Clarrifying for the sake of our metaphysical enthusiast. Why do they insist on making QM all mystical and magical. I remember once in a philosophy lecture we were are asked what an electron was. I forgot the philospoher's repsonse, it was long and full of metaphysical terms, but when the physicists were asked: "A collection of energy, demonstrating both particle and wave -like properties". Simpe sweet to the point and EXACT. No flowerly wish wash. Bah....
Surely you don't mean a mixed state? A coherent state surely... a mixed state is a classical term. Besides decoherence does a pretty good job of explaining the theory. Why do you need to add something that can not be proven, which adds no benifit to the theory at all. Oh and Copenhagen does not imply an intellegence for the collapse. They just said Quantum ---> classicl. They didn't say where the bridge was. I think Bohr's reply to the Schrodinger's Cat problem demonstrated that.
I'm afraid that it is different in QM. Where you have left your keys is not random. The fact you do not know where they are is down to ignorance, pardon the expression. In QM the 'unkown' is down to the coherent state which encompases all other states at once. If you wish a classical example: the coin flip. Heads or tails. If the coin is flipped the result is 50% heads, 50% tails. When th coin is flipped yet still covered the chances are heads 100% tails 0% you just don't know which one. In QM there exists a third state Heads/tails which has a real eigenvalue. Only the act of measurement makes the eignvalue drop to zero. This is known as decoherence and it is an obeserable fact. There is a bridge between the quantum and classical world which is crossed (Copenhagen interpretation of QM doesn't really care where). Questions are asked how does the wave function collapse. Answer it interacts with other atoms that define it in our classical world. Keeping this coherent state completely in the QM world is key to Quantum computing and cryptography. The power in these applications is making sure that these waves decohere in a proper inteperatable way. There is no mystery, no magic and it is not the result of consciousness.
I know they never really went for political jokes, but you could just imagine a giant Terry G foot coming down on the King of Thailand, a la queen Vic. Then all these Thai folk in bowler hats discussing pointless aspects of Thai law. Ministry of Pointless Legal Actions
I never expected to read Sarcasm in anything like this see #78:
"78. This was followed with other posts that Thompson should be struck with a
baseball bat, shot in the face by an irate gamer, castrated and his testicles stuffed down
his throat, and the exercise of other basic "constitutional" rights to advocate violence
against an individual...Not!"
And also:
"71. Besides, science has now established the long-term effect of such violent
entertainment consumption."
Has it? I thought at the moment the most likely was outcome of research was "inconclusive". Isn't there any citation required in these things?
And what the hell is #83 about? Jack the hero. Keeping the world safe by using his super powers of gullibility and stupitdy? I am confused though.. did the email wake him of was his troubled conscious keeping him up?
And my Favourite:
"82. The dangerousness of a corporate entity's allowing the posting of calls for the
assassination and brutalization of a citizen via the Internet and the refusal of that
company to remove or edit those posts after it becomes aware of it can be demonstrated
in a number of ways, but here is just one:"
But it's OK for Presidents and Prime Ministers to publically conspire to Kill other people. That's allowed. And that the news agencies can repeat those requests again and again ad nauseum. That's fine. Don't stop with Computer games Jack... go all the way. They're all Stalinists.
I can't believe he actually uses that term: "Stalinist"... What year is this: 1954????? McCarthy Reincarnate?
Just a small but important point. Lockerbie was tried under Scottish Law, not "British Law". There are quite a few technical differences. But talking of principles, I didn't know that anyone in Britain can accuse someone pubically like this. Maybe, Britain never really wants to find the killer, they just blame someone who they know they can not get. This has happened in the past before. Oscar Slater was accused of a crime he didn't commit. He was in America at the time and the scottish police 'tried' to extradite him, but he came back Scotland voluntarily. He was then sentenced to Death but it reduced to life. Interesting case http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oscar-Slater-Immortal-Arth ur-Conan/dp/0750945737/sr=8-1/qid=1170020349/ref=s r_1_1/202-4743077-6636648?ie=UTF8&s=books
That's what I meant by opposed. They couldn't believe that this was the way physics was shaping up. I mean look how close Scroedinger came to throwing in the towel. Yet Bohr showed him the beauty of his own arguement. I believe that research in the field would have sped up if Einstein hadn't so been so public in his denouncing it. I know his main objections were on philosophical grounds, but he did try to dispute it using physics arguments. Slowly Bohr managed to win and lets face it
the EPR paper was an embarresment, then whoom as you said everyonewas on the qm band wagon.
