodom dolazi do manje dobrih saznanja (cesto i pogresnih i vrlo opasnih, vidi Crni labud), dok se deduktivnim dolazi do boljih i temeljnijih saznanja. O tome se radi. 

 

17 hours ago, Anduril said:

Nisi naveo nikakav citat niti kako se sa problem indukcije u nauci danas barata 50 godina posle Poperovih teza.

 

Dobro, kako se barata? Sa statistikom i verovatnocom i razradjenim algoritmima u vezi sa tim? Ili nekim drugim nacinom za koji ne znam, sasvim je moguce da nisam do sad naisao na tako nesto. 

 

Sad ti meni reci da li se moze doci do dobrih saznanja i rezultata za kompleksne pojave nelinearnog karaktera i visoke nepredvildjivosti i osetljivosti na pocetne uslove za 50 godina unapred?

[Veshtodel]

8 hours ago, Kido from Junkovac said:

Verovatno mislis na cinjenicu da prirodni sistemi i njihovi delovi mogu da budu ( i jesu ) u stanju ravnoteze. 

 

Ne, nego na nesto sto se zove samo-organizacija ili spontatni poredak i na emergenciju. Takvi sistemi cesto umeju imati bas suprotno, ne-ekvelibrijumska stanja i osobine haosa. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

 

https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Chaos_and_An_Unpredictable_Tomorrow

 

 

[Olosh]

Ne vidim objasnjenje kako je ovaj koncept povezan sa klimatologijom. 

Reci ako imas ideju ili ako si procitao negde da neko drugi negde to povezuje.

Naravno, najbolje bi bilo procitati jednostavno objasnjenje,

bez videa od 90 minuta koji ne govori nista o ovome o cemu 

pricamo na ovom topiku.

 

 

[Olosh]

Further complicating the situation, as a complex system evolves over time, each iteration of the system – each of the system’s cycles or outputs – provides a new condition that feeds back into the system. This is what J.A. Scott Kelso in Dynamic Patterns (1995) refers to as ‘circular causation’. We are only now coming to see that many significant natural processes, such as those involved in climate change, do not proceed in a linear fashion, but instead turn in upon themselves, amplifying or dampening their own effects, and redirecting themselves. Each new iteration sets the context for the next iteration. New phenomena may be created.

 

+

Ovo je jedini deo teksta iz Philosophy Now koji si postirao I koji se tice klimatskih promena.

Ono sto ja vidim ovde je potvrda onoga sto klimatolozi I govore, da ubacivanje novih elemenata u sistem

moze pojacati to dejstvo tokom itaracija.

 

To je ujedno I cela poenta klimatologa. 

Pazi sta emitujes u okruzenje, jer posledice mogu biti amplifikovane.

 

 

[Kinik]

8 minutes ago, Kido from Junkovac said:

... to je ujedno I cela poenta klimatologa ...

 

Poenta 'nove klimatologije' je - politika, novac i 'klimatoloska crkva'.

 

A da se vestim matematickim manipulacijama moze dokazati da je a=b to znamo.

(a - tezina muve, b - tezina slona).

 

To je 'klimatoloska iteracija'.

 

... 

[...]

U.S. MEDIA GIVES WAY TOO MUCH AIR TIME TO CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, STUDY FINDS

 

https://www.newsweek.com/media-air-time-climate-change-deniers-scientists-1454498

[Kinik]

...

 

4 hours ago, Honey Badger said:

...

 

Smejurija!

 

Resenje je vrlo jednostavno - ukloniti 'deniers' iz medija o sve ce biti OK.

Ostalih 50% sveta ce shvatiti, klima ce se vratiti na svoje i nece biti problema.

Jos da se ukine primena fosilnih goriva - ihaj!

Napred u svetlu pecinarsku buducnost!

 

...

[freethrow]

Super je rasprava, zaista. Samo jednu stvar nisam shvatio: je l ovde ima ljudi koji ne veruju / negiraju globalno zagrevanje ili ne? 

