Everyone knows that the iceages happened because some caveman left his Prius idling :3
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
jupiter behaves more like a star than a normal planet. normal climate models are hilariously flawed. i don't remember the exact figure but it produces waaaaaaay more heat internally than it receives from the sun.
not to mention it's a big fuckin' ball of GAS.
not to mention it's a big fuckin' ball of GAS.
Last edited by Spark (2011-10-10 19:03:59)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I never meant for my comment to be taken as "Just writing it off." What I mean is maybe it's just the natural course the earth will take. Of course we will learn all we can about it and ask why it takes the course it does.Kmar wrote:
It's important to try and understand why. We should never just write something like the climate off without trying to understand everything we can about it. Knowledge benefits us always. Always.NeXuS wrote:
Never. Why does that sound like such a far off idea?Spark wrote:
reading a book might help
The real people interested in understanding climate change absolutely consider the trends predating human influence. That means charting the natural course.NeXuS wrote:
I never meant for my comment to be taken as "Just writing it off." What I mean is maybe it's just the natural course the earth will take. Of course we will learn all we can about it and ask why it takes the course it does.Kmar wrote:
It's important to try and understand why. We should never just write something like the climate off without trying to understand everything we can about it. Knowledge benefits us always. Always.NeXuS wrote:
Never. Why does that sound like such a far off idea?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
on a timescale of tens of millennia... not decades.NeXuS wrote:
I never meant for my comment to be taken as "Just writing it off." What I mean is maybe it's just the natural course the earth will take. Of course we will learn all we can about it and ask why it takes the course it does.Kmar wrote:
It's important to try and understand why. We should never just write something like the climate off without trying to understand everything we can about it. Knowledge benefits us always. Always.NeXuS wrote:
Never. Why does that sound like such a far off idea?
i don't think pre-"ice age era" results are too useful though. especially not going back too many millions of years... we're talking radically different continental layout and even a radically different atmospheric composition
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
This peice from the WSJ made some waves the other day.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … %3Darticle
Read the article^, and then read this response.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … %3Darticle
Read the article^, and then read this response.
OpEds — editorials expressing opinions in newspapers — are sometimes a source of wry amusement. Especially when they tackle subjects where politics impact science, like evolution, or the Big Bang.
Or climate change.
Enter the OpEd page of the Wall Street Journal, with one of the most head-asplodey antiscience climate change denial pieces I have seen in a while — and I’ve seen a few. The article, written by Robert Bryce of the far-right think tank Manhattan Institute, is almost a textbook case in logical fallacy. He outlays five "truths" about climate change in an attempt to smear the reality of it.
I won’t even bother going into the first four points, where he doesn’t actually deal with science and makes points that aren’t all that salient to the issue, because it’s his last point that really needs to be seen to believe anyone could possibly make it:
The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Seriously? I mean, seriously?
It’s hard to know where to even start with a statement so ridiculous as this. For one, there is always room for questioning science. But that questioning must be done by science, using a scientific basis, and above all else be done above board and honestly. But that’s not how much of the climate science denial has been done. From witch hunts to the climategate manufactrovery, much of the attack on climate science has not been on the science itself, but on the people trying to study it. And when many of those attacks have at least a veneer of science, it’s found they are not showing us all the data, or are inconclusive but still getting spun as conclusive by climate change deniers. And if you point that out, the political attacks begin again (read the comments in that last link).
Second, the neutrino story has nothing to do with climate change at all. It’s a total 100% non sequitur, a don’t-look-behind-the-curtain tactic. Just because one aspect of science can be questioned — and I’m not even saying that, which I’ll get to in a sec — doesn’t mean anything about another field of science. Bryce might as well question the idea that gravity is holding us to the Earth’s surface.
After all, gravity is just a theory.
And he’s wrong anyway: even if the neutrino story turns out to be true, it doesn’t prove Einstein was wrong. At worst, Einstein’s formulation of relativity would turn out to be incomplete, just as Newton’s was before him. Not wrong, just needs a bit of tweaking to cover circumstances unknown when the idea was first thought of. Relativity was a pretty big tweak to Newtonian mechanics, but it didn’t prove Newton wrong. Claims like that show a profound lack of understanding of how science works.
And finally, of course there is lots of room for arguing over how the Earth’s environment works. It’s a complex system with a host of factors affecting how it works. But that’s beside the point: we know the average global temperatures are increasing. The hockey stick diagram has been vindicated again and again, after being attacked many times by real science and otherwise. It’s always held up. Yes, the Earth is a difficult-to-understand system, but we’ve gotten pretty good at hearing what it’s telling us:
The temperatures are going up.
Arctic sea ice is decreasing.
