First on the models and greedy scientists :
How can we know what will happen later on ? (is this the link you were searching ?) :
Sorry, this wasn't the link I was looking at, although I'd have to say they are all very interesting. And I don't think I made a generalization about scientists being greedy. I know what they are doing has benefit, but when claims are made that are IMO, and alot of other peoples opinions, unjustified and self serving, I'll certainly say so. I do this at work to (on a much smaller scale:)). I'm confident I'll have a certain programming problem resolved, and all of a sudden the evil Testing Department will prove to me otherwise. On the subject of trusting climat models http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/gr eenhouse/trust_model.html I think they are very honest about what could be problems with their models, and I think even you will have to admit that these could radically affect the accuracy of current models. I'll try to thoroughly read everything on that site, but there's a lot of it, and other responsibilities get in the way.:) BTW, my choice is never permanently made, it's always subject to my own and other's criticism and as such get's continually refined. And I wouldn't have it any other way...:)
> Well. If it's so easy to stretch a model, why the "honests" scientists haven't be able to show us a model that correctly simulate past observations, and yet doesn't come to the same conclusions ?
They may be making similar assumptions in some aspect of their model that are invalid. These guys don't work in vacuums. See this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Harlan_Bretz . I'm guessing this is mostly unintentional, and may be best described by groupthink http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=groupthin k.
2: What scientist(s) have the time or resources to do this sort of thing without funding from the federal government?
There is also the problem, which you seem to have ignored, that *nobody* has an accurate model for that time scale. I wish I could find the link to the graph that demonstrated how each model predicted correctly the 1st decade, but each took a path that was off of each other (never mind reality, which they can't use) by as much as 6 degrees by 2100.
>Now if you don't care, just say it, we'll both gain time. Enjoy the nice weather while it's here, just make sure your children don't get too accustomed to it.
Of course I care, but I think that these scientists are out on a limb with their predictions. I don't think driving my car is the best way to get around and I avoid it if possible. I try to consume as little as possible, and I think other could and should get by with less. But even If carbon emissions are as bad as the IPCC says they are, I don't think there is a chance that we can appreciably cut them.
>As for your book suggestion, it seems very interesting and I very well could read it, so I thank you for it. >But I fail to see the connection with this discussion, except that by bringing Ice Age into it you make a really good job at giving the impression you didn't read the link.
Don't see how, but I read more in depth the second time and it was interesting. Thanks for the argument. It's also been interesting.
LOL,
Of course I read the link!
The question was...
Q: How many of these models have made accurate predictions on that time scale?
A: 0
The answer is 0 because *nobody* has had a model in existence for anything like that time span.
What you input into the model in terms of real world measurements has to have some accuracy in regards to what it's trying to predict. The Earth is a massive system that is very complex and to get accurate results you need *tons* of data that have only become available very recently (last 10-15 years as a guess, maybe someone can correct me.) To do this, you have input data, and output data, and you modify parameters until your model gets a "best" fit. This does *not* mean your model is an accurate representation of the real world. The amount of time that the earth has been modeled is infintesimal compared to earth's history, and using that little information to try to predict that far out is really sketchy. "science". In fact it's better termed extrapolation (or guessing), because no one has tested these models *in that time frame*.
As far how sensationalism is supposed to help them, just think what would happen if their models predicted "normal" climate. Why should they get federal grants for further study? Their models are basically expensive experiments. You should read After the Ice Age http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226 668126/104-8145779-9328763?v=glance/ by EC Pielou. It's interesting reading. Personally I think we're warming up the atmosphere a little bit, but what would happen if didn't? We might head to another Ice Age, There might be a large dry period, anything. The Climate is not static and I don't think we should blame ourselves for whatever happens. Maybe in far in the future (1000 years) they'll have perfected climatology and they'll have a recipe for what we should have done to keep the climate "just right". Until then I'll continue to be entertained by the Chicken Little's of the world, and enjoying some pretty damned nice weather.:)
Sure all these models predict something disastrous in 50-100 years. Q: How many of these models have made accurate predictions on that time scale? A: 0 How many "scientists" who produce these wonderfully accurate models have no interest the sensationalism of their predictions? A: 0
I think Europe's policy is more a function of population density than poor policy. Please see...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ population_density/
The US has a population Density of 30 persons per square km.
Germany has a population density of 230 persons per square km.
So Germany is roughly 7 times as dense (:) ) as the US. To get this kind of density, imagine stuffing everyone in the US east of the Mississippi. Either we'd have to get rid of a lot of our cars/trucks, or we'd have the worst congestion and smog this side of SE Asia.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Oil companies are out to make profits, and not to make expensive specualative gambles about new technologies. Think of all of the problems that can crop up with oil shale. Enviromentalists, new technology, training, cost of the land. That's a massive outlay of capital, and why do that when there is risk involved and you can continue to make a hefty profit under the current conditions? Beleive me when I say no CEO of an Oil Company will take risks to drive down oil prices. They'll drive down oil prices when they are certain they can make more money using method A. Also, while Oil Companies may be at the "forefront" of alternative energy research, they aren't burning up a signficant part of their profits doing it. Maybe Shell can implement their plan with no problems, but I'd bet this is a best case scenario and they will see major problems down the road. IMO, the Government will need to take more a role in promoting AE research if we are going to become more energy independent.
Moderator, you are forgiven. I'm not as intolerant as you are stupid. One question though. Did you even read the post? Or do you not understand anything about economics?
American global power is invested strongly in her Corporations. Republicans allow these corporations to grow stronger which makes America grow stronger. This is on the backs of American citizens, but nevertheless, still USA is stronger (internationally).
Disagree here. Without strong corporations, forget about cheap raw materials and energy from the 3rd world. Prepare to pay more for damn near everything. Those poor fellas in the 3rd world are the ones who are getting the shaft.
Ok, maybe I should have said 'more noble'. Certainly it's good to understand the climate on earth. But it certainly doen't fire the imagination like expanding man's frontiers beyond the confines of earth.
As far as the Star Trek comment. That's a nice bit of rhetoric, but I don't think anyone who longs to understand the Universe looks to Star Trek for guidance.
There's an assumption to all of the scientific research and the medias reporting of said research that is relevant, but rarely mentioned. It seems the layman would think that if man was left out of the picture, the climate would stay 'normal' and never change. This assumption is dead wrong. The climate has varied wildly over the history of the earth, and would do so whether we were here or not. Although it's generally accepted that man has caused the earth to warm slightly, *nobody* can give an accurate prediction of what the climate will be 100, 50, or even 10 years from now.
According to the recent history of the climate, we should be heading for another Ice Age in the next few millenia. Are we preventing it by burning hydrocarbons? Will we precipitate another Ice Age? Or will Montreal burn under 120 degree heat? *Nobody* knows. Not only don't they know, but they can't even give you a percentage prediction like the weatherman.
Given these circumstances why should we change our behavior in any way?
Climatoligists who study climatology won't get government grants if they say well we don't know what will happen with the climage. Could we get some extra funding for next year?
But a little creativity produces... "We're getting slightly warmer, and we have models (that have little to do with reality), that predict disaster!! We need extra funding to study this critical situation.
Personally I think it's sad that so much money is being spent on Climate Research. I'd much rather see these talented people working at something noble like sending people to the moon, or probes to Mars.
That same question could have been asked to citizens of the Stalinist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany for that matter, and you'd have virtually the same stats. Effected 1%, not effected 99%. Actually, in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany many people received financial windfalls through promotions, or firesales for the victims. Keep your rhetorical flamebait to yourself loser.
Wow!!! That's an impressive show of delusion!!! You honestly can make yourself beleive that you are at least correct in your fantasy world. I suppose you think If I use an extra X KW from a hydroelectric plant in Arizona for a year, that I will have taken X KW from a nuclear power plant in New Jersey! Say hello to Santa Claus for me!!
Why are there so *many* dipsh*ts like you on/. ? If you have solar or wind power you don't need to plug into the grid. But that probably escaped your 13 yr old skull just like the remnants of your grow operation from your bong.
But the point is that a significant percentage is not dips**t. I live in an area where the electricy is hydro. Also, just because you're using electricity, doesn't mean you have to get it from the grid, you could use wind, solar, etc...
That depend's on what sort of game your running. I like Starcraft, and everything fit's in memory and you never have to use your disk. I'm not familiar enough with the latest first person's, but if you have adequate RAM, what's the use of your hard disk?
Ack!!! Microsoft is not a monopoly due to people's buying habits! That's way too easy an explanation. An Operating System is a very complicated software construct which has an exceptionally high cost in terms of man hours. The reason no company is competing with Microsoft is because no one can pay the enormous amount of money necessary to create any serious competition, and if someone was foolish enough to do that, they'd probably never recoup their initial investment.
I'm sure you'd be able to make the right decision and be perfectly happy being shot on the spot for disobeying an order. I'm glad we have wonderful people like you who are so ethically sound who can pontificate on these matters. I'm not sure what I'd do without you.;)
Slashdot Mirror
First on the models and greedy scientists : How can we know what will happen later on ? (is this the link you were searching ?) :
:)). I'm confident I'll have a certain programming problem resolved, and all of a sudden the evil Testing Department will prove to me otherwise.r eenhouse/trust_model.html :) :)
Sorry, this wasn't the link I was looking at, although I'd have to say they are all very interesting.
And I don't think I made a generalization about scientists being greedy.
I know what they are doing has benefit, but when claims are made that are IMO, and alot of other peoples opinions, unjustified and self serving, I'll certainly say so.
I do this at work to (on a much smaller scale
On the subject of trusting climat models http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g
I think they are very honest about what could be problems with their models, and I think even you will have to admit that these could radically affect the accuracy of current models.
I'll try to thoroughly read everything on that site, but there's a lot of it, and other responsibilities get in the way.
BTW, my choice is never permanently made, it's always subject to my own and other's criticism and as such get's continually refined.
And I wouldn't have it any other way...
> Well. If it's so easy to stretch a model, why the "honests" scientists haven't be able to show us a model that correctly simulate past observations, and yet doesn't come to the same conclusions ?n k .
They may be making similar assumptions in some aspect of their model that are invalid. These guys don't work in vacuums. See this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Harlan_Bretz .
I'm guessing this is mostly unintentional, and may be best described by groupthink http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=groupthi
2: What scientist(s) have the time or resources to do this sort of thing without funding from the federal government?
There is also the problem, which you seem to have ignored, that *nobody* has an accurate model for that time scale.
I wish I could find the link to the graph that demonstrated how each model predicted correctly the 1st decade, but each took a path that was off of each other (never mind reality, which they can't use) by as much as 6 degrees by 2100.
>Now if you don't care, just say it, we'll both gain time. Enjoy the nice weather while it's here, just make sure your children don't get too accustomed to it.
Of course I care, but I think that these scientists are out on a limb with their predictions.
I don't think driving my car is the best way to get around and I avoid it if possible.
I try to consume as little as possible, and I think other could and should get by with less.
But even If carbon emissions are as bad as the IPCC says they are, I don't think there is a chance that we can appreciably cut them.
>As for your book suggestion, it seems very interesting and I very well could read it, so I thank you for it.
>But I fail to see the connection with this discussion, except that by bringing Ice Age into it you make a really good job at giving the impression you didn't read the link.
Don't see how, but I read more in depth the second time and it was interesting. Thanks for the argument. It's also been interesting.
LOL, ...
6 668126/104-8145779-9328763?v=glance/ :)
Of course I read the link!
The question was
Q: How many of these models have made accurate predictions on that time scale? A: 0 The answer is 0 because *nobody* has had a model in existence for anything like that time span.
What you input into the model in terms of real world measurements has to have some accuracy in regards to what it's trying to predict. The Earth is a massive system that is very complex and to get accurate results you need *tons* of data that have only become available very recently (last 10-15 years as a guess, maybe someone can correct me.)
To do this, you have input data, and output data, and you modify parameters until your model gets a "best" fit.
This does *not* mean your model is an accurate representation of the real world.
The amount of time that the earth has been modeled is infintesimal compared to earth's history, and using that little information to try to predict that far out is really sketchy. "science". In fact it's better termed extrapolation (or guessing), because no one has tested these models *in that time frame*.
As far how sensationalism is supposed to help them, just think what would happen if their models predicted "normal" climate. Why should they get federal grants for further study?
Their models are basically expensive experiments.
You should read After the Ice Age http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/022
by EC Pielou. It's interesting reading.
Personally I think we're warming up the atmosphere a little bit, but what would happen if didn't? We might head to another Ice Age, There might be a large dry period, anything. The Climate is not static and I don't think we should blame ourselves for whatever happens. Maybe in far in the future (1000 years) they'll have perfected climatology and they'll have a recipe for what we should have done to keep the climate "just right".
Until then I'll continue to be entertained by the Chicken Little's of the world, and enjoying some pretty damned nice weather.
Sure all these models predict something disastrous in 50-100 years.
Q: How many of these models have made accurate predictions on that time scale?
A: 0
How many "scientists" who produce these wonderfully accurate models have no interest the sensationalism of their predictions?
A: 0
I think Europe's policy is more a function of population density than poor policy. Please see... ..._ population_density/ :) ) as the US. To get this kind of density, imagine stuffing everyone in the US east of the Mississippi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
The US has a population Density of 30 persons per square km.
Germany has a population density of 230 persons per square km.
