a) you agree with me that the evidence isn't conclusive that humans contributed to the reduction in the ozone hole size; b) you actually support my point of view by citing a Google item that concludes that CFC concentrations will remain significant into the next century ie. it will take time to see any effects of the present reductions; and c) you refer to an accusation that I never made ie. that scientific consensus is attributable to a desire for more funding.
So, I am correct and you agreed. As for c), well I agree with you that scientific consensus isn't necessarily linked to funding. But then I never said it was. However, I have filed for funds, currently manage those who do, and have been part of approving committees for funding. Scientists do not work for free. The cry for funding is persistent and often strident. If you think differently, then I suspect that the years you have over me (assuming in research/academia) is at most nil.
I returned later in life to academics for a masters degree. I had to amass several credits through post grad level courses to meet the requirement. While I initially dreaded it, I ended up spending as much time on campus as possible. The reason was the infectious vitality of the student body. There are always slackers but most students (esp. at the PG level) want to learn and are generally enthusiastic about it. It was hard not to get swept up in the moment. It was at times a complete rush. Humans (even PG students) are social animals and a campus brings like-minded people together where they can motivate each other, exchange ideas, question professorial points of view, and cross-pollinate. OK, the last one isn't strictly academic but it is a perk you can't get sitting alone watching a lecture on YouTube.
You have got to be kidding! We changed our behaviour and it worked? In such a short time frame? You know what? That's utter BS and most climatologists would concur. In fact, there is no clue why the hole shrank. Only a half-assed guess that is tailored to not conflict with the current position.
And scientists don't drive in pink Cadillacs because it is not in their nature. But they spend better than half their time screaming "M-Fer, I want more research funding". Or so my 15 years in academia and government research leads me to believe.
Ok my epiphany came much later in life as an adult. I was looking for ways of teaching discrete math and statistics to first year university students in the Arts program. They were less than interested until I presented the following relationship, math is about language eg. the semantics of programming languages identify a grammar, rules of construction, etc. just like any verbal language. As luck would have it, I found an ancient book on law that had a great section on fallacies (false arguments) that I translated directly into subject material for our module on logic. I then borrowed a book of puzzles that had the usual logic word problems, and we worked some of those out using math. I capped the semester by having them creating arguments to justify the addition of marks to their existing averages. It turned out to be quite a useful and fun semester.
What I emphasized was that those in the Arts are usually required to establish a position, and defend it, using the written word eg. essays, theses, etc. Presenting a clear and reasoned argument is the essence of so much non-fiction writing including business proposals, engineering proposals, project definition statements, legal statements, political speeches (which seem to rely exclusively on fallacies =).
In a nutshell, books on philosophy and law should have a lot of fodder to introduce some aspects of math. And logic is quite accessible to even the very young, Who doesn't like to argue at that age?
Got it. LEGAL. We pay a tax for the privilege. So this has nothing to do with illegal downloads. They are already getting their pound of flesh and the targeted price drops are still netting them a handsome profit. Geeze.
The author states that the reasons for the orientation are beyond the scope of the paper. But the implication of the orientations is that the universe is not spherical. I have had only one course in cosmogeny (origins of the universe) and all the models lead to symmetry. So any indication of a lack of symmetry implies that we are missing some big piece of the puzzle. Combine this with the tenousness of many of the theories of cosmology (eg. Big Bang... far from perfect and getting further ) and the picture emerges that there is not a lot that is actually known about the structure of the universe. Despite all the bravado and pat statements in the media, all we have are half-baked guesses. Mind you, does it really matter? Given our very short lives in the grand scheme of things, the lack of knowledge probably isn't hurting us.
To be a white mouse is to be nestled in an alien environment of metal and bars, forced under threat of punishment to perform acts that have no relation to natural instincts, fed an array of processed and unnatural (to a mouse) foods, all while being watched by alien creatures that frequently whisk away your mouse friends and colleagues who, if they are returned, are often physically and psychologically damaged. Frankly, that any white mouse is considered "sane" by the researchers is a very telling commentary about the mental state of those running the laboratory.
