Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Tuttyd's Avatar
    Tuttyd Posts: 53, Reputation: 4
    Junior Member
     
    #361

    Nov 29, 2014, 03:05 PM
    The controversy surrounding global warming is nothing new to science. Controversy has always been with science and will continue to be so, whether in or out of the public spotlight. It is just the way science progresses. The reason for the current controversy is because of the political implications-everyone has an opinion.

    If the future of our planet hinged on the controversy that surrounded the orbit of Mercury then the debate would be as equally hot. In historical terms such a debate did take place, but no one except physicists cared, so it largely went unnoticed.

    What we are witnessing now is how science actually works in the real world. There is no idealized scientific method whereby scientists see the error of their ways in the face of counter evidence. The majority of scientists will always support the prevailing orthodoxy because consensus is as good as it get when it comes to science. That's just the way science works.

    Global warming has now moved to climate change because science will always attempt to save a theory by way of 'fudge factors'. In exactly the same way as physicists attempted to save Newtonian mechanics as an explanation for the orbit of mercury by way of 'fudge factors'. In exactly the same way as science tried to save every prevailing theory throughout its history.

    All puns aside, there is nothing new under the sun.
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #362

    Nov 29, 2014, 03:35 PM
    Well said, Tut. As another historical scientist once said, "It still moves!"
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #363

    Nov 29, 2014, 04:00 PM
    Thanks Tutt however excusing the fudges for whatever reason doesn't cut it, because the outcomes has serious impacts for everyone. Climate Change has entered the relms of science fiction, not science fact. Computer models based on half baked ideas and incomplete data are not science, even if there is a Phd on the other end, they are scientific ego massaging, something like my model is better, bigger than your model, or I can't possibly be wrong after all I am a doctor and I have a grant to do this research.

    What we know is that changes have been observed. What we think is we can do something to reverse them, beyond that we are in the relm of science fiction.
    Tuttyd's Avatar
    Tuttyd Posts: 53, Reputation: 4
    Junior Member
     
    #364

    Nov 30, 2014, 02:21 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Thanks Tutt however excusing the fudges for whatever reason doesn't cut it, because the outcomes has serious impacts for everyone. Climate Change has entered the relms of science fiction, not science fact. Computer models based on half baked ideas and incomplete data are not science, even if there is a Phd on the other end, they are scientific ego massaging, something like my model is better, bigger than your model, or I can't possibly be wrong after all I am a doctor and I have a grant to do this research.

    What we know is that changes have been observed. What we think is we can do something to reverse them, beyond that we are in the relm of science fiction.
    In essence you are right, the problem is computer modeling at the moment. Science can use the most powerful computers in the world to predict climate change but the bottom line is that they are stuck within a two bit information system.

    The game changer in the future in the area of weather forecasting and climate change will be the quantum computer and a 4 bit system Commercial viability is at least 50 years away.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #365

    Nov 30, 2014, 05:13 AM
    At last.
    Catsmine's Avatar
    Catsmine Posts: 3,826, Reputation: 739
    Pest Control Expert
     
    #366

    Nov 30, 2014, 08:47 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    I am a doctor and I have a grant to do this research.
    The basic philosophy of all junk science. The basic mission of such science is getting the grant renewed. The result of such science is 15 million words published in the last two years trying to explain the "pause" in global warming.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #367

    Nov 30, 2014, 08:49 AM
    People tend to give credence to data that agrees with their views.
    Tuttyd's Avatar
    Tuttyd Posts: 53, Reputation: 4
    Junior Member
     
    #368

    Nov 30, 2014, 01:35 PM
    "The philosophy of all junk science. The basic mission is to get the grant renewed. The result of such science is 15 million words in the last two years trying to explain the 'pause" in global warming"




    From my point of view, that's the way it is and that's the way it has to be with science.

    For example, it is of little use complaining about having to wear a pacemaker to help an irregular heart rhythm. In the future genetic engineering will do away with such crude devices, but at the moment it is the best science can come up with. This is why scientists apply for research grants. Improvements eventually lead to change. After all, change can't occur in a vacuum.

    I can see a similar type of argument applying to climate science. The problem is deciding upon the weight given to those variables you are using in your climate model. It also depends on what you are trying to model in the first place. There can be a number of computer climate models based on this process. So there would be a new model that explains why there has been a "pause" in global warming. In exactly the same way there are probably other models as well. Climate models are continually updated using observational evidence.