[Veshtodel]

20 hours ago, Kido from Junkovac said:

Ne vidim objasnjenje kako je ovaj koncept povezan sa klimatologijom. 

Reci ako imas ideju ili ako si procitao negde da neko drugi negde to povezuje.

Naravno, najbolje bi bilo procitati jednostavno objasnjenje,

bez videa od 90 minuta koji ne govori nista o ovome o cemu 

pricamo na ovom topiku.

 

 

 

Ok, ajmo onda ovako. Ovo sto sam postavio se odnosi na kompleksnost i kompleksne pojave (klima je takva). Cilj mi je bio da vam dam nesto na tu temu, da bi razumeli sta hocu da kazem. Dakle, na celoj ovoj temi sve vreme provlacim kompleksnost kao osobinu sveta i klime. 

 

Elem, kakve ovo sto sam postavio veze ima sa klimom? Ogromne. Za pocetak podjimo od neke ''definicije'':

 

Quote

A complex system is a system composed of many components which may interact with each other. Examples of complex systems are Earth's global climate, organisms, the human brain, infrastructure such as power grid, transportation or communication systems, social and economic organizations (like cities), an ecosystem, a living cell, and ultimately the entire universe.

 

Dakle, klima jeste kompleksan sistem, poput ljudskog tela ili gradova ili mozga. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

 

zatim:

 

Quote

The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and anthropogenic forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use change.”

 

http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture04 -- Climate system components.html

 

a onda nesto o osobinama:

 

Quote

Complex systems are systems whose behavior is intrinsically difficult to model due to the dependencies, competitions, relationships, or other types of interactions between their parts or between a given system and its environment. Systems that are "complex" have distinct properties that arise from these relationships, such as nonlinearity, emergence, spontaneous order, adaptation, and feedback loops, among others. Because such systems appear in a wide variety of fields, the commonalities among them have become the topic of their own independent area of research. In many cases it is useful to represent such a system as a network where the nodes represent the components and the links their interactions.

 

Znaci kompleksne sisteme je jako tesko modelovati, sto znaci da predvidjanja iz tih modela nisu valjana (znaci da se ni sa HD metodom nije moglo doci do nekog dobrog modela klimatskog sistema (najverovatniji razlog za to je sto se klima ne moze izdvojiti kao posebna oblast izucavanja van ostatka sveta - hidrosfere, cele planete, biosfere, ljudskog drustva i kulture, univerzuma, te otuda za bolje razumevanje naseg sveta treba teziti interdisciplinarnom izucavanju, kao sto tezi ovaj lik iz Santa Fe instituta), a da ne spominjem induktivni). 

 

E sad se sve ovo moze ispovezati sa drugom srodnom ili nesrodnom literaturom, znaci tesko je naci jedan clanak u kom pise sve ovo, nego je to proizvod vise ideja i cinjenica. Evo ga taj spisak literatura:

 

Crni labud - razumevanje neverovatnih iznenadnih dogadja, on to isto spominje klimu i fenomen kompleksnosti (nemam trenutno knjigu kod sebe da kazem koja strana). 

Antrifragilnost - isti autor, Nasim Taleb

Hajek - spontani poredak

David Frame i Majls Alen - Klimatske promene i globalni rizik (u knjizi Rizici globalnih katastrofa od Bostroma i Cirkovica) - tu se spominju modeli klimatskih sistema i promena i mane tih modela jer ne obuhvataju sve. 

Jakov Hejms - Sistemski zasnovana analiza rizika (isto Bostrom i Cirkovic), spominje se kompleksnost. 

 

Ima tu jos mnogo toga, ali kljuc u razumevanju je da nije to nesto sto se moze naci na jednom mestu, vec se to povezuje sa ostalim delatnostima i temama. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by Veshtodel

[freethrow]

Black Swan je odlična knjiga, mada u nezahvalnom prostoru između upućene i neupućene publike. 

[freethrow]

Ne razumem? 

[GlennGould]

About Black Swan 

 

Rev Austrian Econ (2008) 21:361–364 DOI 10.1007/s11138-008-0051-7

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable
New York: Random house, 2007, 366p. 

Gene Callahan
Published online: 10 May 2008

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan is a fascinating but deeply flawed book. The book’s central thesis, that the statistical models beloved by mainstream economists and social scientists apply to the real world at best roughly and sometimes very poorly indeed, will find favor with Austrian and other heterodox economists. However, what could have been a sound if more modest book is damaged by Taleb’s enthusiastic embrace of the role of maverick intellectual and his consequent weakness for hyperbole and unfounded criticisms of those he sees as ivory tower academics. Academics are not always right, of course, and there is a place for outsider critiques of their ideas, but neither are they always wrong, and it is all too easy to fall into the trap, as Taleb does, of criticizing ideas one does not fully grasp.
Taleb’s central metaphor of the eponymous black swan arises from the fact that scientists purportedly held that, by inductive reasoning, they could conclude that all swans are white, since every instance of one they had seen was so colored. Then, in Australia, black swans were discovered, upsetting their conclusion and demonstrat- ing the flaw in inductive reasoning, the same flaw noted by Taleb’s philosophical hero, Sir Karl Popper. If that history is correct, then the scientists involved were certainly guilty of applying induction naively. But such a naïve induction by simple enumeration of instances already had been criticized by some of the earliest empiricists, such as Bacon and Boyle. Many philosophers of science have argued that Popper’s critique left more sophisticated versions of induction standing.1
Taleb ties Popper’s case against induction, and thus his swan metaphor, to contemporary statistical practice by arguing that the widespread faith that the degree of variation exhibited by many, perhaps most, real-world phenomena is closely modeled by the notorious bell curve. He contends that this often is an unjustified induction based on previously seen cases. Rare events, by definition, will not appear very often in the evidence, but the failure to find them in a small sample does not mean they occur as infrequently as a Gaussian distribution implies that they will. The bell curve may offer a good description of events in what Taleb calls “Mediocristan,” the land inhabited by things like the distribution of height among adult humans or wages among plumbers. But it is a very poor fit for depicting events from Extremistan, where dwell phenomena like the distribution of wealth in modern economies and book sales among published authors. We never encounter a human being 1,000 times taller than the average, but Bill Gates’ wealth or J.K. Rowling’s book sales are the equivalent of a million-foot tall person compared to the norm.
This statistical blindness to the possibility and impact of the highly improbable, Taleb contends, causes us serious trouble. The danger inherent in assuming that future events will not differ dramatically from what we have typically observed in the past becomes manifest when we are blindsided by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or an unprecedented market crash. We are like Bertrand Russell’s chicken, a good (naïve) inductivist; we conclude that, because in all previous instances the farmer’s appearance meant mealtime had arrived, it will always mean that, only to be rudely disabused of the theory when the day comes for the farmer’s chicken dinner.
So far, so good: Taleb is on target in criticizing many social theorists for trying to force-fit reality into familiar models simply because they are adept at working with those models rather than accepting that the real world is far richer than their abstractions and striving to discover novel models that better depict actual events. There is a quite sound and useful book that the discerning reader can extract from the ambitious but inadequately conceived embellishments with which Taleb festoons his basic thesis.
As mentioned above, Taleb tries to ground much of his critique of mainstream, statistical thought in the philosophy of science of Sir Karl Popper. Popper famously held that science can never confirm its hypotheses but only falsify them or fail to do so. While Taleb places much stress on the importance of that idea for his work, he does not seem to really grasp its implications. Of course, no Popperian could actually make it through a single day alive without using inductive inferences. But most Popperians at least write about Popperianism consistently. Taleb, on the other hand, on one page claims that “there is no such animal as corroborative evidence,” and then, over the next 20 pages, asserts at least half a dozen times that some theory has been “proved,” “shown,” “demonstrated,” and so on, by...corroborative evidence! Did Taleb just mouth Popper’s words with no idea what they meant?
Taleb ridicules the “dull” writing of academics; he has avoided that flaw—his writing is not dull in the same way that watching a multi-car pile-up is not dull. At times his slipshod composition leaves the reader baffled as to what he meant to say. Taleb lists fields with true experts—livestock judges, astronomers, test pilots—and fake experts—stockbrokers, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists. What is the difference? “Simply, things that move, and therefore require knowledge, do not usually have experts...” It’s very hard to guess what Taleb is getting at here; certainly, livestock, planets, and airplanes all move quite a bit! Does he mean “self- moved”? No, livestock are self-moved as well. Taleb is not stupid, but he is arrogant, and his arrogance creates this sort of sloppy prose.
