Yes, yes it does. Although global temperatures are increasing over the long term, there are still short term temperature variations. So, yes, global warming does predict that every so often, we'll have a year that's colder than the previous X years for X=1, X=2, X=3,..., X=8. The question is: Is it warmer this decade than it was 50 years ago? That shows the long term temperature trend.
No, nothing drastic will occur in the next 10 years due to global warming. There will be increased droughts, but we always have droughts. Hurricanes will have increased strength, but there will always be hurricanes. Sea level will be a bit higher, but due to tides, the sea level is always changing anyway.
If you're expecting a disaster like you see in a movie, it will never come. If you can deny global warming today, I see no reason you wouldn't deny it 20 years from today.
If you want to see signs of global warming, you might want to keep your eye on the Arctic ice. It's already melting, and the Arctic is expected to be ice free in the summer in 20 years. You'll also want to watch for drought and problems with fresh water supplies in the American southwest. On the other hand, if you can dismiss the current Arctic ice melt and droughts, I don't see any reason you wouldn't dismiss them in twenty years, even if they're noticeably worse.
I only recently saw An Inconvenient Truth, where Gore likens us to a frog in a slowly boiling pot, that will let himself boil as long as the temperature rises slowly enough. You've just demonstrated this point very well.
Oh, I see. Someone's blog post is what you're basing your opinions on. Yes, that certainly clearly demonstrates those hundreds of scientists are all wrong.
Climate models decades ago showed global warming due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those models showed the highest temperature increase in the polar regions. That's what we're seeing in the present. In what way are the models not accurate?
TFA says "Warmest on record - 1998 - +0.515C". I've done the research. Did you click the second link I gave to Peter Norvig's analysis of scientific papers on global warming?
I don't understand the comment about disproving my theory. The fact that it was colder in the 20th century means in warmer now. That means the Earth is warming.
Can you show me data that shows we're "dropping back"? The graph I showed clearly demonstrates the past two decades are warm relative to the previous decades. The analysis I linked to shows that this warming is like due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Looking at this NOAA graph it looks like it's been hotter since the 1990s. 1998 may not have been hot compared to other years in the 1990s, but it was hot compared to 1938. Looking at the graph, I can easily see how 2008 can be colder than every year since 2000, and yet hotter than every year in the 1980s.
You are correct that there is a debate about anthropogenic climate change. From the most recent reports, there's about a 90% chance the warming we've seen is mostly due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and forests.
But the climate does not appear to be cooling. The climate is getting warmer. Just because 2008 is cooler than the past seven years doesn't mean that global warming has stopped. There will always be variability in climate. You can't expect every year to be strictly warmer than the years before. It would be like expecting the stock market to reach new highs every year. It doesn't work like that -- you need to look at the long-term trend, not just the most recent years.
Now when you confuse weather with climate, you're going way off track. We can't predict the weather in a given region for a given month. Again, it would be like predicting the price of a given stock in a given month. It can't be done. Would you pass up a buddy's stock tips if he's correct 90% of the time when he says a stock will go up, even if he can't tell you what the price will be six months out? Whether it goes up 20% in three months or 30% in eight months, you'd be passing up easy money!
Scientists keep saying that with increased carbon dioxide emissions temperature will increase. In addition, we can expect rising sea levels, more intense tropical storms, and increased droughts. Sounds bad enough to me to think about cutting back on emissions. The chief scientist of a major oil company agrees (you can fast-forward to 13:00 in the video if you want to see only the part on global warming).
I have C++ code that I maintain. It was written in 2004. I also use Firefox, Notepad++, FileZilla, 7-Zip, which are all written in C++. It seems like most the applications I run are written in C++, with many written in C and some Microsoft programs perhaps written in C#. Java killed C++? You wouldn't be aware of it from the software on my computer.
It's not free will if we're automata predetermined to carry out a given sequence of actions and have no power to choose otherwise. Free will is the ability to make a decision -- to choose whether to behave one way or the other.
Macroscopic dice behave deterministically. You can make the dice roll a certain number if you roll with enough care. In this case, the roller decides which number appears face up.
In the case of something behaving nondeterministically, something must make the decision of how it behaves. If it is not the particle itself, what is it?