Thing is these things pop up in my mail box, and I read the headlines then delete them. I wish I had time togo back into the subject in the years I've been out, it's changed so much. I remember that the current BB model had to be revisited to account for new theories in QCD/QED. I tried to locate the article and found this one. It's interesting what he has to say, especially about the shift in ideas. I don't know much about the physics (nor, sadly the time to get into again) to say one way or the other. Maybe you've heard of it. If so what do you think?
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm/
As for the models (other post)...
When you first mentioned the atmospheric physics of astronomy, that's what got me thinking. During my four years at Uni I was told the models for neutron stars, planetary creation etc were constantly under debate to match observations with newer technology. Fair enough, I'm the first to say we can't know everything about a system and that we need to rethink when new data is found, but my point is if so many of our models are under doubt then why are our climate models so trustworthy? I mean in that paper the started all of this (well for me), The authors show a graph that demonstrates (figure 11 page 4):
"Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by
satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S (17, 18) plotted as deviations
from the 1979 value."
There is a significatn deviation from the predicted IPCC model. Now I know I know nothing about the IPCC model, or even how the authors have applied it (correclty etc). But is this data wrong, a lie or what? Note I would be saying this even if the model suggested everything was fine. All I want to know is why both sides are arguing about models when by everyone's own admission models can not be used accurately because we simply do not know what is going on (do we know all the factors etc..actually do we know do you reckon there is other factors at play which perhaps are not included in the IPCC model, some possible feedback effects, solar fluctuations, plant life, geothermal activity caused by the planets, I'm guessing because I don't know.. what do you think?)
As for the pupils, don't worry I'm not going to be teaching them climate models or anything like that. I appreciate it takes a while to learn the whole subject. I know a lot of people are doing hard work in the field and I don't want to undermine this by glibly referencing it in a classroom. But I think they pupils should see this side, and not just accept what is thrown at them, by me or anyone. For example
Cecilia Bitz's article about how an inteview she gave with the media led to misconceptions / misinterpretations being printed. She went on to explain what she was trying to get across. I think it's essential that pupils see that side and not just beliving what is printed (or at least what is printed is subject to the writers interprepatations / angle / motives etc). Maybe that is something realclimate.org should look into, trying to educate the youth through an impartial and balanced (like what I've seen so far) forum suited for their age. I wish I could ahold of this DVD (being out of the states...)
I remeber I gave a medium ability group (as a fun lesson) a video (maybe you've seen it) about how the moon landings were faked. They watched it and by the end of it most of them had changed their mind and beleived that Appolo 11 didn't land. Then I as
Well there was Newton and his optics. The Einstein and his suggestion based on his model, that cold fusion was impossible. And then the one that made it: QM fathered (ironically by Einstein) opposed to by everyone except a select few and look at it now... thankfully.
As for the experiment you could be right, I don't know and I really shouldn't have mentioned it because I can't source it.
So you think anti grav is a myth. I think it's worthy of least some interest. I've been out of the game long enough to not have a clue where to start but it took 100 years to get where we are with QM and look how it had to suffer, especially in the Early days. I always wander where we would be now in terms of research if it wasn't for the characters that fought for QM in those early days.
I read recently that advents in QCD / QED have brought the Big Bang and the current mathematical models for Black Holes under doubt. I've not had time to digest the findings fully, but I've got the source somewhere. I;ll try and pull it out. If you've read it what do you think?
Large error bars... Don't remind me. I did two years Astrophysics... I loved cosmology, especially the Hubble Constant.
But with physics we knew the variables and the equations of state etc. Do our current enviromental models have that same level of detail?
As for the pupils. You'd be suprised (kids often are). Fair enough they can't handle the whole truth, but watered down versions, and at the very least the knowledge that what you see on the news isn't everything, is all they need.