Dimensions 5 and 6 are Time Velocity and Time Acceleration respectively. Thus explaining what happens when time seems to pass faster when you zone out staring at dust motes floating in a sunbeam ie. time slows abruptly. By the same token, it also explains how time accelerates towards the end of an exam.
From the article: The glider's first trip revealed unexpected warming of water near the ocean floor, and scientists are interested in studying whether the temperatures are related to global warming.
"The maiden voyage was wonderful," says Charlie Eriksen, professor of physical oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle. "On every dive we got within 10 meters of the bottom and we were able to see some interesting bottom temperature and salinity variations that we didn't know about, that I certainly didn't expect."
Had the variations not been there before and this was different? Is there that much information on the deep ocean that we can make such pronouncements? Or have they come across something else that simply demonstrates how little mankind really knows about the environment and why, by extension, the models used for climate prediction must be at least equally lacking?
Global warming, who cares? Stop making a mockery of science. Using resources efficiently is just good sense, why must there be a grander reason?
I entered grad studies (MSc) in computer science at age 39. As a mechanical & electrical engineer, my lack of background in math and computer science made it a huge challenge. But what got me an opportunity to take the program was bull-headed hard work in my work years before that. With that work ethic, plus the maturity fitting my age, I made top student beating out younger, and often brighter, students fresh out of their undergrad programmes. My point, and the lesson I took away, is that it's not really about your brain. It's mostly about how hard you're willing to work.
But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.
Yes. Unclear. But one must assume it must only be a minor (and temporary) effect that will not detract from the alarming global changes that are forecast. Right? It could not possibly be revealing the fact that so much is not understood about the atmosphere that any current attempt at drawing firm conclusions about the present state (let alone future states) is pure guessing. And while guessing isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it becomes bad when you use it to further your own personal or political agendas.
So "... it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again...". That is correct. But only used to prevent the appearance of not toeing the party line of how all greenhouse gases are on the rise. Will we ever see equally correct statements in print today such as:
And the rise of CO2 levels "does not mean that they will not descend again".
And the rise in temperatures "does not mean that they will not lower again".
No. We'll only repeatedly see:
And the fact that our models were wrong many times "does not mean that they won't be right sometime".
OK so/. doesn't have many business types. That kind of percentage in any market is just plain great. And since a previous story suggested that market share had increased, it's probably safe to say not much has actually changed. IE still dominates the market and anything else has a darn long way to go to catch up.
a) The graph and text speak of temperature variations in tenths of a degree. We must assume then that temperature measurements over the past century have always been of that accuracy or better. Further we must assume that the temperature readings from magnesium content in sediment are of a similar accuracy. Is that correct?
b) While time for the past century is easily ascertained, we must assume that the age of the sediment is also accurate. We must also assume that the relatively brief geological span of time (12,000 yrs) is representative of the entirety of Earth's climatic history. Like the stock market, a small snippet of the overall history is adequate to forecast both past and future behaviour. Is this correct?
Note:
i) It is, of course, a given that any anomolous temperature deviations are the result of human activity. No such deviations have ever occured without human intervention.
ii) It is also a given that we completely understand the Earth's atmospheric chemistry and climatic thermodynamics (e.g. heat capacity of the oceans). The latter is of course all the more impressive since we have explored so little of it. The former is revealed by the precise way in which we yearly predict the behaviour of the ozone hole, for example.
iii) Naturally, our grasp of climate dynamics is unquestioned. Witness the precision with which we predict intemperate yearly weather patterns such as hurricane frequency, average snowfalls, etc.
The astute realestate investor will purchase property up North. By carefully watching the creep of plant and insect species north (which we have presumably been doing for some time), it is possible to maximize profits by buying just in time for the arrival of the most alluring species while avoiding the nastier types.