That's an even more amazing possibility. If the actions of particles are nondeterministic, and the particles themselves are not deciding their actions, then what is doing the deciding?
I agree that students must be taught to scrutinize information. As you point out, it has to do with philosophy, and I would say specifically reasoning and logic. In addition to knowing basic science and math facts, students ought to be able to understand the difference between well-established scientific fact and the latest research. I'm not so sure that society has been trained to accept the latest research as fact. Take a look at all the people around here that do not believe that evolution and global warming are real, even though there has been lots of research on those topics for many decades. In any case, I think the media, rather than our educational system or scientists, are to blame for presenting the latest research as if it's well established.
Your second point is much more philosophical. I will only point out that whether the belief that we are "capable of accurately observing, cataloging, describing, comparing, and explaining observations" has any logical basis or not, science seems to work. It seems to have allowed us to invent computers, space travel, advanced medicine and surgery, and so on. I'm very much a pragmatist; the fact the science seems to work means far more to me than some philosophical question about whether the universe if knowable by humans. If someone can find a better methodology than current science practices, one that provides better results, that's all that matters to me. If no one can suggest a better way, the current way seems to be the best we have available, so we should use it to maximum benefit..
First, you need to know certain facts before you can do useful science. If you teach only the scientific method, and let the students figure out everything on their own, they'll spend their whole careers reinventing the basics. The same goes for mathematics or history for that matter. There are enough "facts" to learn to last well into college.
Second, what is this "philosophically unsound foundation" that science is founded on?
It's computers automatically solving logic problems. That includes deduction games such as Clue (aka Cluedo), logic puzzles like you can find in magazines, proving mathematical theorems, etc.
I wouldn't call it "science" or "Science". Many people will misunderstand what you're saying and think you are referring to the work of real scientists. They'll either dismiss you as a crackpot, or worse, stop listening to what scientists have to say because of a sense of mistrust. Every discussion on the Internet has idiots. The best thing you can do is counter them with simple, educated arguments, and everyone will see them for who they really are.
Re:Nice review, but I don't understand something.
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
what the hell does I found Chapter 11 to be very useful (pun intended) mean?
I think he meant, uh, what's that thing that spells the same backwards as forwards? A palindrome.
I wouldn't call that science at all. I would call that ignorant people talking about science as if they're know-it-alls. When they get into a disagreement, they must make an appeal to authority, because they don't understand the science themselves and therefore cannot explain or justify it.
I think this is what people are referring to when they refer to science as the new religion. Science itself is based on fact and evidence. On the other hand, many people's belief in science is based on what they've heard or read, whether they understand it or not. That truly is treating science as a religion. It's dangerous to believe something a scientist says, just because they're a scientist. I'd say it's even worshipping a false idol.
Your "Science" doesn't sound like science at all to me. Why would scientists fall victim to obvious logical fallacies such as ad populum, ad baculum, or appeal to authority? Who are these "Scientists" doing this kind of "Science" you refer to?
I agree that there are environmentalist fanatics who don't understand the science behind global warming. Their belief is not based on science, but upon emotion.
On the other hand, there is lots of good scientific evidence for global warming. I haven't seen anyone's alternate theories "shot down as a lunatic" unless they present a loony idea that's easily dismissed. Do you think there's is a lack of real debate about the issue? I do see debates, but they don't go very far, because global warming "deniers" often say pretty loony things, such as trying to dismiss nearly all of climate science as a sham.
I know the answer they want, but it is still just a theory.
And do you have a better explanation for how the universe came to its present form? One that explains the cosmic background radiation? The relative amounts of the elements? The redshifts we observe in faraway galaxies? If so, you have every reason to question the big bang "theory". If not, that theory is the best explanation we have so far.
From what I can see, there's lots of good scientific evidence that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels and forests. There is still some scientific debate about the matter. For example, there is still about a 10% chance that the most of the warming we've seen so far is due to natural causes. So anthropogenic global warming might not be fact, but it is good science. It's certainly not a "religion". Not that you don't have a right not to believe in it; you are certainly free to believe whatever you want, no matter how overwhelming the evidence that is presented to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, yes it does. Although global temperatures are increasing over the long term, there are still short term temperature variations. So, yes, global warming does predict that every so often, we'll have a year that's colder than the previous X years for X=1, X=2, X=3, ..., X=8. The question is: Is it warmer this decade than it was 50 years ago? That shows the long term temperature trend.