    It is a bit like the pacemaker analogy. We are stuck with the technology and researchers in this area have a vested interested in pursuing a particular type of outcome. I think climate science works in a similar fashion. We are stuck with the limitations of classical computers and climate scientists have a interested in pushing ahead with the classical technology. Basically they have no choice. I am sure things will change in in a big way for weather forecasting and climate science with the perfection of the quantum qubit.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #369

    Nov 30, 2014, 02:08 PM
    Tuut this is where I disagree on the application of the word science. Scientific method relies on oberservation of the physical, what happened, how did it happen, what happens if I change something. But computer modelling, whilst it might attempt the same, is not observeing the physical. Climate science which measures temperature in various places and derives an aggregate score with which they can publish a mean average temperature or measure the number of parts per million of a particular gas is science. Computer modelling and making pronouncements is not. They cannot hope to identify all the relevant variables and have demonstrated this on several occasions and so what they publish as a result is a work of fiction
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #370

    Dec 1, 2014, 01:58 PM
    Another shot in the climate war
    Although it is nothing really, it is good to see Australia's government putting their money where their mouth is, or in this case not putting their money there. Why should all the pain be felt in Australia?

    Federal Government cuts funding to UN environment agency by over 80pc ahead of Peru climate talks - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    That might mean a few less trees cut down for useless reports
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #371

    Dec 2, 2014, 02:51 PM
    Tut, here is the problem Im having. The science that you speak of is a relative term. In this case the whole community had gotten behind junk science because those that created the figures were not honest in the first place. After they were caught at it the community still lusted after the money. In most science whether it be modeling or chemical bonding there is a line between science and science fiction. Most of science that I know of besides climate cosmology depends on solid facts or solid theory to determine fact from fiction. With the climate clowns it ha been the other way around since the begining. I believe that is where all the controversy is at. From the bad input that started this whole thing and the communities lack or retifying the fiction from the true facts.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #372

    Dec 2, 2014, 04:09 PM
    Hi dad, I agree with you, the whole thing was politically motivated from the start and the "facts" have been made to fit the narrative through highly selective data.

    Look, things are changing, no doubt there have been certain things that don't conform to our norm view, glacial retreat, arctic ice melt, climate changes, sea rises, severe weather events but our records are too short to really establish a norm, if it exists. All we can say is temperature is above/below some twentieth century benchmarks in certain places. They are using averages, but averages are generalisation. Who knows what we would conclude if this were 2000 years ago or 500 years ago or the middle of an ice age
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #373

    Dec 11, 2014, 02:03 PM
    Don't you just love the tokenism of this debate, Australia has just diverted $200m from its foreign aid budget to help pacific nations deal with climate change. What does this mean, it means the UN is effectively cut out of the process and there is no new money. So I ask you why is this news?
    Tuttyd's Avatar
    Tuttyd Posts: 53, Reputation: 4
    Junior Member
     
    #374

    Dec 14, 2014, 01:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Tuut this is where I disagree on the application of the word science. Scientific method relies on oberservation of the physical, what happened, how did it happen, what happens if I change something.
    Well yes.To the extent of my knowledge I would say that when it comes to computer modelling the question you ask in the beginning determines the final answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by paracelete View Post
    But computer modelling, whilst it might attempt the same, is not observeing the physical. Climate science which measures temperature in various places and derives an aggregate score with which they can publish a mean average temperature or measure the number of parts per million of a particular gas is science. Computer modelling and making pronouncements is not.
    This is because computer modelling deals in predictions based on a theory. That is to say, it provides a prediction in terms of how the model stacks up against the observations.
    Quote Originally Posted by paracelete View Post
    They cannot hope to identify all the relevant variables and have demonstrated this on several occasions and so what they publish as a result is a work of fiction
    Of course they can't... and they don't. As I said before, weather forecasting and climate science are stuck with a binary system. We can run the data though a supercomputer but this changes nothing. Quantum computers will revolutionize these sciences in the future. In the mean time we are stuck with the implications of such a restrictive system. Nothing new here in the history of science.

    All of this is just my opinion. Perhaps this goes someway to answering cdad's question. The best advice I can give is not to hold science up as providing some ultimate truth[s]. Nothing or no one has this honour.

    I am sorry if this this somehow deflates the understanding of science, but this is how science has always operated.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #375

    Dec 14, 2014, 03:05 AM
    The best advice I can give is not to hold science up as providing some ultimate truth[s]. Nothing or no one has this honour.
    Your advice has come too late
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #376

    Dec 14, 2014, 06:49 AM
    Science will always course correct as more facts come to light. That's the history of man. It's an ongoing process, to the ultimate truths, so many require, not the ultimate truth written in stone, at any certain point. We can argue causes all you want, but argument ends when the effects blow your house down.

    It think it's a foolish premise to think man has NO effect on his environment. Dangerous given the effects of his mistakes in the past. You don't need a computer to calculate dead fish and bird in the gulf and Alaska or destroyed ecosystems around the nation.

    Mother Nature didn't do that.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #377

    Dec 14, 2014, 07:09 AM
    but argument ends when the effects blow your house down.
    U.S. tornado numbers among lowest in recorded history in 2014 - The Washington Post
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #378

    Dec 14, 2014, 07:36 AM
    Mud and snow is this years news Tom.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #379

    Dec 14, 2014, 01:34 PM
    Stop dealing in absolutes, no one has said man has not had an impact of his environment, the debate is whether man can now have an impact on reversing the impacts or stopping the system from cycling through. What we have is tokenism on the part of world leadership, do nothing may actually be an option, build stronger buildings may be an option. The science in this debate is questionable at best because it is a jumble of fact and computer modelling. Yes the oil industry is a major polluter, but this is the result of the profit motive. Stay with what we know, ice is melting, temperature in some places is rising, there are more severe weather events in some places, growing soy beans in the Amazon basin is undesirable for a number of reasons. Let's deal with the ethics of business as usual
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #380

    Dec 18, 2014, 02:47 PM
    We are not as bad as we are painted
    or are we?

    Fact check: Do Australia, US 'compare favourably' on emissions targets? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    Most statistics regading climate change are difficult to interpret and this report no less so, We have met our targets under the rules, but someone wants the rules changed because they show us in a more favourable light than they want or even expect. So we rate unfavourably on a lot of single issue scales but in terms of reductions we did what we said we would do and not without some personal pain for the average person. I predict with more than 20% renewables in our base that we will continue to get across the line without panic and destruction of the economy, and that is the real challenge

    Let us use some percentages Australia is 1.11% of the world total, US is 16.16% of the world total. GDP The US is 1, $16T Australia is 12, $1.5T Who gets more bang for their buck.? It actually takes 100 tonnes of CO2 more to produce a dollar of GDP in the US than it does in Australia so what I say is keep on bashing those inefficient economies they deserve it, on a GDP basis we are more efficient and so entitled to use a little more CO2. Incidently Russia requires 4 times the CO2 to produce a $ of GDP than Australia, Shame! I just love what you can do with the right statistics. Just maybe we won the climate war

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Why was the Hundred Years War such a pivotal war in European history? [ 0 Answers ]

2. Why was the Hundred Years War such a pivotal war in European history?

Climate change?? [ 35 Answers ]

Hello: Look, I'm a climate change denier too, but this is some crazy weather we're having, huh? So, even though global warming is a hoax, if my home had been destroyed by Sandy, I wouldn't temp fate again. I'd move or rebuild it on stilts. You? 98% of the worlds scientists AGREE that...

Latest weapon in the war on climate change [ 40 Answers ]

Or global climate disruptions or whatever they call it these days, the latest weapon to save the planet is... the official EPA climate change rap. I'm speechless.

World War two prisnor of war camps [ 4 Answers ]

There was movie I saw, back in like the early 70's. The story line was a prisnor of war camp along the German/Swiss border or German/Austrian border. The POW's build a glider and launch it from the ridge of the top floor roof, using a tub that is dropped from several stories to provided the...

Is the Iraq War just merely a political conflict or really a War? [ 10 Answers ]

The Iraq War has been awfully quiet these days. I read historical documentaries about other wars and, every time there's a war, It would cause much panic and it would all be on the news and everything. Officials would be all over the nation trying to find recruits and signs are up. But the Iraq...


View more questions Search