I'm not expecting them to become experts (not when they've got physics exams to pass) but at least they might be a littlre more informed or at least they know they could be more informed.
Oh and sorry I didn't mean to imply that James Hensen made it up. He was the one who made it public, so I refered to him as the (public) "Father of Global Warming" in the same way that Darwin was the (public) "Father of Natural Selectio) evem if he may turning in his grave after hearing that. This was someone else, name forgotten, doing work in the '70s. Just thought you might have heard of this rumour. Actually it was told to me by my Lecturer "Expert".
No that whole Pons-Fleischman cold fusion thing is largely an embaressment to the Physics world. Damages their Egos you see. It's like I said before. An Legend dismisses an area of scientific research and all the others follow. However now that Some Pillars of physics (Einstein's field equations, black holes, and the big bang) are being revisited and Scrutinised in the light of the overwhelming success of quantum mechanics, qed and qcd, I hope other areas will be opened up and investigated without bias.
Thing is when I hear about these stories I shudder and just forget them. I can't remember exactly the details but the Antigrav this was a group in South America (Peru) I think who claimed they had built an antigrav device using magnets (some field device anyway). From what I remember their theory was resonable and they had some (cooked) evidence. Some institution gave them some money and well that was the last anyone saw of them. Now Anti grave research has that stigma attatched to it.
I've already started reading up on those pages and so far they seem fair. Thanks once again
I teach Physics (my degree is Theoretical Physics) to A-Level (Till 18 if you're not familiar with the english education system).
Hence you can see why I have trouble with all this debate. Physics is a little more exact than all this and basically I need to know what I can trust. Hence me asking for what I know I can trust: models, maths and data.
Oh, I don't plan to tell them what I think. Show them the evidence and let them evaluate it themselves (well maybe not the evidence itself maybe a watered down version. At the very least it will show them no to accept the dogma, and to think for themselves.
You're right I probably will find it hard but at least now the pupils may have another choice.
---
Ambitwistor (1041236):
We don't have "solid indistputable understanding" and our models are not "rock solid" and certainly do not indicate "we are all going to die".
---
You (thankfully) haven't been watching or reading the British Press. If I didn't know any better I swear Global Warming would creep up kill me in my sleep.:-)
---
Ambitwistor (1041236):
You can get grant money for results which challenge the status quo. In fact, you can get a lot of grant money this way, as long as you can back up your claims. On a more mundane level, you can certainly get grant money for work that reevaluates the reliability of climate models, temperature reconstructions, etc.
---
Well that's what this rumour I heard said. That this guy made up global warming, going against the then staus quo to secure a grant. God knows we've had this in the world of physics: Antigravity devices, extreme low temp plasma - fusion. And all of these by then reputable scientists. Obviously I'm skeptical of that this is remotely near the truth but it peeked my interest.
But seriously thanks for the links. Just out of interest what do you think the final outcome would be? Could the Earth stabalise or are "we all going to die":-)
Sorry third world country. We don't you to make the same mistakes we made so why don't you go back to burning cow dung to cook your dinner and sit proud that you're doing your part to help the environment.
Or you could get Russia to build you a Nuclear reactor and then we would threaten to blow it up / invade your country in case you might possibly hint at the merest chance of even thinking about building a bomb with it.
So stop moaning about not being to able develop and thank God almighty that your not polluting the world for the rest of us.
I don't believe that all these scientists are sitting round laughing at us for believing any tosh they write...
As for "Father of Global Warming" I was merely using the term to describe the person who brought this to the public's attention in 1988 (CFCs etc): Dr. James Hansen
Again comes the old story do I trust that article etc. I know (first hand) what research scientists will do for grant money, but you're right it would be a little hard to conceive of it on this scale. Maybe it would only take a few hardcore experts in the field to countermand suggestions made by research students (I simply do not know and I don't want to assume anything).
It has happened in the past with Newton's theories of light, for over a hundred years the Royal Society refused to accept anything that went against Newtonian optics, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence (and there wasn't huge sums of money involved).
I don't believe one thing or the other, but what I do detest is being told to be very afraid because of all these nasty things that global warming is going to do to you. Yet their only evidence they present are fancy diagrams and graphs produced by experts who are never mentioned or sourced.
