Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: You'e been warned...
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...imate-refugees
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...time-get-ready These two articles basically state we've already screwed ourselves. We now need to take action to mitigate the suffering necessary to get through the tribulations ahead. I've known this for awhile, I am a pretty avid science reader, I am subscribed to several journals and magazines, and am majoring in Biology/Astronomy. However, most articles always retain some sort of optimism for our condition, while over the past few months I've noticed a general trend in articles becoming more pessimistic. What do you think? The solutions presented are IMPOSSIBLE, yes literally IMPOSSIBLE for the world to implement in the TIME FRAME needed to mitigate damage and survive the coming effects. People should have listened to climate scientists 60 years ago when shit was already hitting the fan and data was already turning up, instead of shunning them and scaring people away from the field. I really wanted to see the Great Barrier Reef one day... dammit. |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #2 | ||
Corporal
|
Just wait for someone to post an article that argues the opposite.
It should be obvious by now that science really don't have a clue with regards to large scale phenomenons like the earth's climate. So each scientist goes off writing about his own pet theory, and due to the sheer number of different opinions one of them will possibly be almost right. But good luck guessing which one beforehand. |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #3 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
The general consensus seems to be that the damage is severe and we're still not doing much to stop it from getting worse, and the longer we take, the worse we're making it for ourselves. The specifics are under debate, but predicting the future is enormously difficult. But just because a climate scientist can't tell you what the ocean levels will be on April 9th, 2035 doesn't mean the findings should be disregarded until he can. |
|||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #4 | ||
Corporal
|
I will believe them when they start to agree, but as it is now we get a steady stream of conflicting opinions.
There is always something new out there waiting to kill us all, which must be fought at enormous cost to society. Holes in the ozone layer, radon in our houses, mad cow disease etc. And yet a couple decades later that threat will just be a footnote in history. "Science" has cried wolf one time to many. |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #5 | |||
Sergeant
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #6 | ||||
Lieutenant General
|
Could you define "start to agree"? 20% of scientists in the field of climatology? 40%? 60%? 80% 90%? 99.999999%? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...fic_literature
Also... Stream of conflicting opinions? Have you been watching Republican channels again young man? Because they're the only ones who - as a party under strong corporate influence from companies which try to avoid having to invest in costly ecological protecting measures - insist it's all bullox based on the opinion of JUST OVER 1% OF SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY. Last edited by Figment; 2012-07-10 at 07:29 AM. |
||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #7 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
It is the nature of science that there is almost never 100% agreement. It's actually vital that this be the case, otherwise scientific knowledge would never improve. There always has to be someone willing to poke at something and ask, "Yes, but really?" If you listen to lectures or read essays by scientists, you will oftentimes find that the most exciting discoveries are when previously-held standards are shown to be false, because we're always replacing the old-and-wrong with the new-and-closer-to-right. But if you're waiting for science to be in 100% eternal agreement on everything, man, I suggest you just give up on science and go be a priest. Because that's just not the way it works. Scientists investigate the evidence and draw the best conclusions that evidence provides us. We cannot but act in accordance with that evidence until new, better evidence is discovered or provided. To sit on your hands and do nothing until you get handed a Golden Ticket is to sit forever doing nothing. To say nothing of the fact that when it comes to climate change, there's a wide swath of agreement, and the disagreements tend to focus on the specifics. And for Odin's sake, people... stop watching cable news. It makes you stupid. |
|||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #8 | |||||||
Corporal
|
Obviously I am no going to trace very single quote on wiki, but just a few examples:
So yes, temperature may be increasing. Is it human caused and irreversible? And will it continue to increase? How are they going to prove that? Can they make any falsifiable predictions to validate their claims? As for the Republicans channels, they are pretty much restricted to the asylum, so we don't get them over here in EU. On the contrary the scary stories off global warming tend to be what makes it into the newspapers in slow periods. Because scaring people sells newspapers. AND gets your research papers quoted, for that matter.
And since we are talking scientific methods, I would like to quote these two maxims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" "Correlation does not imply causation" |
|||||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #9 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
So yes, they can make those models. And they happen to accurately predict the climatological changes over the past hundredfifty years as the anthropogenic models correspond far more accurately with the data received. Meaning the model conforms accurately with reality. If you let the model run along to extrapolate, the main point of questioning is the input. Which is why models are always ran with various likely or possible inputs, next to trying to find some optimal inputs. So really, all you need to do to verify they're not right, is to show the models are wrong and the input is wrong, while with accurate model and input you'd get a similar accuracy in results or better. |
|||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #10 | |||
Corporal
|
Now, I am actually a great fan of clean energy, and think it is a worthy goal regardless of global warming. And I also think that we should take note of changes in the environment and adapt to them before its to late. But I argue against The End of Days Due To Global Warming being presented as a fact. It is not. It is a theory, and IMHO one that is a bit weak on the parts that usually are required to be called a scientific theory. e.g. falsifiable predictions. |
|||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #11 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
Theories are the graduate degrees of scientific ideas. They are literally the highest honor an idea can be awarded. So saying "It's just a theory" is like saying "He's only dead." There's nothing bast the 'just'. Theories are falsifiable, yes. That's why science is better than, say, voodoo. |
|||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #12 | ||||
Corporal
|
![]() As far as I can see, Global Warming does not fullfill this criteria for being a Scientific theory: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ntial_criteria)
|
||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #13 | ||||
Lieutenant General
|
So yes, the input is based on historical values, but that doesn't mean the model is historical accurate if the input values are poorly used. There's a big difference between just showing the historical data (which is what you claim it does) and computing and predicting the historical data. In the latter case, you use historical data to verify if your model is correct, because that's what actually happened.
Again, there's a degree of uncertainty, which increases as the future becomes more distant (as more variations in input could have happened). That doesn't mean you can't extrapolate your model. What you typically get as outcome is a highly diverse range of options with a lower and upper level and it could be anywhere in between, in theory. However, based on data you have and likelier levels of input, certain trends become baselines. Regardless of which trendline you pick, the trendlines aren't very positive under the existing models. And the existing models have been right so far. |
||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #14 | ||
Corporal
|
My point being that the models are based on an analysis of the same data that they are tested with, so the only thing the test shows is that the model has been finetuned to match that dataset.
The real test is if he model can accurately predict the state of the world 10 years from now, and we wont know that for 10 years. But regardless of that, if we presume the worst case is happening, what do you suggest we do about it? Can we even do anything about it? I looked at this map: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/ and the sea levels can actually rise quite a bit before I start to care |
||
![]() |
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|