So Germany is roughly 7 times as dense (
Either we'd have to get rid of a lot of our cars/trucks, or we'd have the worst congestion and smog this side of SE Asia.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Oil companies are out to make profits, and not to make expensive specualative gambles about new technologies. Think of all of the problems that can crop up with oil shale. Enviromentalists, new technology, training, cost of the land. That's a massive outlay of capital, and why do that when there is risk involved and you can continue to make a hefty profit under the current conditions? Beleive me when I say no CEO of an Oil Company will take risks to drive down oil prices. They'll drive down oil prices when they are certain they can make more money using method A. Also, while Oil Companies may be at the "forefront" of alternative energy research, they aren't burning up a signficant part of their profits doing it. Maybe Shell can implement their plan with no problems, but I'd bet this is a best case scenario and they will see major problems down the road.
IMO, the Government will need to take more a role in promoting AE research if we are going to become more energy independent.
Sorry, didn't preview that and the html took out the format of the password. Limit the Password space by trying something like ...
_month_secret_year_
I eliminate the password space. Try something like ...
Works well.
Moderator, you are forgiven. I'm not as intolerant as you are stupid. One question though. Did you even read the post? Or do you not understand anything about economics?
Thanks for the link. Don't see how that invalidates anything I've said? Maybe you can enlighten me further... :)
American global power is invested strongly in her Corporations. Republicans allow these corporations to grow stronger which makes America grow stronger. This is on the backs of American citizens, but nevertheless, still USA is stronger (internationally).
Disagree here. Without strong corporations, forget about cheap raw materials and energy from the 3rd world. Prepare to pay more for damn near everything.
Those poor fellas in the 3rd world are the ones who are getting the shaft.
Ok, maybe I should have said 'more noble'. Certainly it's good to understand the climate on earth. But it certainly doen't fire the imagination like expanding man's frontiers beyond the confines of earth. As far as the Star Trek comment. That's a nice bit of rhetoric, but I don't think anyone who longs to understand the Universe looks to Star Trek for guidance.
There's an assumption to all of the scientific research and the medias reporting of said research that is relevant, but rarely mentioned. It seems the layman would think that if man was left out of the picture, the climate would stay 'normal' and never change. This assumption is dead wrong. The climate has varied wildly over the history of the earth, and would do so whether we were here or not. Although it's generally accepted that man has caused the earth to warm slightly, *nobody* can give an accurate prediction of what the climate will be 100, 50, or even 10 years from now. According to the recent history of the climate, we should be heading for another Ice Age in the next few millenia. Are we preventing it by burning hydrocarbons? Will we precipitate another Ice Age? Or will Montreal burn under 120 degree heat? *Nobody* knows. Not only don't they know, but they can't even give you a percentage prediction like the weatherman. Given these circumstances why should we change our behavior in any way? Climatoligists who study climatology won't get government grants if they say well we don't know what will happen with the climage. Could we get some extra funding for next year? But a little creativity produces... "We're getting slightly warmer, and we have models (that have little to do with reality), that predict disaster!! We need extra funding to study this critical situation. Personally I think it's sad that so much money is being spent on Climate Research. I'd much rather see these talented people working at something noble like sending people to the moon, or probes to Mars.
That same question could have been asked to citizens of the Stalinist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany for that matter, and you'd have virtually the same stats. Effected 1%, not effected 99%. Actually, in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany many people received financial windfalls through promotions, or firesales for the victims. Keep your rhetorical flamebait to yourself loser.
Wow!!! That's an impressive show of delusion!!! You honestly can make yourself beleive that you are at least correct in your fantasy world. I suppose you think If I use an extra X KW from a hydroelectric plant in Arizona for a year, that I will have taken X KW from a nuclear power plant in New Jersey! Say hello to Santa Claus for me!!
Why are there so *many* dipsh*ts like you on /. ? If you have solar or wind power you don't need to plug into the grid. But that probably escaped your 13 yr old skull just like the remnants of your grow operation from your bong.
But the point is that a significant percentage is not dips**t. I live in an area where the electricy is hydro. Also, just because you're using electricity, doesn't mean you have to get it from the grid, you could use wind, solar, etc...
That depend's on what sort of game your running. I like Starcraft, and everything fit's in memory and you never have to use your disk. I'm not familiar enough with the latest first person's, but if you have adequate RAM, what's the use of your hard disk?
Ack!!! Microsoft is not a monopoly due to people's buying habits! That's way too easy an explanation. An Operating System is a very complicated software construct which has an exceptionally high cost in terms of man hours. The reason no company is competing with Microsoft is because no one can pay the enormous amount of money necessary to create any serious competition, and if someone was foolish enough to do that, they'd probably never recoup their initial investment.
I'm sure you'd be able to make the right decision and be perfectly happy being shot on the spot for disobeying an order. I'm glad we have wonderful people like you who are so ethically sound who can pontificate on these matters. I'm not sure what I'd do without you. ;)