So I tasked myself to find information and answers. Instead of anything solid all I find insinuation, The global warmalists saying that those who say global warming is a hoax are in the pocket of the big oil (which they are), but no evidence. Denialists saying there is no evidence etc. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong place (anyone who can help me, much appreciated). I'm not a climatologist but what I do understand are models and trends. Now, if there is so much debate over the models people are using (and are best weather model programs can't predict the weather a week in advance) how can they predict anything? And are these predictions accurate? I was told at Uni that we simply didn't know the effect of CO2 concentration on global temperatures (this by an "expert" University lecturer) now six years later we all of sudden have a solid indisputable understanding with rock solid models indicating we are all going to die.
I'm now regretting every reading that damn Crichton Book. Don't know if you've read it, don't bother it's not written too well, but he cites pages of pages scientific papers (peer reviewed, from reputable journals) all panning Global Warming. So my first thought was how can something so publicly accepted be contested so strongly and me not hear about this? Why wasn't I hearing about these papers and ideas (even if it was to disprove it) in the news, TV programs etc. We're so used to accepting lies on tele:
"We're going into Iraq to find WMDs..." Then to publicly say that they knew they didn't have any.
"21,000 troops for Iraq" So Iran has nothing to do with it...?
SARs is going to wipe out 1 in 5 according to experts
Bird flu is going to kill millions
Mad Cow disease will kill everyone
Bin Laden is going to eat your babies...
I thought it would interesting to try and delve into this. Especially as many of pupils are asking and I want to give them solid answers based on fact and scientific accuracy, not just unsupported claims by a media that we know not only lies to us, but instils fears. Started today and whoa deep end.
So anyone who can point me to any papers (if you've seen them first hand), articles, or even raw data, please do, and I thank you in advance.
Thanks for that link...It's nice to meet an informed forum as opposed to ranting and raving on either side.
Really it does come down to funding dosen't it. Or money. LordVader717, thanks also for sending that article.
Back to the money arguement, or at least funding. Forgive me, as I'm no really an exeprt either, although I can read presented data, but scientist need money for research. I say this because I've heard a rumour (appologies I have not been able to source this, maybe someone can help) that the Father of Global Warming just 'fiddled' his data to get the whole thing going and get more research grant. As for oil companies paying people to say 'the truth' it's their industry, their welfare maybe they feel they can't be heard fairly - something which I have noticed (to be fair). I see news story after news story about global warming etc but when they ask the experts, they always ask people with a vested intrest in saying there is serious problem:
1)Politicians, for those extra brownie points
2)Media, generate huge interest
3)Scientists, grants etc
Both sides are making huge money out of this. So if we start looking at the interests people have in the Global warming issue, we really could be here forever.
I'm a teacher and I hate that when I ask my pupils about global warming they say that it must be true, it's in the news. But I don't see the news handling it fairly or openly. I laughed last year when UK had it's 'warmest' winter ever in a hundred or so years then the day after followed the 'coldest' period Britain had ever seen. Funnily enough no mention of Global warming was made during that period.
You've mentioned that all peer-reviewed (all reviewed by each other?) papers point towards evidence of Global Warming, but I've heard the opposite, that 'true' scientific evidence is pointing towards little or no change... I admit that I haven't looked at all of the literature (could anyone).
I'm finding it very difficult to be moved to anyside because I don't think there is an impartial party. But that in itself is interesting because one thing I do see and I ask now is:
of all the scientific data, models etc flying around, do you think we actually know what is going to happen (warming / cooling / rapid growth of plantlifce etc)? We have trouble predicting weather a weak in advance...
"Everyone sane realizes that global warming is happening"
Do you beleive that GW is a natural thing, or human? I say this because I'm interested in the whole debate but yet find very little evidence to suggest that the Earth is behaving anythin other than naturally... We have just come out of a "little ice age", centred around the middle ages. The warming of the climate then allowed humans to spread. Eventually the Earth will find a balance and it will go cold again.