The more astute reader will realise that taking a huge salt pill after reading the article will alleviate ulcerations due to the ingestion wild extrapolations, arrogance of assumptions, the hiding of variance and error, and foregone politically correct conclusions.
The article doesn't say, but couldn't the claim have been made by the defence that if a hacker could enter a computer and find evidence, then a hacker could also plant incriminating evidence.
We had this come up during an investigation of small government network. Against explicit direction, some computers were found to contain games and "hacker" files (for spoofing, etc.). The institution tried to implement its zero tolerance rules. The users of the identified computers denied the files were theirs. Furthermore, they countered that since their computers were accessible by anyone able to enter the building, then the files could have been "planted" by another user. The whole thing was dropped.
There seems to be a thread in the comments suggesting that animal experimentation is condoned. This would suggest that the topic has arisen and been discussed in a public forum. My experience, as a data analyst, is that animal experimentation is only publicly discussed when brought to the fore by radical protest groups. The existence and conduct of animal experimentation is kept as much as possible out of the public view. Even the results are presented in such a way as to obscure or hide the nature of the actual experiment (no surprise, those in the field will know approximately, if not exactly, what would have been done). Permission for experimentation (when it is requested) is obtained quietly and out of the public view. Experiments, if they are reviewed at all prior to their occurence, are considered with an eye to potential validity of results rather than any care whatsoever towards the animal subjects of the experiments. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that animal experimentation is condoned as if the public had spoken. It just happens under the authority of a very restricted subset of the population, like many other things. Since it rarely affects anyone directly, it is ignored.
The public treats animal experimentation as it does anything which is an inconvenience. The public does not want to know about it. The public does not want to think about it. The public wants simplicity and convenience in its life.
And the government knows this. (added for the paranoid)
"All we'd need is a plot of space for a big-ass building to house the stuff in "... and everyone would be going "... but not in my backyard!" I've been following the wind generator movement. Everyone loves it until you offer to put it anywhere near them. That attitude will only disappear when people's backs are well and truly against the wall. As is always the case.
A hundred years ago, a very pressing question was what to do with the increasing amounts of horse manure generated in every city. With an increasing population and commensurately more horses, the solution was not readily apparent to many. But the automobile solved that problem quite neatly (or messily, depending on your perspective).
In so many ways we (as a race) have wondered how we will overcome what the future will bring. And yet we repeatedly surprise ourselves with new technological feats and societal adaptations. How can we predict how we will survive when we aren't very good at predicting either future circumstances (e.g. climate) or future tools (e.g. the Web, cell phones). Maybe the easy answer is we will survive by using tools and techniques not yet required or dreamed of.
It is inconcievable to me that we will not survive. Human life is designed to survive through intelligence and mutation. Regardless of what comes our way, we will adapt. The circumstances of our existence will be different. That is unquestionable. But nonetheless we will survive. Caveat: not all of us will survive as individuals. There will be casualties. But hey, that's life isn't it?
The damn thing is priced into oblivion and the functionality is still not there (slow, no search, etc.)
With eInk offering a developer's kit for $3000, is it time that the open source world took it upon itself to put together the first working ereader? Would an ereader not be possibly as useful as a $100 computer to a Third World demographic?
... in knowing that scientists understand completely the workings of climate and, in detail, the short and long term repercussions of their proposed actions. I mean they must, right?
... pursuant to some of the comments, why not just rip the mobo out of the laptop case and stick it into a desktop case. Use the laptop power supply, a desktop hard drive (cheap,higher speed), monitor, keyboard, etc. Result: a much quieter computer. Would there be any significant challenges vis-a-vis hardware? The only downside might be a lack of expansion slots but for most users this isn't such a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
From your post:
a) you agree with me that the evidence isn't conclusive that humans contributed to the reduction in the ozone hole size;
b) you actually support my point of view by citing a Google item that concludes that CFC concentrations will remain significant into the next century ie. it will take time to see any effects of the present reductions; and
c) you refer to an accusation that I never made ie. that scientific consensus is attributable to a desire for more funding.