No, nothing drastic will occur in the next 10 years due to global warming. There will be increased droughts, but we always have droughts. Hurricanes will have increased strength, but there will always be hurricanes. Sea level will be a bit higher, but due to tides, the sea level is always changing anyway.
If you're expecting a disaster like you see in a movie, it will never come. If you can deny global warming today, I see no reason you wouldn't deny it 20 years from today.
If you want to see signs of global warming, you might want to keep your eye on the Arctic ice. It's already melting, and the Arctic is expected to be ice free in the summer in 20 years. You'll also want to watch for drought and problems with fresh water supplies in the American southwest. On the other hand, if you can dismiss the current Arctic ice melt and droughts, I don't see any reason you wouldn't dismiss them in twenty years, even if they're noticeably worse.
I only recently saw An Inconvenient Truth, where Gore likens us to a frog in a slowly boiling pot, that will let himself boil as long as the temperature rises slowly enough. You've just demonstrated this point very well.
Oh, I see. Someone's blog post is what you're basing your opinions on. Yes, that certainly clearly demonstrates those hundreds of scientists are all wrong.
Climate models decades ago showed global warming due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those models showed the highest temperature increase in the polar regions. That's what we're seeing in the present. In what way are the models not accurate?
TFA says "Warmest on record - 1998 - +0.515C". I've done the research. Did you click the second link I gave to Peter Norvig's analysis of scientific papers on global warming?
I don't understand the comment about disproving my theory. The fact that it was colder in the 20th century means in warmer now. That means the Earth is warming.
Can you show me data that shows we're "dropping back"? The graph I showed clearly demonstrates the past two decades are warm relative to the previous decades. The analysis I linked to shows that this warming is like due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Looking at this NOAA graph it looks like it's been hotter since the 1990s. 1998 may not have been hot compared to other years in the 1990s, but it was hot compared to 1938. Looking at the graph, I can easily see how 2008 can be colder than every year since 2000, and yet hotter than every year in the 1980s.
Do you have a source for these temperature statistics you keep referring to? From the graphs I've seen, it does look like the Earth's temperature is increasing. Scientists even think it's likely that most of the warming is due to the carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and forests.
You are correct that there is a debate about anthropogenic climate change. From the most recent reports, there's about a 90% chance the warming we've seen is mostly due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and forests.
But the climate does not appear to be cooling. The climate is getting warmer. Just because 2008 is cooler than the past seven years doesn't mean that global warming has stopped. There will always be variability in climate. You can't expect every year to be strictly warmer than the years before. It would be like expecting the stock market to reach new highs every year. It doesn't work like that -- you need to look at the long-term trend, not just the most recent years.
Now when you confuse weather with climate, you're going way off track. We can't predict the weather in a given region for a given month. Again, it would be like predicting the price of a given stock in a given month. It can't be done. Would you pass up a buddy's stock tips if he's correct 90% of the time when he says a stock will go up, even if he can't tell you what the price will be six months out? Whether it goes up 20% in three months or 30% in eight months, you'd be passing up easy money!
Scientists keep saying that with increased carbon dioxide emissions temperature will increase. In addition, we can expect rising sea levels, more intense tropical storms, and increased droughts. Sounds bad enough to me to think about cutting back on emissions. The chief scientist of a major oil company agrees (you can fast-forward to 13:00 in the video if you want to see only the part on global warming).
I have C++ code that I maintain. It was written in 2004. I also use Firefox, Notepad++, FileZilla, 7-Zip, which are all written in C++. It seems like most the applications I run are written in C++, with many written in C and some Microsoft programs perhaps written in C#. Java killed C++? You wouldn't be aware of it from the software on my computer.
If anyone can prove that your behavior is nondeterministic, I'd love to hear it. Your test doesn't demonstrate anything until someone can.
It's not free will if we're automata predetermined to carry out a given sequence of actions and have no power to choose otherwise. Free will is the ability to make a decision -- to choose whether to behave one way or the other.
If your life is pre-determined, how can you make a decision? Just because you don't know what you will do doesn't mean you're making a decision.
Macroscopic dice behave deterministically. You can make the dice roll a certain number if you roll with enough care. In this case, the roller decides which number appears face up.
In the case of something behaving nondeterministically, something must make the decision of how it behaves. If it is not the particle itself, what is it?
That's an even more amazing possibility. If the actions of particles are nondeterministic, and the particles themselves are not deciding their actions, then what is doing the deciding?
Huh? I think part of your second sentence is missing. If subatomic particles behave in ways that are not deterministic, then what?
Do you agree that you do not have free will?
I agree that students must be taught to scrutinize information. As you point out, it has to do with philosophy, and I would say specifically reasoning and logic. In addition to knowing basic science and math facts, students ought to be able to understand the difference between well-established scientific fact and the latest research. I'm not so sure that society has been trained to accept the latest research as fact. Take a look at all the people around here that do not believe that evolution and global warming are real, even though there has been lots of research on those topics for many decades. In any case, I think the media, rather than our educational system or scientists, are to blame for presenting the latest research as if it's well established.
Your second point is much more philosophical. I will only point out that whether the belief that we are "capable of accurately observing, cataloging, describing, comparing, and explaining observations" has any logical basis or not, science seems to work. It seems to have allowed us to invent computers, space travel, advanced medicine and surgery, and so on. I'm very much a pragmatist; the fact the science seems to work means far more to me than some philosophical question about whether the universe if knowable by humans. If someone can find a better methodology than current science practices, one that provides better results, that's all that matters to me. If no one can suggest a better way, the current way seems to be the best we have available, so we should use it to maximum benefit..
First, you need to know certain facts before you can do useful science. If you teach only the scientific method, and let the students figure out everything on their own, they'll spend their whole careers reinventing the basics. The same goes for mathematics or history for that matter. There are enough "facts" to learn to last well into college.
Second, what is this "philosophically unsound foundation" that science is founded on?
It's computers automatically solving logic problems. That includes deduction games such as Clue (aka Cluedo), logic puzzles like you can find in magazines, proving mathematical theorems, etc.
I wouldn't call it "science" or "Science". Many people will misunderstand what you're saying and think you are referring to the work of real scientists. They'll either dismiss you as a crackpot, or worse, stop listening to what scientists have to say because of a sense of mistrust. Every discussion on the Internet has idiots. The best thing you can do is counter them with simple, educated arguments, and everyone will see them for who they really are.
I think he meant, uh, what's that thing that spells the same backwards as forwards? A palindrome.
I wouldn't call that science at all. I would call that ignorant people talking about science as if they're know-it-alls. When they get into a disagreement, they must make an appeal to authority, because they don't understand the science themselves and therefore cannot explain or justify it.
I think this is what people are referring to when they refer to science as the new religion. Science itself is based on fact and evidence. On the other hand, many people's belief in science is based on what they've heard or read, whether they understand it or not. That truly is treating science as a religion. It's dangerous to believe something a scientist says, just because they're a scientist. I'd say it's even worshipping a false idol.
Your "Science" doesn't sound like science at all to me. Why would scientists fall victim to obvious logical fallacies such as ad populum, ad baculum, or appeal to authority? Who are these "Scientists" doing this kind of "Science" you refer to?
I agree that there are environmentalist fanatics who don't understand the science behind global warming. Their belief is not based on science, but upon emotion.
On the other hand, there is lots of good scientific evidence for global warming. I haven't seen anyone's alternate theories "shot down as a lunatic" unless they present a loony idea that's easily dismissed. Do you think there's is a lack of real debate about the issue? I do see debates, but they don't go very far, because global warming "deniers" often say pretty loony things, such as trying to dismiss nearly all of climate science as a sham.
And do you have a better explanation for how the universe came to its present form? One that explains the cosmic background radiation? The relative amounts of the elements? The redshifts we observe in faraway galaxies? If so, you have every reason to question the big bang "theory". If not, that theory is the best explanation we have so far.
From what I can see, there's lots of good scientific evidence that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels and forests. There is still some scientific debate about the matter. For example, there is still about a 10% chance that the most of the warming we've seen so far is due to natural causes. So anthropogenic global warming might not be fact, but it is good science. It's certainly not a "religion". Not that you don't have a right not to believe in it; you are certainly free to believe whatever you want, no matter how overwhelming the evidence that is presented to you.