Slashdot Mirror
Clarrifying for the sake of our metaphysical enthusiast. Why do they insist on making QM all mystical and magical. I remember once in a philosophy lecture we were are asked what an electron was. I forgot the philospoher's repsonse, it was long and full of metaphysical terms, but when the physicists were asked: "A collection of energy, demonstrating both particle and wave -like properties". Simpe sweet to the point and EXACT. No flowerly wish wash. Bah....
Surely you don't mean a mixed state? A coherent state surely... a mixed state is a classical term. Besides decoherence does a pretty good job of explaining the theory. Why do you need to add something that can not be proven, which adds no benifit to the theory at all. Oh and Copenhagen does not imply an intellegence for the collapse. They just said Quantum ---> classicl. They didn't say where the bridge was. I think Bohr's reply to the Schrodinger's Cat problem demonstrated that.
I'm afraid that it is different in QM. Where you have left your keys is not random. The fact you do not know where they are is down to ignorance, pardon the expression. In QM the 'unkown' is down to the coherent state which encompases all other states at once. If you wish a classical example: the coin flip. Heads or tails. If the coin is flipped the result is 50% heads, 50% tails. When th coin is flipped yet still covered the chances are heads 100% tails 0% you just don't know which one. In QM there exists a third state Heads/tails which has a real eigenvalue. Only the act of measurement makes the eignvalue drop to zero. This is known as decoherence and it is an obeserable fact. There is a bridge between the quantum and classical world which is crossed (Copenhagen interpretation of QM doesn't really care where). Questions are asked how does the wave function collapse. Answer it interacts with other atoms that define it in our classical world. Keeping this coherent state completely in the QM world is key to Quantum computing and cryptography. The power in these applications is making sure that these waves decohere in a proper inteperatable way. There is no mystery, no magic and it is not the result of consciousness.
I know they never really went for political jokes, but you could just imagine a giant Terry G foot coming down on the King of Thailand, a la queen Vic. Then all these Thai folk in bowler hats discussing pointless aspects of Thai law. Ministry of Pointless Legal Actions
"78. This was followed with other posts that Thompson should be struck with a baseball bat, shot in the face by an irate gamer, castrated and his testicles stuffed down his throat, and the exercise of other basic "constitutional" rights to advocate violence against an individual...Not!"
And also:
"71. Besides, science has now established the long-term effect of such violent entertainment consumption."
Has it? I thought at the moment the most likely was outcome of research was "inconclusive". Isn't there any citation required in these things?
And what the hell is #83 about? Jack the hero. Keeping the world safe by using his super powers of gullibility and stupitdy? I am confused though.. did the email wake him of was his troubled conscious keeping him up?
And my Favourite:
"82. The dangerousness of a corporate entity's allowing the posting of calls for the assassination and brutalization of a citizen via the Internet and the refusal of that company to remove or edit those posts after it becomes aware of it can be demonstrated in a number of ways, but here is just one:"
But it's OK for Presidents and Prime Ministers to publically conspire to Kill other people. That's allowed. And that the news agencies can repeat those requests again and again ad nauseum. That's fine. Don't stop with Computer games Jack... go all the way. They're all Stalinists.
I can't believe he actually uses that term: "Stalinist"... What year is this: 1954????? McCarthy Reincarnate?