So, I am correct and you agreed. As for c), well I agree with you that scientific consensus isn't necessarily linked to funding. But then I never said it was. However, I have filed for funds, currently manage those who do, and have been part of approving committees for funding. Scientists do not work for free. The cry for funding is persistent and often strident. If you think differently, then I suspect that the years you have over me (assuming in research/academia) is at most nil.
I returned later in life to academics for a masters degree. I had to amass several credits through post grad level courses to meet the requirement. While I initially dreaded it, I ended up spending as much time on campus as possible. The reason was the infectious vitality of the student body. There are always slackers but most students (esp. at the PG level) want to learn and are generally enthusiastic about it. It was hard not to get swept up in the moment. It was at times a complete rush. Humans (even PG students) are social animals and a campus brings like-minded people together where they can motivate each other, exchange ideas, question professorial points of view, and cross-pollinate. OK, the last one isn't strictly academic but it is a perk you can't get sitting alone watching a lecture on YouTube.
You have got to be kidding! We changed our behaviour and it worked? In such a short time frame? You know what? That's utter BS and most climatologists would concur. In fact, there is no clue why the hole shrank. Only a half-assed guess that is tailored to not conflict with the current position.
And scientists don't drive in pink Cadillacs because it is not in their nature. But they spend better than half their time screaming "M-Fer, I want more research funding". Or so my 15 years in academia and government research leads me to believe.
Ok my epiphany came much later in life as an adult. I was looking for ways of teaching discrete math and statistics to first year university students in the Arts program. They were less than interested until I presented the following relationship, math is about language eg. the semantics of programming languages identify a grammar, rules of construction, etc. just like any verbal language. As luck would have it, I found an ancient book on law that had a great section on fallacies (false arguments) that I translated directly into subject material for our module on logic. I then borrowed a book of puzzles that had the usual logic word problems, and we worked some of those out using math. I capped the semester by having them creating arguments to justify the addition of marks to their existing averages. It turned out to be quite a useful and fun semester.
What I emphasized was that those in the Arts are usually required to establish a position, and defend it, using the written word eg. essays, theses, etc. Presenting a clear and reasoned argument is the essence of so much non-fiction writing including business proposals, engineering proposals, project definition statements, legal statements, political speeches (which seem to rely exclusively on fallacies =).
In a nutshell, books on philosophy and law should have a lot of fodder to introduce some aspects of math. And logic is quite accessible to even the very young, Who doesn't like to argue at that age?
Got it. LEGAL. We pay a tax for the privilege. So this has nothing to do with illegal downloads. They are already getting their pound of flesh and the targeted price drops are still netting them a handsome profit. Geeze.
The author states that the reasons for the orientation are beyond the scope of the paper. But the implication of the orientations is that the universe is not spherical. I have had only one course in cosmogeny (origins of the universe) and all the models lead to symmetry. So any indication of a lack of symmetry implies that we are missing some big piece of the puzzle. Combine this with the tenousness of many of the theories of cosmology (eg. Big Bang ... far from perfect and getting further ) and the picture emerges that there is not a lot that is actually known about the structure of the universe. Despite all the bravado and pat statements in the media, all we have are half-baked guesses. Mind you, does it really matter? Given our very short lives in the grand scheme of things, the lack of knowledge probably isn't hurting us.
To be a white mouse is to be nestled in an alien environment of metal and bars, forced under threat of punishment to perform acts that have no relation to natural instincts, fed an array of processed and unnatural (to a mouse) foods, all while being watched by alien creatures that frequently whisk away your mouse friends and colleagues who, if they are returned, are often physically and psychologically damaged. Frankly, that any white mouse is considered "sane" by the researchers is a very telling commentary about the mental state of those running the laboratory.
Dimensions 5 and 6 are Time Velocity and Time Acceleration respectively. Thus explaining what happens when time seems to pass faster when you zone out staring at dust motes floating in a sunbeam ie. time slows abruptly. By the same token, it also explains how time accelerates towards the end of an exam.
Why not? It's been blamed for everything else.
From the article: The glider's first trip revealed unexpected warming of water near the ocean floor, and scientists are interested in studying whether the temperatures are related to global warming.
"The maiden voyage was wonderful," says Charlie Eriksen, professor of physical oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle. "On every dive we got within 10 meters of the bottom and we were able to see some interesting bottom temperature and salinity variations that we didn't know about, that I certainly didn't expect."
Had the variations not been there before and this was different? Is there that much information on the deep ocean that we can make such pronouncements? Or have they come across something else that simply demonstrates how little mankind really knows about the environment and why, by extension, the models used for climate prediction must be at least equally lacking?
Global warming, who cares? Stop making a mockery of science. Using resources efficiently is just good sense, why must there be a grander reason?
I entered grad studies (MSc) in computer science at age 39. As a mechanical & electrical engineer, my lack of background in math and computer science made it a huge challenge. But what got me an opportunity to take the program was bull-headed hard work in my work years before that. With that work ethic, plus the maturity fitting my age, I made top student beating out younger, and often brighter, students fresh out of their undergrad programmes. My point, and the lesson I took away, is that it's not really about your brain. It's mostly about how hard you're willing to work.
But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.
Yes. Unclear. But one must assume it must only be a minor (and temporary) effect that will not detract from the alarming global changes that are forecast. Right? It could not possibly be revealing the fact that so much is not understood about the atmosphere that any current attempt at drawing firm conclusions about the present state (let alone future states) is pure guessing. And while guessing isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it becomes bad when you use it to further your own personal or political agendas.
So "... it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again ...". That is correct. But only used to prevent the appearance of not toeing the party line of how all greenhouse gases are on the rise. Will we ever see equally correct statements in print today such as:
And the rise of CO2 levels "does not mean that they will not descend again".
And the rise in temperatures "does not mean that they will not lower again".
No. We'll only repeatedly see:
And the fact that our models were wrong many times "does not mean that they won't be right sometime".
Science is lost when it goes public.
OK so /. doesn't have many business types. That kind of percentage in any market is just plain great. And since a previous story suggested that market share had increased, it's probably safe to say not much has actually changed. IE still dominates the market and anything else has a darn long way to go to catch up.
a) The graph and text speak of temperature variations in tenths of a degree. We must assume then that temperature measurements over the past century have always been of that accuracy or better. Further we must assume that the temperature readings from magnesium content in sediment are of a similar accuracy. Is that correct?
b) While time for the past century is easily ascertained, we must assume that the age of the sediment is also accurate. We must also assume that the relatively brief geological span of time (12,000 yrs) is representative of the entirety of Earth's climatic history. Like the stock market, a small snippet of the overall history is adequate to forecast both past and future behaviour. Is this correct?
Note:
i) It is, of course, a given that any anomolous temperature deviations are the result of human activity. No such deviations have ever occured without human intervention.
ii) It is also a given that we completely understand the Earth's atmospheric chemistry and climatic thermodynamics (e.g. heat capacity of the oceans). The latter is of course all the more impressive since we have explored so little of it. The former is revealed by the precise way in which we yearly predict the behaviour of the ozone hole, for example.
iii) Naturally, our grasp of climate dynamics is unquestioned. Witness the precision with which we predict intemperate yearly weather patterns such as hurricane frequency, average snowfalls, etc.
The astute realestate investor will purchase property up North. By carefully watching the creep of plant and insect species north (which we have presumably been doing for some time), it is possible to maximize profits by buying just in time for the arrival of the most alluring species while avoiding the nastier types.
The more astute reader will realise that taking a huge salt pill after reading the article will alleviate ulcerations due to the ingestion wild extrapolations, arrogance of assumptions, the hiding of variance and error, and foregone politically correct conclusions.
The article doesn't say, but couldn't the claim have been made by the defence that if a hacker could enter a computer and find evidence, then a hacker could also plant incriminating evidence.
We had this come up during an investigation of small government network. Against explicit direction, some computers were found to contain games and "hacker" files (for spoofing, etc.). The institution tried to implement its zero tolerance rules. The users of the identified computers denied the files were theirs. Furthermore, they countered that since their computers were accessible by anyone able to enter the building, then the files could have been "planted" by another user. The whole thing was dropped.
There seems to be a thread in the comments suggesting that animal experimentation is condoned. This would suggest that the topic has arisen and been discussed in a public forum. My experience, as a data analyst, is that animal experimentation is only publicly discussed when brought to the fore by radical protest groups. The existence and conduct of animal experimentation is kept as much as possible out of the public view. Even the results are presented in such a way as to obscure or hide the nature of the actual experiment (no surprise, those in the field will know approximately, if not exactly, what would have been done). Permission for experimentation (when it is requested) is obtained quietly and out of the public view. Experiments, if they are reviewed at all prior to their occurence, are considered with an eye to potential validity of results rather than any care whatsoever towards the animal subjects of the experiments. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that animal experimentation is condoned as if the public had spoken. It just happens under the authority of a very restricted subset of the population, like many other things. Since it rarely affects anyone directly, it is ignored.
The public treats animal experimentation as it does anything which is an inconvenience.
The public does not want to know about it.
The public does not want to think about it.
The public wants simplicity and convenience in its life.
And the government knows this. (added for the paranoid)
"All we'd need is a plot of space for a big-ass building to house the stuff in " ... and everyone would be going "... but not in my backyard!" I've been following the wind generator movement. Everyone loves it until you offer to put it anywhere near them. That attitude will only disappear when people's backs are well and truly against the wall. As is always the case.
... and do some Googling. Brazil is NOT closing in on self-sufficiency.
A hundred years ago, a very pressing question was what to do with the increasing amounts of horse manure generated in every city. With an increasing population and commensurately more horses, the solution was not readily apparent to many. But the automobile solved that problem quite neatly (or messily, depending on your perspective).
In so many ways we (as a race) have wondered how we will overcome what the future will bring. And yet we repeatedly surprise ourselves with new technological feats and societal adaptations. How can we predict how we will survive when we aren't very good at predicting either future circumstances (e.g. climate) or future tools (e.g. the Web, cell phones). Maybe the easy answer is we will survive by using tools and techniques not yet required or dreamed of.
It is inconcievable to me that we will not survive. Human life is designed to survive through intelligence and mutation. Regardless of what comes our way, we will adapt. The circumstances of our existence will be different. That is unquestionable. But nonetheless we will survive. Caveat: not all of us will survive as individuals. There will be casualties. But hey, that's life isn't it?
The damn thing is priced into oblivion and the functionality is still not there (slow, no search, etc.)
With eInk offering a developer's kit for $3000, is it time that the open source world took it upon itself to put together the first working ereader? Would an ereader not be possibly as useful as a $100 computer to a Third World demographic?
... in knowing that scientists understand completely the workings of climate and, in detail, the short and long term repercussions of their proposed actions. I mean they must, right?
... pursuant to some of the comments, why not just rip the mobo out of the laptop case and stick it into a desktop case. Use the laptop power supply, a desktop hard drive (cheap,higher speed), monitor, keyboard, etc. Result: a much quieter computer. Would there be any significant challenges vis-a-vis hardware? The only downside might be a lack of expansion slots but for most users this isn't such a big deal.
Did they have the opinions only after they were paid ... ... or are they paid because they had those opinions already?
Did it happen because it was foreseen or because his ideas sowed the seeds?