The sloppiness rears its head not just in Taleb’s writing but in his thinking as well (in that the two can be held separate). For example, he writes, “in a primitive
 environment there is no consequential difference between the statements most killers are wild animals and most wild animals are killers.” That must be why primitive man was constantly fleeing from the stray slug, chipmunk, or butterfly that he encountered while foraging!
Taleb displays a deep scorn for academic historians, finding their work “dull,” which may explain why he seems to have little idea of the essential character of historical understanding. He criticizes historians for devising explanations that, he contends, make entirely unexpected events “predictable” in retrospect: “This simple inability to remember not the true sequence of events but a reconstructed one will make history appear in hindsight to be far more explainable than it actually was—or is.” The writing is again dreadful, but, even suitably amended, the sentence is still false—history has nothing to do with “remembering” sequences of events, and it is exactly as comprehensible as historians are able to render it. The fact that the outcome of some past situation may appear more intelligible to an historian than it did to the participants is a virtue, not a vice, of history. Only when the historian abandons her proper aim of discovering what actually transpired in the past and attempts to sit in judgment of historical figures, such as declaring, “Chamberlain should have seen that appeasing Hitler would come out badly,” is she guilty of the sin for which Taleb condemns the entire discipline.
In making the above complaint about the efforts of historians, Taleb has failed to recognize that statistical prediction is a feature of physical science and plays no part in historical investigations. The historian offering an explanation of some specific historical episode is not attempting to comprehend what occurred as an instance of some idealized pattern abstracted from a family of events with which it is supposed to share some significant characteristics. As Mises notes, “The notion of a law of historical change is self-contradictory. History is a sequence of phenomena that are characterized by their singularity. Those features which an event has in common with other events are not historical” (1957: 212).2 The historian is seeking the unique and unrepeatable antecedents of the event under investigation in order to render its individual appearance on history’s stage more intelligible. As such, how “predict- able” the event was at its time is irrelevant, since for the historian the “odds” of its having happened are 100%! And since the historian aims to explain that unique episode in terms of the concrete happenings that lead up to it, concepts such as “randomness,” “chance,” and “improbability” are categorically excluded from her analysis. Taleb writes, “But it is hard to look at a computer or a car and consider them the result of aimless process. Yet they are.” Certainly, if we restrict ourselves to considering the human past in terms of matter and energy mechanically interacting to produce unwilled motion, then we have pre-determined that all we will discover are aimless processes. However, there is no reason we should not conduct other explorations using other search rules, such as attempting to understand the past as arising from purposeful human action. From that perspective, it would be ludicrous to propose that computers and cars were the outcome of “aimless process,” since it is obvious that their inventors set out intending to create useful machines and were not merely throwing together random materials only to be shocked that the result could, for instance, be used to get around town more rapidly.
Taleb contends that we ought to “downgrade ‘soft’ areas such as history and social science to a level slightly above aesthetics and entertainment, like butterfly and coin collecting.” His contempt for the results of historical research is also the product of his erroneous belief that history is just an impoverished and feeble attempt to discover scientific truths from our past, rather correctly recognizing that historical understanding is a categorically distinct mode of grasping reality. Unable to evaluate the subject using its proper, internal standards, Taleb cannot conceive that history, pursued with its own characteristic methods, can achieve results every bit as “hard” and just as much based on objective evidence as do physics or chemistry.
Taleb’s misunderstanding of history leads to absurdities like his attempt to answer a genuine historical question, “Why didn’t more people die from the bubonic plague?” by means of a fact about later conditions, namely, that if the plague had been more deadly, we would not be here to ask the question! Real historians, the ones whose work Taleb disdains, regularly answer such questions with authority: it is now understood, for instance, that the chief cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire was population decline.
In summary, Taleb is guilty of severe over-reaching. Rather than limiting himself to rigorously exploring the implications of his genuine insights on the misuse of statistics, he chose to use them as a platform from which to comment upon whatever topic happened to enter his mind as he wrote, however little familiarity he had with the specialized literature in the area. If he did not hold academic specialists in such contempt, it might have occurred to him that, whatever their faults, people who have devoted decades of their lives to better understanding some field, for example, the philosophy of history or the philosophy of science, are likely to have something to say on the subject, something that might even be worth listening to before one decides to pontificate on how wrong-headed all of the experts are.