Bollocks to him
Just a small but important point. Lockerbie was tried under Scottish Law, not "British Law". There are quite a few technical differences. But talking of principles, I didn't know that anyone in Britain can accuse someone pubically like this. Maybe, Britain never really wants to find the killer, they just blame someone who they know they can not get. This has happened in the past before. Oscar Slater was accused of a crime he didn't commit. He was in America at the time and the scottish police 'tried' to extradite him, but he came back Scotland voluntarily. He was then sentenced to Death but it reduced to life. Interesting caseh ur-Conan/dp/0750945737/sr=8-1/qid=1170020349/ref=s r_1_1/202-4743077-6636648?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oscar-Slater-Immortal-Art
That's what I meant by opposed. They couldn't believe that this was the way physics was shaping up. I mean look how close Scroedinger came to throwing in the towel. Yet Bohr showed him the beauty of his own arguement. I believe that research in the field would have sped up if Einstein hadn't so been so public in his denouncing it. I know his main objections were on philosophical grounds, but he did try to dispute it using physics arguments. Slowly Bohr managed to win and lets face it the EPR paper was an embarresment, then whoom as you said everyonewas on the qm band wagon. Thing is these things pop up in my mail box, and I read the headlines then delete them. I wish I had time togo back into the subject in the years I've been out, it's changed so much. I remember that the current BB model had to be revisited to account for new theories in QCD/QED. I tried to locate the article and found this one. It's interesting what he has to say, especially about the shift in ideas. I don't know much about the physics (nor, sadly the time to get into again) to say one way or the other. Maybe you've heard of it. If so what do you think? http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm/ As for the models (other post)... When you first mentioned the atmospheric physics of astronomy, that's what got me thinking. During my four years at Uni I was told the models for neutron stars, planetary creation etc were constantly under debate to match observations with newer technology. Fair enough, I'm the first to say we can't know everything about a system and that we need to rethink when new data is found, but my point is if so many of our models are under doubt then why are our climate models so trustworthy? I mean in that paper the started all of this (well for me), The authors show a graph that demonstrates (figure 11 page 4): "Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S (17, 18) plotted as deviations from the 1979 value." There is a significatn deviation from the predicted IPCC model. Now I know I know nothing about the IPCC model, or even how the authors have applied it (correclty etc). But is this data wrong, a lie or what? Note I would be saying this even if the model suggested everything was fine. All I want to know is why both sides are arguing about models when by everyone's own admission models can not be used accurately because we simply do not know what is going on (do we know all the factors etc..actually do we know do you reckon there is other factors at play which perhaps are not included in the IPCC model, some possible feedback effects, solar fluctuations, plant life, geothermal activity caused by the planets, I'm guessing because I don't know.. what do you think?) As for the pupils, don't worry I'm not going to be teaching them climate models or anything like that. I appreciate it takes a while to learn the whole subject. I know a lot of people are doing hard work in the field and I don't want to undermine this by glibly referencing it in a classroom. But I think they pupils should see this side, and not just accept what is thrown at them, by me or anyone. For example Cecilia Bitz's article about how an inteview she gave with the media led to misconceptions / misinterpretations being printed. She went on to explain what she was trying to get across. I think it's essential that pupils see that side and not just beliving what is printed (or at least what is printed is subject to the writers interprepatations / angle / motives etc). Maybe that is something realclimate.org should look into, trying to educate the youth through an impartial and balanced (like what I've seen so far) forum suited for their age. I wish I could ahold of this DVD (being out of the states...) I remeber I gave a medium ability group (as a fun lesson) a video (maybe you've seen it) about how the moon landings were faked. They watched it and by the end of it most of them had changed their mind and beleived that Appolo 11 didn't land. Then I as
Well there was Newton and his optics. The Einstein and his suggestion based on his model, that cold fusion was impossible. And then the one that made it: QM fathered (ironically by Einstein) opposed to by everyone except a select few and look at it now... thankfully. As for the experiment you could be right, I don't know and I really shouldn't have mentioned it because I can't source it. So you think anti grav is a myth. I think it's worthy of least some interest. I've been out of the game long enough to not have a clue where to start but it took 100 years to get where we are with QM and look how it had to suffer, especially in the Early days. I always wander where we would be now in terms of research if it wasn't for the characters that fought for QM in those early days. I read recently that advents in QCD / QED have brought the Big Bang and the current mathematical models for Black Holes under doubt. I've not had time to digest the findings fully, but I've got the source somewhere. I;ll try and pull it out. If you've read it what do you think?
Large error bars... Don't remind me. I did two years Astrophysics... I loved cosmology, especially the Hubble Constant. But with physics we knew the variables and the equations of state etc. Do our current enviromental models have that same level of detail? As for the pupils. You'd be suprised (kids often are). Fair enough they can't handle the whole truth, but watered down versions, and at the very least the knowledge that what you see on the news isn't everything, is all they need. I'm not expecting them to become experts (not when they've got physics exams to pass) but at least they might be a littlre more informed or at least they know they could be more informed.