Glaciers are retreating.
Sea levels are rising, sea surface temperatures are increasing, snow cover is decreasing, average humidity rates are rising.
But hearing is one thing. Listening is another.
Someone like Bryce can try to sow confusion — and reading the comments on that OpEd, that tactic appears to work with lots of people — but the bottom line is that global warming is real, the climate is changing, and human influence is almost certainly the cause.
The only thing faster than neutrinos, I think, is the speed at which deniers will jump on any idea, no matter how tenuous, to increase doubt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
fuck people are stupid.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
"Claims like that show a profound lack of understanding of how science works."
It shows a profound lack of understanding of logic in general.
It shows a profound lack of understanding of logic in general.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oh, well here you go..
Mr. Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs, 2010), was recently issued in paperback.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Crusader armies were mostly paid professional soldiers.Will Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton and a skeptic about global climate change, recently wrote that the "contemporary 'climate crusade' has much in common with the medieval crusades." Indeed, politicians and pundits are hectored to adhere to the orthodoxy of the carbon-dioxide-is-the-only-climate-problem alarmists.
While I agree the 5th claim can be seen as a non-sequitir, I find it odd that the respondent chose to ignore the first four points and focus entirely on the last one, using that as his axe to grind. Seems kind of cherry-picking, considering the points made in the first four...
And Bryce never said anything about "proving Einstein wrong". He said:
Objectivity > Fanaticism
And Bryce never said anything about "proving Einstein wrong". He said:
So data, found through experimentation and observation, has led scientists to reconsider Einstein. Data, found through experimentation, observation, and research, has led scientists to question some of the claims about the amount of impact man has on climate change. It's not that much of a non-sequitir, after all.If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.
Objectivity > Fanaticism
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
There's a difference between questioning a theory and questioning the fundamental basics and the observations that underly a theory. If we come up with a new theory to replace relativity or climate change, it will supersede whilst reducing to the previous theory under the previous set of observations and conditions - not replace it. That's the difference and that's where the fundamental misunderstanding of how science works lies.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
We do have holes in our ozone right? Aren't they caused by bad things man produces? Don't those let in more greenhouse gasses that heat up the earth?
I'm not telling, I'm asking. I feel the global warming talk shifted to this discussion about average temperature and whether or not it's something that is just a cycle or not. Whatever happened to the talk about the ozone I learned so well in elementary school?
I'm not telling, I'm asking. I feel the global warming talk shifted to this discussion about average temperature and whether or not it's something that is just a cycle or not. Whatever happened to the talk about the ozone I learned so well in elementary school?
But nothing Bryce said in his article showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I think the respondent's article showed a fundamental lack of reading comprehension, possibly...Spark wrote:
There's a difference between questioning a theory and questioning the fundamental basics and the observations that underly a theory. If we come up with a new theory to replace relativity or climate change, it will supersede whilst reducing to the previous theory under the previous set of observations and conditions - not replace it. That's the difference and that's where the fundamental misunderstanding of how science works lies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Montreal Protocol happened.pirana6 wrote:
We do have holes in our ozone right? Aren't they caused by bad things man produces? Don't those let in more greenhouse gasses that heat up the earth?
I'm not telling, I'm asking. I feel the global warming talk shifted to this discussion about average temperature and whether or not it's something that is just a cycle or not. Whatever happened to the talk about the ozone I learned so well in elementary school?
That was supposed to fix the problem, although CFCs have a nasty habit of hanging around for a looooooong time. They're going down though, about 10% on their peak a few years back. Ironically climate change ought to actually assist in the neutralisation of that problem as super-cold temperatures (that are generally only found in the mid-Antarctic winter, occasionally up north too) are a key part of the degradation process.
Last edited by Spark (2011-10-11 20:41:44)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
He showed it where he said "the science is not settled" with the clear implication that the core theory and predictions of anthropogenically driven climate change are in severe question as if we should no longer believe the predictions it gives.FEOS wrote:
But nothing Bryce said in his article showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I think the respondent's article showed a fundamental lack of reading comprehension, possibly...Spark wrote:
There's a difference between questioning a theory and questioning the fundamental basics and the observations that underly a theory. If we come up with a new theory to replace relativity or climate change, it will supersede whilst reducing to the previous theory under the previous set of observations and conditions - not replace it. That's the difference and that's where the fundamental misunderstanding of how science works lies.
They are not. Likewise with special relativity - eighty years of experimental evidence ensures that.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I think you're putting more emphasis on his words than he did. He simply said there is still room for debate, discussion, and learning...because we don't know everything about how the earth and the atmosphere work. He never used the term "severe question" or anything similar. In fact, he didn't explicitly discount anthropogenic climate change as a factor.Spark wrote:
He showed it where he said "the science is not settled" with the clear implication that the core theory and predictions of anthropogenically driven climate change are in severe question as if we should no longer believe the predictions it gives.FEOS wrote:
But nothing Bryce said in his article showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I think the respondent's article showed a fundamental lack of reading comprehension, possibly...Spark wrote:
There's a difference between questioning a theory and questioning the fundamental basics and the observations that underly a theory. If we come up with a new theory to replace relativity or climate change, it will supersede whilst reducing to the previous theory under the previous set of observations and conditions - not replace it. That's the difference and that's where the fundamental misunderstanding of how science works lies.
They are not. Likewise with special relativity - eighty years of experimental evidence ensures that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
chlorofluorocarbons would interact and break down ozone. they've been banned pretty much world-wide, and as a result, the hole in the ozone over Antarctica has made a comeback.
the nomenclature fucked up the movement to warn the public about human impact - ie, 'Global Warming' instead of 'Climate Change'. much like man made CF's punching a hole in the ozone, the millions of tons of world wide C02 output has made an impact. anyone who says differently is lying.
the impact is something the earth can recover from, our planet's pretty self-correcting. the problem is, where CF's were a specialized compound with limited use, the emission of C02 is pretty broad and comes from several hundred sources and countries. one of the best sources for removing C02 and returning oxygen are plants.
it's just too bad forests world wide are being razed to make way for people.
the nomenclature fucked up the movement to warn the public about human impact - ie, 'Global Warming' instead of 'Climate Change'. much like man made CF's punching a hole in the ozone, the millions of tons of world wide C02 output has made an impact. anyone who says differently is lying.
the impact is something the earth can recover from, our planet's pretty self-correcting. the problem is, where CF's were a specialized compound with limited use, the emission of C02 is pretty broad and comes from several hundred sources and countries. one of the best sources for removing C02 and returning oxygen are plants.
it's just too bad forests world wide are being razed to make way for people.
the question isn't whether the planet will reach a new equilibrium with increased greenhouse gases, of course it will.
it's how happy people will be in that new equilibrium.
it's how happy people will be in that new equilibrium.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
People will be happy. "Normal" will adjust to the new reality. The only people who will be "unhappy" will be those who remember what it was like before. Those who know no different will just live their lives.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Let's deny evolution because the science is still "in the air", teach the controversy!FEOS wrote:
I think you're putting more emphasis on his words than he did. He simply said there is still room for debate, discussion, and learning...because we don't know everything about how the earth and the atmosphere work. He never used the term "severe question" or anything similar. In fact, he didn't explicitly discount anthropogenic climate change as a factor.Spark wrote:
He showed it where he said "the science is not settled" with the clear implication that the core theory and predictions of anthropogenically driven climate change are in severe question as if we should no longer believe the predictions it gives.FEOS wrote:
But nothing Bryce said in his article showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I think the respondent's article showed a fundamental lack of reading comprehension, possibly...
They are not. Likewise with special relativity - eighty years of experimental evidence ensures that.
See the paralells?
Easy to do when you can't drink the water or breath the air thanks to pollution.FEOS wrote:
People will be happy. "Normal" will adjust to the new reality. The only people who will be "unhappy" will be those who remember what it was like before. Those who know no different will just live their lives.
That's probably true, but it's a question of what they're missing out on.FEOS wrote:
People will be happy. "Normal" will adjust to the new reality. The only people who will be "unhappy" will be those who remember what it was like before. Those who know no different will just live their lives.
This is notwithstanding the nastier aspects of famines, water shortages and the like.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
AussieReaper wrote:
Easy to do when you can't drink the water or breath the air thanks to pollution.FEOS wrote:
People will be happy. "Normal" will adjust to the new reality. The only people who will be "unhappy" will be those who remember what it was like before. Those who know no different will just live their lives.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If I had used the word "deny" or implied "denying" anything, then maybe. Since I didn't...no.AussieReaper wrote:
Let's deny evolution because the science is still "in the air", teach the controversy!FEOS wrote:
I think you're putting more emphasis on his words than he did. He simply said there is still room for debate, discussion, and learning...because we don't know everything about how the earth and the atmosphere work. He never used the term "severe question" or anything similar. In fact, he didn't explicitly discount anthropogenic climate change as a factor.Spark wrote:
He showed it where he said "the science is not settled" with the clear implication that the core theory and predictions of anthropogenically driven climate change are in severe question as if we should no longer believe the predictions it gives.
They are not. Likewise with special relativity - eighty years of experimental evidence ensures that.
See the paralells?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular