Of course, he's no Joe Six-Pack, either. He's definitely where I got most of my nerd genes from. Yeah, I suppose I was thinking too much from my own no-child, low-power consumption perspective, though. For me, it'd literally double my power bill. Trust me, I'd notice.
There are three languages used in the original Bible: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. You have a point about losing stuff in translation (although I wouldn't say all meaning is lost), but there is no such thing as the "original" Latin with respect to the Bible.
So, what was Gutenberg printing in 1454 if the Bible was only constructed 140 years ago? The Synod of Hippo in 393 CE is when the the New Testament became canon. The gospels and letters that make up that canon are generally thought to be written in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
We have a version of the Bible that is almost 2,000 years old (Dead Sea Scrolls). It hasn't changed much in the last 2,000 years. From the GP's post, I have no idea if he's a Christian. He's just pointing out that a lot of Biblical scholars are well aware of any apparent contradictions, and already have explanations for all of them.
My least favorite "gotcha" is when people try to claim that the Bible calculates pi to be 3. They don't seem to be able to understand that "round" and "perfect circle" do not mean the same thing. Anyways, the GP is right. Whether or not you're a Christian (I'm not), you're not going to find any "new" contradictions in the Bible. However, that doesn't mean you won't be able to make others aware of contradictions that they didn't know exist. Personally, I'm of mixed feelings on this. On one hand, most fundamentalism is anathema to science. OTOH, à la Kurt Vonnegut (who is now in Heaven), I do not wish to deprive others of their religious beliefs.
Black holes tend to attract things, though. For example, there's a very nice black hole about 30,000 light years from here. Unfortunately, it just happens to be surrounded by the Milky Way galaxy's core. Hate it when that happens.;)
Even though I do use AC (although sparingly). My heat comes from the radiators, and hot water comes from our apartment complex. (I.e., it's included in the rent.) Also, my stove/oven uses gas. Just throwing all of that out there since I seem to have generated a little bit of skepticism with my original claims.
Would anyone not notice (other than rich people with mansions, etc.) an increase of 2.5 kWh/day? Even if you use 10x the electricity that I do, that'd be a 10% increase.
Our next generation space telescope hopes to be able to detect Earth sized planets 20-100 light years away, IIRC. Detect and see are two very different things (although I believe they hope to be able to perform spectroscopic analysis of those atmospheres). So, a telescope with 1,000x the angular resolution (possibly requiring 1,000,000x the light gathering capabilities - with modern interferometry there can now be a huge disparity between the two) will be required to detect Earth at 100,000 light years away. Also, light traveling around the black hole will be severely distorted.
Oh, and we have to find an appropriately placed black hole, too. Can't have anything getting in the way of line-of-sight, etc.
Based off your 220W figure, that results in approximately 158.4 kWh per billing cycle. Yowsa. folding@home would appear to be a good cause, but I agree that it would be nice to know up front how much you're actually "donating" to them. OTOH, if you don't notice an extra 158 kWh on your power bill, then perhaps you're not really going to care that much.
My last 6 power bills add up to $127.10. Of course, that doesn't include the hottest months. I can't view back further than 6 months, or otherwise I'd provide a more exact number. I do know that my power bills don't go up that much during the summer, so I just guesstimated at the $300 value. No doubt it helps that I live in a 1-bedroom apartment and not a house.
Here's a site that repeats what I remember learning as an undergrad:
At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists believed that all the fundamental laws of nature had been discovered and nothing more was left to be done except determine the physical constants to more decimal places.
I'm a little skeptical about that value (but willing to be convinced). I only pay about $300/year for electricity overall. Of course, I don't own a PS3. However, I do have a refrigerator and an air conditioner (as well as other devices that use electricity).
Wikipedia knows all. Hmm, it doesn't appear that Slashdot likes Cyrillic.
Oh, great, now I've triggered the lameness filter. Maybe by adding this paragraph, I can get around it. Really? 6 simple Cyrillic characters (and 6 question marks) makes this lame? Maybe if I add some more to this paragraph, it will forgive me. Now it's accusing me of making ASCII art. Huh, well, just look at the Wikipedia article, and I'll delete my "art".
But then, I could just as easily say "they believe the Earth is flat". Without specifying "they", this sentence is completely true. Usually, the phrase about global cooling usually implies that "they" represents a scientific consensus, since that's what they're (where "they" in this case refers to the ones making the statement) arguing against believing. If one really wants to argue against scientific consensus, it's probably best to stick to luminiferous aether and phlogiston.
...tells me that I should believe something because other people believe it
...isn't capable of discussing alternate theories
...is intolerant of other theories
...insults me for not accepting their theory
Basically, the more it looks like a religious issue, the more likely I am to be
skeptical of it.
So, are you willing to read scientific articles on climatology that address all of your concerns? If not (many people are unwilling), what other alternative is there then to believe what the majority of well-informed people believe? I completely understand your viewpoint, and in an ideal world, all arguments should be made solely on scientific facts. However, many people (including many in a policy-making position) are incapable or unwilling to understand the scientific facts. It sounds like you're not one of those people, so I strongly suggest you read the original articles. They're not hard to find, if you start with scirus.com or scholar.google.com. Find articles by typical climatologists (I don't want to give you a list so you won't think I'm leading you too much - but I will if you want me to), and find articles by Lindzen or Pat Michaels. Read carefully what they say - and notice what they don't say. Read the articles critically, and then make up your own mind. I suspect you will feel much the same as I, although hopefully you'll be able to express it better.
My current research is in models of the mammalian brain - specifically the CA3 region of the hippocampus, if that means anything to you. These models are highly non-linear, and yet I'm able to make predictions that can then be verified by experiments with live animals. (I don't actually do those experiments with live animals - others do.) These models further our understanding of the human brain. Would you suggest that I abandon my work because my models are incomplete (they are) and make assumptions based on guesswork (they do)?
As for past predictions, you might be interested in this article from Science.
I don't doubt temperature is increasing. I do doubt the causes of this change. I also doubt the value judgements used that state current global climate is "ideal" and that any change is bad. The whole argument is completely ridiculous.
It sounds to me that you've already convinced yourself. Why do you think that is?
Let me ask you a different question - do you believe that reducing carbon emissions would damage our economy?
If you're referring to professional organizers, then no, I'm not in that business. It's my Mom's business. She recently retired from a long career as a special ed. teacher (specializing in behavior disorders that I no doubt gave her much practice in), and has decided to subsidize her retirement with a second career. If you're interested in her services and live in the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, I'd strongly recommend her.
If you're curious about me, personally, then you should check out my profile. I'm not exactly a private person. You can even e-mail me if you like.
If a consensus of climatologists had indeed predicted that global cooling was happening soon, I would think that it would bolster one's doubts about the state of the scientific institution, especially within the climatology community. Obviously, the consensus has been wrong before (aether, caloric, etc.), but far more often the consensus is right - especially (but not always) with respect to new theories. It takes a lot of evidence to introduce a new theory into a scientific community such that the majority of scientists accept it. Even when that new theory turns out to be wrong, it is usually a better theory than the one it replaced.
So, from a completely logical point of view, you are correct. However, as humans we are incapable of understanding all the facts and must necessarily base some of our judgments on prior events. If a scientific consensus routinely embraced faulty theories, I think that would be valid criticism for being especially suspicious of future theories, even if the scientists in question are a "new generation". However, this is really just a thought experiment, as it is not the case.
Also, why would you "expect some [planets] to be showing signs of warming and others to be showing signs of cooling" - other than seasonal variations I would expect them to show stable temperatures (or all be moving in the same direction). Well perhaps that's a bit strong to say "expect", "consider more probable" might be closer to the mark.
First of all, there are seasonal variations. As most planets have an orbit significantly longer than a year, most seasonal variations will last longer than what we normally consider a season. Secondly, every planet has its own geological and atmospheric processes that have long term trends. However, for planets such as Mercury that have no atmosphere, you're right that the Sun will be the dominant factor. For this planet, and Mars to a lesser degree (as it has a weak atmosphere), you might expect them to go in similar ways. However, evidence suggests that geological and atmospheric processes do contribute to Mars' weather in a significant manner. The only reason to expect them to be stable or all moving in the same direction is if you imagine that the Sun is the only relevant variable. It is not.
The fact that two planets appear to be undergoing global warming at the very least "suggests" there might be a connecting factor - surely worth some investigation?
Absolutely, and it has been investigated. The Sun is not getting hotter in any significant manner. We have lots and lots of satellites that have verified this. In fact, during 2006 (the hottest year so far), the Sun was at a minimum in its 11-year cycle.
Further, if all the planets in the solar system were currently undergoing global warming would we be able to detect it?
We currently have satellites at Mars and Saturn, and New Horizons just passed Jupiter on its way to Pluto. Also, we had a satellite at Jupiter for quite a while. In addition, we have been able to get some measurements of Venus' and Mercury's temperature. In all cases, however, I do not know if our sensitivity is strong enough or our coverage complete enough to measure slight changes in global average temperatures.
First, his funding - yes, he gets a lot of money from public sources, undercutting the argument that the real reason that so many prominent climatologists support global warming theories is to get funding. As far as I know, he no longer gets money from oil and coal interests.
Secondly, his intentions - I believe that Lindzen is basically a good, honest scientist who believes what he says. I also think he's a regular human being (as are all scientists) who is capable of fooling himself. You can witness that by looking at some of his seemingly (to me, anyways) self-contradictory comments, but I'll get to those later.
There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.
OK, so my request was to find one climatologist who disagrees with the statement, "that we are most likely contributing significantly to global warming." He obviously covered the "most likely" part with "almost certainly true". So, that leaves the "contributing significantly". Obviously, "at some level" doesn't quite rise to that level. Neither does it rule it out, so I'll keep going. After this quote, he then goes on for a while highlighting our uncertainty in various predictions, but that doesn't address my original statement. I'm talking about the present in that statement. OK, I've read the rest of the article, and it's pretty much the same. He talks about what we don't know and what we didn't know (but now do). So, he's used the convenient phrase "at some level" to keep from saying exactly what that level is. This article neither supports nor refutes my original point.
So, I've decided to go back through some previous things he's written, and I basically find the same pattern: he admits that humans are most likely contributing to global warming, but he neglects to even speculate as to how much. Why do you think that is? Or, if you think I've mischaracterized him, can you find any evidence to the contrary?
Finally, I'd like to stress that I am not a climatologist. However, other climatologists have critiqued his Newsweek article.
Finally, something about Lindzen that does make me ponder. Recently, the BBC attributed this to him:
This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."
Up until recently, Exxon Mobil was the only oil and gas company funding global warming "skeptics", to the best of my knowledge. They've very recently claimed to have discontinued that process.
I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun.
I personally believe that the Earth does go around the Sun, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point!
Um, yeah. I meant "than who believe the Sun goes around the Earth". Yikes. For the record, I'm not a geocentric kind-of-guy.
I swear I have heard that exact statement before, only with Jesus in the place of AGW.
As have I, and I suppose I am proselytizing a wee bit. I can't help it. I used to be a public high school science teacher, and I come from a long line of school teachers. I enjoy educating - it's in my blood.
I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm skeptical of both things that I believe and things that I disbelieve. (I am only too aware of my own intellectual shortcomings.) I think we're using that word in two slightly different ways. The meaning you seem to be using is more like "undecided" and mine is more like "incredulous".
Very healthy. And, yes, I suppose I was using it more in the "undecided" form and "incredulous" might be more accurate. However, my point still stands that I feel that many of the more prominent "skeptics" are less "incredulous" than they are "decided against". Some of them (mainly, if not completely the non-scientists) throw up the same arguments time and time again, even after it has been explained to them very thoroughly why those arguments are nonsensical - as opposed to just wrong (I can think your arguments are reasonable and wrong at the same time). Others (largely the scientists), have exhausted most of their arguments now and are moving to the two-fold approach of (a) it's not as bad as many alarmists claim (no doubt true), and (b) the problem will fix itself anyways when we (i) run out of fossil-fuels or (ii) automagically create new technology (driven by the all-powerful free market) that will take care of the problem for us.
The two far bigger questions in my mind are, if we presume AGW to be the reality, 1. What are the likely effects? and, 2. What are the smart things to do about it?
On it's face it seems obvious: Probably bad, cut carbon emissions.
How we do that in moral, humane, financially responsible way that is appropriate to the likely results of failure is an open question in my opinion.
Wow, you don't like asking easy questions do you? I'd say there are two levels of likely effects - those we know well enough to underpredict reasonably well (lower limits), and those we don't. Many in that second category are things we know so poorly that they're not even on our radar, or there is much disagreement about. Take hurricanes - some scientists say they will get worse due to global warming, a few say they might actually weaken, and most (I think) say that we just don't have enough data to know for sure.
What are the smart things to do? Well, the most recent IPCC report does address this, although I'm skeptical myself about their ability to actually know that too far out in the future. Cutting carbon emissions? Absolutely. How much and at what expense? That's a tough one to answer. I do know that for every sky-is-falling environmentalist (and yes, there are far too many) there is a sky-is-falling economist that says that our economy will collapse if we try to cut emissions too much. I'm convinced that Kyoto was a bad protocol, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with a good global treaty-type solution. At this point, I'm well out of my element, however.
You talked about "unverified predictions", so I thought this might interest you.
Occasionally (often?), I get a bit worked up about this topic and become a little rude. I apologize if I've come off this way. I get a bit frustrated repeating myself, and I sometimes forget that some people genuinely have never heard these arguments before. That's no excuse, just an explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, he's no Joe Six-Pack, either. He's definitely where I got most of my nerd genes from. Yeah, I suppose I was thinking too much from my own no-child, low-power consumption perspective, though. For me, it'd literally double my power bill. Trust me, I'd notice.
There are three languages used in the original Bible: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. You have a point about losing stuff in translation (although I wouldn't say all meaning is lost), but there is no such thing as the "original" Latin with respect to the Bible.
So, what was Gutenberg printing in 1454 if the Bible was only constructed 140 years ago? The Synod of Hippo in 393 CE is when the the New Testament became canon. The gospels and letters that make up that canon are generally thought to be written in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
We have a version of the Bible that is almost 2,000 years old (Dead Sea Scrolls). It hasn't changed much in the last 2,000 years. From the GP's post, I have no idea if he's a Christian. He's just pointing out that a lot of Biblical scholars are well aware of any apparent contradictions, and already have explanations for all of them.
My least favorite "gotcha" is when people try to claim that the Bible calculates pi to be 3. They don't seem to be able to understand that "round" and "perfect circle" do not mean the same thing. Anyways, the GP is right. Whether or not you're a Christian (I'm not), you're not going to find any "new" contradictions in the Bible. However, that doesn't mean you won't be able to make others aware of contradictions that they didn't know exist. Personally, I'm of mixed feelings on this. On one hand, most fundamentalism is anathema to science. OTOH, à la Kurt Vonnegut (who is now in Heaven), I do not wish to deprive others of their religious beliefs.
That would explain why I couldn't find it there. Thanks for the info.
Black holes tend to attract things, though. For example, there's a very nice black hole about 30,000 light years from here. Unfortunately, it just happens to be surrounded by the Milky Way galaxy's core. Hate it when that happens. ;)
Even though I do use AC (although sparingly). My heat comes from the radiators, and hot water comes from our apartment complex. (I.e., it's included in the rent.) Also, my stove/oven uses gas. Just throwing all of that out there since I seem to have generated a little bit of skepticism with my original claims.
Would anyone not notice (other than rich people with mansions, etc.) an increase of 2.5 kWh/day? Even if you use 10x the electricity that I do, that'd be a 10% increase.
Could you give me the chapter/verse of the rapture story that you're referring to?
Take your time...
Our next generation space telescope hopes to be able to detect Earth sized planets 20-100 light years away, IIRC. Detect and see are two very different things (although I believe they hope to be able to perform spectroscopic analysis of those atmospheres). So, a telescope with 1,000x the angular resolution (possibly requiring 1,000,000x the light gathering capabilities - with modern interferometry there can now be a huge disparity between the two) will be required to detect Earth at 100,000 light years away. Also, light traveling around the black hole will be severely distorted.
Oh, and we have to find an appropriately placed black hole, too. Can't have anything getting in the way of line-of-sight, etc.
Based off your 220W figure, that results in approximately 158.4 kWh per billing cycle. Yowsa. folding@home would appear to be a good cause, but I agree that it would be nice to know up front how much you're actually "donating" to them. OTOH, if you don't notice an extra 158 kWh on your power bill, then perhaps you're not really going to care that much.
Definitely resulted in an audible chuckle. Thanks.
My last 6 power bills add up to $127.10. Of course, that doesn't include the hottest months. I can't view back further than 6 months, or otherwise I'd provide a more exact number. I do know that my power bills don't go up that much during the summer, so I just guesstimated at the $300 value. No doubt it helps that I live in a 1-bedroom apartment and not a house.
God created the world in 6 days. He rested on the 7th. (What? You think it was easy?!?)
I'm a little skeptical about that value (but willing to be convinced). I only pay about $300/year for electricity overall. Of course, I don't own a PS3. However, I do have a refrigerator and an air conditioner (as well as other devices that use electricity).
Wikipedia knows all. Hmm, it doesn't appear that Slashdot likes Cyrillic.
Oh, great, now I've triggered the lameness filter. Maybe by adding this paragraph, I can get around it. Really? 6 simple Cyrillic characters (and 6 question marks) makes this lame? Maybe if I add some more to this paragraph, it will forgive me. Now it's accusing me of making ASCII art. Huh, well, just look at the Wikipedia article, and I'll delete my "art".
But then, I could just as easily say "they believe the Earth is flat". Without specifying "they", this sentence is completely true. Usually, the phrase about global cooling usually implies that "they" represents a scientific consensus, since that's what they're (where "they" in this case refers to the ones making the statement) arguing against believing. If one really wants to argue against scientific consensus, it's probably best to stick to luminiferous aether and phlogiston.
And, yes, I will argue for the sake of arguing. ;)
So, are you willing to read scientific articles on climatology that address all of your concerns? If not (many people are unwilling), what other alternative is there then to believe what the majority of well-informed people believe? I completely understand your viewpoint, and in an ideal world, all arguments should be made solely on scientific facts. However, many people (including many in a policy-making position) are incapable or unwilling to understand the scientific facts. It sounds like you're not one of those people, so I strongly suggest you read the original articles. They're not hard to find, if you start with scirus.com or scholar.google.com. Find articles by typical climatologists (I don't want to give you a list so you won't think I'm leading you too much - but I will if you want me to), and find articles by Lindzen or Pat Michaels. Read carefully what they say - and notice what they don't say. Read the articles critically, and then make up your own mind. I suspect you will feel much the same as I, although hopefully you'll be able to express it better.
My current research is in models of the mammalian brain - specifically the CA3 region of the hippocampus, if that means anything to you. These models are highly non-linear, and yet I'm able to make predictions that can then be verified by experiments with live animals. (I don't actually do those experiments with live animals - others do.) These models further our understanding of the human brain. Would you suggest that I abandon my work because my models are incomplete (they are) and make assumptions based on guesswork (they do)?
As for past predictions, you might be interested in this article from Science.
It sounds to me that you've already convinced yourself. Why do you think that is?
Let me ask you a different question - do you believe that reducing carbon emissions would damage our economy?
If you're referring to professional organizers, then no, I'm not in that business. It's my Mom's business. She recently retired from a long career as a special ed. teacher (specializing in behavior disorders that I no doubt gave her much practice in), and has decided to subsidize her retirement with a second career. If you're interested in her services and live in the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, I'd strongly recommend her.
If you're curious about me, personally, then you should check out my profile. I'm not exactly a private person. You can even e-mail me if you like.
If a consensus of climatologists had indeed predicted that global cooling was happening soon, I would think that it would bolster one's doubts about the state of the scientific institution, especially within the climatology community. Obviously, the consensus has been wrong before (aether, caloric, etc.), but far more often the consensus is right - especially (but not always) with respect to new theories. It takes a lot of evidence to introduce a new theory into a scientific community such that the majority of scientists accept it. Even when that new theory turns out to be wrong, it is usually a better theory than the one it replaced.
So, from a completely logical point of view, you are correct. However, as humans we are incapable of understanding all the facts and must necessarily base some of our judgments on prior events. If a scientific consensus routinely embraced faulty theories, I think that would be valid criticism for being especially suspicious of future theories, even if the scientists in question are a "new generation". However, this is really just a thought experiment, as it is not the case.
First of all, there are seasonal variations. As most planets have an orbit significantly longer than a year, most seasonal variations will last longer than what we normally consider a season. Secondly, every planet has its own geological and atmospheric processes that have long term trends. However, for planets such as Mercury that have no atmosphere, you're right that the Sun will be the dominant factor. For this planet, and Mars to a lesser degree (as it has a weak atmosphere), you might expect them to go in similar ways. However, evidence suggests that geological and atmospheric processes do contribute to Mars' weather in a significant manner. The only reason to expect them to be stable or all moving in the same direction is if you imagine that the Sun is the only relevant variable. It is not.
Absolutely, and it has been investigated. The Sun is not getting hotter in any significant manner. We have lots and lots of satellites that have verified this. In fact, during 2006 (the hottest year so far), the Sun was at a minimum in its 11-year cycle.
We currently have satellites at Mars and Saturn, and New Horizons just passed Jupiter on its way to Pluto. Also, we had a satellite at Jupiter for quite a while. In addition, we have been able to get some measurements of Venus' and Mercury's temperature. In all cases, however, I do not know if our sensitivity is strong enough or our coverage complete enough to measure slight changes in global average temperatures.
First, his funding - yes, he gets a lot of money from public sources, undercutting the argument that the real reason that so many prominent climatologists support global warming theories is to get funding. As far as I know, he no longer gets money from oil and coal interests.
Secondly, his intentions - I believe that Lindzen is basically a good, honest scientist who believes what he says. I also think he's a regular human being (as are all scientists) who is capable of fooling himself. You can witness that by looking at some of his seemingly (to me, anyways) self-contradictory comments, but I'll get to those later.
Now, let's address the actual article in question:
OK, so my request was to find one climatologist who disagrees with the statement, "that we are most likely contributing significantly to global warming." He obviously covered the "most likely" part with "almost certainly true". So, that leaves the "contributing significantly". Obviously, "at some level" doesn't quite rise to that level. Neither does it rule it out, so I'll keep going. After this quote, he then goes on for a while highlighting our uncertainty in various predictions, but that doesn't address my original statement. I'm talking about the present in that statement. OK, I've read the rest of the article, and it's pretty much the same. He talks about what we don't know and what we didn't know (but now do). So, he's used the convenient phrase "at some level" to keep from saying exactly what that level is. This article neither supports nor refutes my original point.So, I've decided to go back through some previous things he's written, and I basically find the same pattern: he admits that humans are most likely contributing to global warming, but he neglects to even speculate as to how much. Why do you think that is? Or, if you think I've mischaracterized him, can you find any evidence to the contrary?
Finally, I'd like to stress that I am not a climatologist. However, other climatologists have critiqued his Newsweek article.
Finally, something about Lindzen that does make me ponder. Recently, the BBC attributed this to him:
Up until recently, Exxon Mobil was the only oil and gas company funding global warming "skeptics", to the best of my knowledge. They've very recently claimed to have discontinued that process.Wow, you don't like asking easy questions do you? I'd say there are two levels of likely effects - those we know well enough to underpredict reasonably well (lower limits), and those we don't. Many in that second category are things we know so poorly that they're not even on our radar, or there is much disagreement about. Take hurricanes - some scientists say they will get worse due to global warming, a few say they might actually weaken, and most (I think) say that we just don't have enough data to know for sure.
What are the smart things to do? Well, the most recent IPCC report does address this, although I'm skeptical myself about their ability to actually know that too far out in the future. Cutting carbon emissions? Absolutely. How much and at what expense? That's a tough one to answer. I do know that for every sky-is-falling environmentalist (and yes, there are far too many) there is a sky-is-falling economist that says that our economy will collapse if we try to cut emissions too much. I'm convinced that Kyoto was a bad protocol, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with a good global treaty-type solution. At this point, I'm well out of my element, however.