Just joking. But would it affect it by that much? I would have to get my Astrophysics books out and dust them off, but that much change...
Oh and sorry I didn't mean to imply that James Hensen made it up. He was the one who made it public, so I refered to him as the (public) "Father of Global Warming" in the same way that Darwin was the (public) "Father of Natural Selectio) evem if he may turning in his grave after hearing that. This was someone else, name forgotten, doing work in the '70s. Just thought you might have heard of this rumour. Actually it was told to me by my Lecturer "Expert".
No that whole Pons-Fleischman cold fusion thing is largely an embaressment to the Physics world. Damages their Egos you see. It's like I said before. An Legend dismisses an area of scientific research and all the others follow. However now that Some Pillars of physics (Einstein's field equations, black holes, and the big bang) are being revisited and Scrutinised in the light of the overwhelming success of quantum mechanics, qed and qcd, I hope other areas will be opened up and investigated without bias. Thing is when I hear about these stories I shudder and just forget them. I can't remember exactly the details but the Antigrav this was a group in South America (Peru) I think who claimed they had built an antigrav device using magnets (some field device anyway). From what I remember their theory was resonable and they had some (cooked) evidence. Some institution gave them some money and well that was the last anyone saw of them. Now Anti grave research has that stigma attatched to it. I've already started reading up on those pages and so far they seem fair. Thanks once again
I teach Physics (my degree is Theoretical Physics) to A-Level (Till 18 if you're not familiar with the english education system). Hence you can see why I have trouble with all this debate. Physics is a little more exact than all this and basically I need to know what I can trust. Hence me asking for what I know I can trust: models, maths and data. Oh, I don't plan to tell them what I think. Show them the evidence and let them evaluate it themselves (well maybe not the evidence itself maybe a watered down version. At the very least it will show them no to accept the dogma, and to think for themselves. You're right I probably will find it hard but at least now the pupils may have another choice.
--- Ambitwistor (1041236): We don't have "solid indistputable understanding" and our models are not "rock solid" and certainly do not indicate "we are all going to die". --- You (thankfully) haven't been watching or reading the British Press. If I didn't know any better I swear Global Warming would creep up kill me in my sleep. :-)
---
Ambitwistor (1041236):
You can get grant money for results which challenge the status quo. In fact, you can get a lot of grant money this way, as long as you can back up your claims. On a more mundane level, you can certainly get grant money for work that reevaluates the reliability of climate models, temperature reconstructions, etc.
---
Well that's what this rumour I heard said. That this guy made up global warming, going against the then staus quo to secure a grant. God knows we've had this in the world of physics: Antigravity devices, extreme low temp plasma - fusion. And all of these by then reputable scientists. Obviously I'm skeptical of that this is remotely near the truth but it peeked my interest.
But seriously thanks for the links. Just out of interest what do you think the final outcome would be? Could the Earth stabalise or are "we all going to die" :-)
Sorry third world country. We don't you to make the same mistakes we made so why don't you go back to burning cow dung to cook your dinner and sit proud that you're doing your part to help the environment. Or you could get Russia to build you a Nuclear reactor and then we would threaten to blow it up / invade your country in case you might possibly hint at the merest chance of even thinking about building a bomb with it. So stop moaning about not being to able develop and thank God almighty that your not polluting the world for the rest of us.
Nevermind them... What about poor little Pluto. First kicked out of the planet club and now this. Poor Little Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html/
Haha...How do I know you aren't one of them. :-)
I don't believe that all these scientists are sitting round laughing at us for believing any tosh they write...
As for "Father of Global Warming" I was merely using the term to describe the person who brought this to the public's attention in 1988 (CFCs etc): Dr. James Hansen
Again comes the old story do I trust that article etc. I know (first hand) what research scientists will do for grant money, but you're right it would be a little hard to conceive of it on this scale. Maybe it would only take a few hardcore experts in the field to countermand suggestions made by research students (I simply do not know and I don't want to assume anything).
It has happened in the past with Newton's theories of light, for over a hundred years the Royal Society refused to accept anything that went against Newtonian optics, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence (and there wasn't huge sums of money involved).