 

 

1 See Callahan, G. “The Necessity of the A Priori,” Critical Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007 for a summary of recent literature on this point.

 

2 Mises, L. von (1957) Theory and History, Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, p. 212.

[GlennGould]

4 minutes ago, freethrow said:

Ne razumem? 

 

Ni ja tvoje vrednovanje knjige na osnovu potencijalnog čitalaštva...

[Kinik]

...

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/sorry-but-giving-up-on-meat-is-not-going-to-save-the-planet

 

>> ... Sorry, But Giving Up on Meat Is Not Going to Save The Planet
FRANK M. MITLOEHNER, THE CONVERSATION 27 DEC 2018

 

As the scale and impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, meat is a popular target for action. Advocates urge the public to eat less meat to save the environment. Some activists have called for taxing meat to reduce consumption of it.
A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.
...
For example, a 2009 analysis published by the Washington, D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute asserted that 51 percent of global GHG emissions come from rearing and processing livestock.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of US GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent.

 

All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total US greenhouse gas emissions. That's very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation.
Why the misconception? In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled "Livestock's Long Shadow," which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The agency drew a startling conclusion: livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.

 

This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report's senior author. ... <<

 

...

[Anduril]

Dosli smo od klimatskih promena do Taleba - nije ni cudo s obzirom o kakvom arogantnom sarlatanu se radi. 

 

Cela ova diskusija oko klimatskih modela je pocela valjda od ovog clanka u Gardijanu:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/10/global-heating-london-similar-climate-barcelona-2050

koji zapravo prenosi rezultate iz ove, relativno prosecne studije:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217592

 

I onda smo mogli procitati kako je sve to glupost jer su autori pokusali predvideti klimu za 30 godina u mnogim svetskim gradovima. 

Ono sto je smesno je kao i kod Taleba, stepen povrsnosti, nerazumevanja usled ideoloske zatucanosti i na kraju zamena teza.

Kao prvo, ova studija je proizvela ekoloske a ne klimatske modele.

Drugo, sami autori sasvim jasno kazu:

 

Quote

Our study is not a novel model revealing updated climate projections or expectations by 2050. Instead, our analysis is intended to illustrate how complex climate data can be effectively summarized into tangible information that can be easily interpreted by anyone. Of course, the climate scenarios that we have used are based on predictions from a few climate models, run under a single (business as usual) climate scenario. We recognize that these models are characterized by huge amounts of uncertainty [34], and the predicted Future Cities may change as these Earth System Models are refined, in particular in light of urban climate specificities [35]. However, our results are likely to reflect the qualitative direction of climate changes within cities and so meet our primary goal, which is to communicate predicted climate changes to a non-specialist audience in order to motivate action.

 

Sto fakticki znaci da su oni itekako svesni da je tesko predvideti tacnu klimu za 30 godina (quantitative change).

Ali je zato mnogo lakse i sa mnogo vecom verovatnocom moguce predvideti generalni trend (ono sto ovde nazivaju qualitative change).

Neki Black Swan event koji bi zaustavio globalno otopljavanje jer recimo mozda neka vulkanska erupcija koja se desava jednom u 2000 godina.

Mozda ce se pojaviti, a mozda i nece - ostaje na osnovnu verovatnoce da zakljucimo sta nam je ciniti kao racionalna bica.

 

Da napravim jednostavno poredjenje sa nekim drugim kompleksnim sistemom - nasim telima 

Kako ce svako od nas reagovati na temperaturi od 60C je nemoguce tacno predvideti, ali je generalni trend prilicno siguran.

 

Isto tako klimatski modeli ne mogu niti zele da predvide tacnu klimu, nego predvidjaju generalni trend a time i moguce posledice. 

Zato su itekako korisni, kako za nauku tako i za milion prakticnih stvari koje obavljamo svaki dan. 

Za naucno razumevanje su mehanizmi koji guraju generalne trendove ali nisu tacno merljivi vazni koliko i mehanizmi koji imaju 100% merljiv ishod. 

 

[Veshtodel]

2 hours ago, Anduril said:

Dosli smo od klimatskih promena do Taleba - nije ni cudo s obzirom o kakvom arogantnom sarlatanu se radi. 

 

Cela ova diskusija oko klimatskih modela je pocela valjda od ovog clanka u Gardijanu:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/10/global-heating-london-similar-climate-barcelona-2050

koji zapravo prenosi rezultate iz ove, relativno prosecne studije:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217592

 

I onda smo mogli procitati kako je sve to glupost jer su autori pokusali predvideti klimu za 30 godina u mnogim svetskim gradovima. 

Ono sto je smesno je kao i kod Taleba, stepen povrsnosti, nerazumevanja usled ideoloske zatucanosti i na kraju zamena teza.

Kao prvo, ova studija je proizvela ekoloske a ne klimatske modele.

Drugo, sami autori sasvim jasno kazu:

 

 

Sto fakticki znaci da su oni itekako svesni da je tesko predvideti tacnu klimu za 30 godina (quantitative change).

Ali je zato mnogo lakse i sa mnogo vecom verovatnocom moguce predvideti generalni trend (ono sto ovde nazivaju qualitative change).

Neki Black Swan event koji bi zaustavio globalno otopljavanje jer recimo mozda neka vulkanska erupcija koja se desava jednom u 2000 godina.

Mozda ce se pojaviti, a mozda i nece - ostaje na osnovnu verovatnoce da zakljucimo sta nam je ciniti kao racionalna bica.

 

Da napravim jednostavno poredjenje sa nekim drugim kompleksnim sistemom - nasim telima 

Kako ce svako od nas reagovati na temperaturi od 60C je nemoguce tacno predvideti, ali je generalni trend prilicno siguran.

 

Isto tako klimatski modeli ne mogu niti zele da predvide tacnu klimu, nego predvidjaju generalni trend a time i moguce posledice. 

Zato su itekako korisni, kako za nauku tako i za milion prakticnih stvari koje obavljamo svaki dan. 

Za naucno razumevanje su mehanizmi koji guraju generalne trendove ali nisu tacno merljivi vazni koliko i mehanizmi koji imaju 100% merljiv ishod. 

 

 

Pa fora kod black swan dogadjaja jeste upravo sto ne samo da nisu predvidvljiji i iznenadni (kao supervulkanske erupcije) vec se o njima takoreci nista i ne zna, nepoznati su, al ajd. Ono sto ti izgledas zaboravljas jeste da neki od tih nepredvidljivih dogadjaja nisu samo po neki vulkan, vec u poslednje vreme to su recimo ove iznenadni i nepredvidljivi pozari u Sibiru kod Arktika ili kiselizacija okeana ili zagrevanje okeana do te mere da se oslobadja metan sto preti ne samo jos brzem greenhouse efektu vec i do dogadjaja kakvi su verovstno doveli do istrebljenja zivih vrsta pre oko 500 miliona godina. Al ajd da ne zvucim apokalipticno, navodim prirodne ulazne parametre i recimo da se donekle slazem sa tobom sto se tice trendova (donekle, jer se i dalje radi o klimatskom sistemu visoke kompleksnosti).

 

Ono oko cega se sporim sa tobom jeste sto nijedan dosadasnji model uopste ne ukljucije totalitet planete i coveka. Elem, jedan od najvecih crnih labudova koji moze da bude jeste sam covek, sto niko ne moze sa sigurnoscu da tvrdi da neka politika npr Green New Deal nece da proizvede jos gore efekte ne po coveka samo vec po planetu. Za tako nesto trenutno nemamo epistemoloske aparate niti postoji neka veca zelja za integracijom svih disciplina kao sto ovi iz Santa Fe instituta rade.

 

Sto se tice Taleba, ne znam sta ste navalili na njega, ja ga spomenuh kao dobar pocetak za razumevanje fenomana kompleksnosti, a na jednoj od prethodnih strana napisah da ga ne treba uzimati skroz za ozbiljno.

[GlennGould]

Ma sve pet momci, bez bespotrebnih ličnih  peckanja i sujete idemo dalje kvalitetno i argumentovano 

[Darth Bane]

Problem je u tome sto ne postoji matematicki model koji bi mogao tacno da opise nivo i pravac klimatskih promena. Suvise je nezavisno - promenljivih faktora koji uticu na klimu. 

To vam je kao npr i sa grafikonima na berzi: sledi se odredjeni trend, a onda se nesto desi sto niko ne moze da predvidi ( recimo: Trump ustane na levu nogu i lupne nesto na Twiteru…) 

i - cene akcija strmoglavo padaju! 

Tak je i sa ovim: prakticno svaka ljudska aktivnost ima odredjenog uticaja. Ali na koji nacin ce , recimo , tok golfske struje biti promenjen - to se ne moze predvideti matematickim modelima. Diferencijalni racun je koristan samo kod racunanja u homogenim sredinama - u nehomogenim sredinama treba uci u racun sa previse pretpostavki. Jedan primer je proracun miniranja stenske mase : radi se o nehomogenooj sredini, i mi tu ulazimo sa pretpostavkom ( tj koeficijentom) raspucalosti. Ali on nije precizan i obicno varira  " od … do". Tako da i racun ne moze biti precizan. Ali ako se radi o malim kolebanjima onda mozemo uzeti aproksimativne vrednosti, dodamo na to jos 10-20 % kao neki "sigurnosni factor" i - dobijemo rezultat koji je zadovoljavajuci tj moze se primeniti u praksi. Ali poanta je u tome da je drugacije kada se pravi matematicki model za jednu homogenu i strikno definisanu sredinu (npr. rad nekog mehanickog sistema) u odnosu na nehomogene sredine. 

Ali u slucaju kada se uzima u obzir citava Zemljina atmosfera - to postaje suvise komplikovano. 

Onda oni tu uzimaju u pomoc statistiku - ali ako vec dolazi do promene trenda onda je statistika tu nemocna! Beskorisna! 

Metodom promatranja bi se mogao definisati trend - ali za to je potreban vremenski period od minimum nekoliko stotina godina. Jer se radi o kompleksnoj i  velikoj sredini - nije isto kao 

kad se posmatra zivot vinske musice npr !!!

[Darth Bane]

Eto po ovom grafikonu ispada da se emperatura u poslednjih 20-ak godina uravnotezila.

[Anduril]

Da, samo sto je to zamena teza jer niko ne tvrdi da klimatski modeli predvidjaju tacno klimu. Ne mogu da predvide ni vreme dalje od 10 dana. 

Predvidjaju trendove i to sa odredjenom verovatnocom koji baziraju na podacima koji sada vec obuhvataju hiljade i milione godina unazad zahvaljujuci paleoklimatologiji.

Takodje, klimatolozi odavno izucavaju kako black swan momenti (erupcije, meteori, okeanske struje, itd.) uticu na klimu pre nego sto se Taleb i rodio. 

Dakle, i to se uzima u obzir ali ne nuzno u modelima - i ovde opet zamena teza.