I don't believe one thing or the other, but what I do detest is being told to be very afraid because of all these nasty things that global warming is going to do to you. Yet their only evidence they present are fancy diagrams and graphs produced by experts who are never mentioned or sourced.
So I tasked myself to find information and answers. Instead of anything solid all I find insinuation, The global warmalists saying that those who say global warming is a hoax are in the pocket of the big oil (which they are), but no evidence. Denialists saying there is no evidence etc. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong place (anyone who can help me, much appreciated). I'm not a climatologist but what I do understand are models and trends. Now, if there is so much debate over the models people are using (and are best weather model programs can't predict the weather a week in advance) how can they predict anything? And are these predictions accurate? I was told at Uni that we simply didn't know the effect of CO2 concentration on global temperatures (this by an "expert" University lecturer) now six years later we all of sudden have a solid indisputable understanding with rock solid models indicating we are all going to die.
I'm now regretting every reading that damn Crichton Book. Don't know if you've read it, don't bother it's not written too well, but he cites pages of pages scientific papers (peer reviewed, from reputable journals) all panning Global Warming. So my first thought was how can something so publicly accepted be contested so strongly and me not hear about this? Why wasn't I hearing about these papers and ideas (even if it was to disprove it) in the news, TV programs etc. We're so used to accepting lies on tele:
"We're going into Iraq to find WMDs..." Then to publicly say that they knew they didn't have any.
"21,000 troops for Iraq" So Iran has nothing to do with it...?
SARs is going to wipe out 1 in 5 according to experts
Bird flu is going to kill millions
Mad Cow disease will kill everyone
Bin Laden is going to eat your babies...
I thought it would interesting to try and delve into this. Especially as many of pupils are asking and I want to give them solid answers based on fact and scientific accuracy, not just unsupported claims by a media that we know not only lies to us, but instils fears. Started today and whoa deep end.
So anyone who can point me to any papers (if you've seen them first hand), articles, or even raw data, please do, and I thank you in advance.
Thanks for that link...It's nice to meet an informed forum as opposed to ranting and raving on either side. Really it does come down to funding dosen't it. Or money. LordVader717, thanks also for sending that article. Back to the money arguement, or at least funding. Forgive me, as I'm no really an exeprt either, although I can read presented data, but scientist need money for research. I say this because I've heard a rumour (appologies I have not been able to source this, maybe someone can help) that the Father of Global Warming just 'fiddled' his data to get the whole thing going and get more research grant. As for oil companies paying people to say 'the truth' it's their industry, their welfare maybe they feel they can't be heard fairly - something which I have noticed (to be fair). I see news story after news story about global warming etc but when they ask the experts, they always ask people with a vested intrest in saying there is serious problem: 1)Politicians, for those extra brownie points 2)Media, generate huge interest 3)Scientists, grants etc Both sides are making huge money out of this. So if we start looking at the interests people have in the Global warming issue, we really could be here forever. I'm a teacher and I hate that when I ask my pupils about global warming they say that it must be true, it's in the news. But I don't see the news handling it fairly or openly. I laughed last year when UK had it's 'warmest' winter ever in a hundred or so years then the day after followed the 'coldest' period Britain had ever seen. Funnily enough no mention of Global warming was made during that period. You've mentioned that all peer-reviewed (all reviewed by each other?) papers point towards evidence of Global Warming, but I've heard the opposite, that 'true' scientific evidence is pointing towards little or no change... I admit that I haven't looked at all of the literature (could anyone). I'm finding it very difficult to be moved to anyside because I don't think there is an impartial party. But that in itself is interesting because one thing I do see and I ask now is: of all the scientific data, models etc flying around, do you think we actually know what is going to happen (warming / cooling / rapid growth of plantlifce etc)? We have trouble predicting weather a weak in advance...
"Everyone sane realizes that global warming is happening"
Do you beleive that GW is a natural thing, or human? I say this because I'm interested in the whole debate but yet find very little evidence to suggest that the Earth is behaving anythin other than naturally... We have just come out of a "little ice age", centred around the middle ages. The warming of the climate then allowed humans to spread. Eventually the Earth will find a balance and it will go cold again.
Have a read of this. Sparked my interest:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm