Global Warming is Bad Science
- Thread starter Andra_Jenny
- Start date
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Bad scientists...
Starting off a "discussion" by being an "S" mocking an "A" is that last thing I would expect from someone who claims to have met a Renaissance Man who changed her life. The Renaissance Man was deeply rooted in Arte Liberales and all the science Andra Jenny holds sacred, particularly math, is one of the original liberal arts out of the Renaissance. Science and art have common roots and links that are not so easily dismissed.
Me and mine? I was raised in a family of scientists, still married to a scientist, educated as a scientist, and worked as a scientist for nearly 20 years (quit and became an "artist"). Last time I checked we had six degrees between us with S's, A's, and a couple of D's as well.
Point is not to compare education...that's what arrogant undergrads do...but to say I don't see any "science" in AJ's posts. Nada. Zip. Rien. Zed. No scientific process, no foundation, no concept of the fundamental principles which are as obvious in a scientist as a pen and paper to a writer or a brush and palette to an artist.
The dead giveaway? Proclaiming that global warming is bad or pop science. Scientists working on it readily admit that they don't know all the forces at work and, if you don't know all or at least most of the fundamental factors, then you can't make a conclusion...either way. One can only pose a hypothesis or formulate a theory and then attempt to test it.
What can be said? What can be observed empirically? The earth appears to be warming in the relatively small sample of data we have. This could have grave implications for humanity whatever the cause. The earth is a large, complex, and dynamic cycle of energy and chemicals-- this was my particular field http://www.lmsg.lmco.com/kapl/ --Any system like this, be it a nuclear power plant or a farm pond, will seek an equilibrium. Humaninty, on a grand scale, has modified the dynamics in a very short period of time. There will be an effect...any scientist knows that. Trouble is humanity may not do so well in the new equilibrium. The question is to what degree and in what form? I certainly don't know and would never be foolish enough to say "this is a fact." Very few scientists ever go so far as to say that.
[Edited by Closet Desire on 05-24-2001 at 03:18 AM]
Starting off a "discussion" by being an "S" mocking an "A" is that last thing I would expect from someone who claims to have met a Renaissance Man who changed her life. The Renaissance Man was deeply rooted in Arte Liberales and all the science Andra Jenny holds sacred, particularly math, is one of the original liberal arts out of the Renaissance. Science and art have common roots and links that are not so easily dismissed.
Me and mine? I was raised in a family of scientists, still married to a scientist, educated as a scientist, and worked as a scientist for nearly 20 years (quit and became an "artist"). Last time I checked we had six degrees between us with S's, A's, and a couple of D's as well.
Point is not to compare education...that's what arrogant undergrads do...but to say I don't see any "science" in AJ's posts. Nada. Zip. Rien. Zed. No scientific process, no foundation, no concept of the fundamental principles which are as obvious in a scientist as a pen and paper to a writer or a brush and palette to an artist.
The dead giveaway? Proclaiming that global warming is bad or pop science. Scientists working on it readily admit that they don't know all the forces at work and, if you don't know all or at least most of the fundamental factors, then you can't make a conclusion...either way. One can only pose a hypothesis or formulate a theory and then attempt to test it.
What can be said? What can be observed empirically? The earth appears to be warming in the relatively small sample of data we have. This could have grave implications for humanity whatever the cause. The earth is a large, complex, and dynamic cycle of energy and chemicals-- this was my particular field http://www.lmsg.lmco.com/kapl/ --Any system like this, be it a nuclear power plant or a farm pond, will seek an equilibrium. Humaninty, on a grand scale, has modified the dynamics in a very short period of time. There will be an effect...any scientist knows that. Trouble is humanity may not do so well in the new equilibrium. The question is to what degree and in what form? I certainly don't know and would never be foolish enough to say "this is a fact." Very few scientists ever go so far as to say that.
[Edited by Closet Desire on 05-24-2001 at 03:18 AM]
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Well put...
I seem to recall it was Einstein who said his own theories, including Relativity, Special Relativity, and the Lorentz transformation would be superceded before the end of the century.
There is one thing that seems to be an accepted fact by intellectuals the world over...the more you know, the more you realise how little is known.
I seem to recall it was Einstein who said his own theories, including Relativity, Special Relativity, and the Lorentz transformation would be superceded before the end of the century.
There is one thing that seems to be an accepted fact by intellectuals the world over...the more you know, the more you realise how little is known.
Closet Desire
You make an excellent point. Dividing 'A' by the 'power' of 'S' (to offer a mathemetical turn of phrase) does little more than reduce the argument to a form of postmodern S&M, where nothing can be said, and even less can be done.
MinkSoul, thanks for offering an example of what I just said!
You make an excellent point. Dividing 'A' by the 'power' of 'S' (to offer a mathemetical turn of phrase) does little more than reduce the argument to a form of postmodern S&M, where nothing can be said, and even less can be done.
MinkSoul, thanks for offering an example of what I just said!
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
Uh, I did point out the fallacy of the warming temperatures. That is sufficient to destroy the argument.
We cooled during Shakespear's time. It wasn't the end of the world and it did not require vast changes in global government or the redistribution of world wealth in order to warm it up again.
This last set of storms on the Sun where some of the hottest and strongest ever recorded.
THINK THAT MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT? Hmmm....
Complexity is a hindrance to thought...
More argument is not better argument.
egghead
We cooled during Shakespear's time. It wasn't the end of the world and it did not require vast changes in global government or the redistribution of world wealth in order to warm it up again.
This last set of storms on the Sun where some of the hottest and strongest ever recorded.
THINK THAT MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT? Hmmm....
Complexity is a hindrance to thought...
More argument is not better argument.
egghead
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Sigh...
...again, no science.
Shakespeare's time (how exactly would you define that?) was a tiny, imprecise drop in the ocean of time and stepping outside his house to measure the temperature in England isn't really a quality study of global conditions.
This is why scientists studying the matter have taken an interest in variations in the temperatures of the current flow on the ocean's bottom. This flow takes centuries to complete a circuit and can, if you will, provide a "snap shot" of a particular segment of time. It's similar to using core samples in the northern glaciers to determine where they were at any given time, how fast they were moving, and in which direction (made it as far south as Central Park NY). It isn't variations in one lifetime, be it Shakespeare or Atilla the Hun, that are important but the overall trend.
Argument? Who's arguing? How about some substantiated evidence to support your assertions?
...again, no science.
Shakespeare's time (how exactly would you define that?) was a tiny, imprecise drop in the ocean of time and stepping outside his house to measure the temperature in England isn't really a quality study of global conditions.
This is why scientists studying the matter have taken an interest in variations in the temperatures of the current flow on the ocean's bottom. This flow takes centuries to complete a circuit and can, if you will, provide a "snap shot" of a particular segment of time. It's similar to using core samples in the northern glaciers to determine where they were at any given time, how fast they were moving, and in which direction (made it as far south as Central Park NY). It isn't variations in one lifetime, be it Shakespeare or Atilla the Hun, that are important but the overall trend.
Argument? Who's arguing? How about some substantiated evidence to support your assertions?
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
DO NOT HOLD ME TO THE STANDARDS THAT YOU WILL NOT HOLD THE WARMIMNGMONGERS TO!
My original point was, is, and will remain:
THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE SCIENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND YOU KNOW THAT!
Everything else is POP CULTURE.
pop pop. pop science,
England, London, Munich,
everyone talkin' 'bout
pop, pop, pop science...
My original point was, is, and will remain:
THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE SCIENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND YOU KNOW THAT!
Everything else is POP CULTURE.
pop pop. pop science,
England, London, Munich,
everyone talkin' 'bout
pop, pop, pop science...
MinkSoul
Monkey
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
- Posts
- 4,878
back to the Ozone...
um....go here and see the 'pop' science NASA is doing...
http://see.gsfc.nasa.gov/edu/SEES/strat/class/S_class.htm
i'm not cluttering up the landscape... just showing you what i found...
um....go here and see the 'pop' science NASA is doing...
http://see.gsfc.nasa.gov/edu/SEES/strat/class/S_class.htm
i'm not cluttering up the landscape... just showing you what i found...
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Science...
...without standards is, well, art!
...without standards is, well, art!
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
Some people
Refused to believe the earth was round...even when presented with lots of evidence.
Fact....CO2 is up 30%, CH4 is up over 100% and NO is up around 30-35%. There is no natural reason for this to occur.
Fact....these gases are greenhouse gases. If it weren't for the natural presence of them and water vapor the earth would be 60 degrees cooler and generally uninhabitable. But too much of them and it throws the balance off. As an example of how delicate the balances are, look at the El Nino effect. It is a mass of warm water that displaces the usual cold water that forms every winter off the Western coast of South America...the temp difference? Around 5-7 degrees C...may not sound like much but it is a huge amount of heat energy (1 calorie is the energy required to raise 1 CC of water 1 degree Celsius)
Fact....On a universal scale mankind exists within a very small temperature range outside of which we will perish. Our actions in Shakespeare's time would have no effect on the atmosphere. We are affecting it now. See fact one.
Fact...once the aforementioned gases are in the atmosphere we can't do anything about it.
What we don't know is...at what concentration the temperature will start rising. By then it will be too late. It will keep on rising as more heat is trapped than is radiated back into space. More heat=more water vapor=more heat etc.
Do you actually believe the vast majority of the scientific community has come up with this idea just to make your life tougher? That is very paranoid thinking. Why would they do that?
Isn't Gravity a law now? I thought Super Ronnie signed it into law just after single-handedly crushing the Evil Empire.
[Edited by Thumper on 05-24-2001 at 03:39 PM]
Refused to believe the earth was round...even when presented with lots of evidence.
Fact....CO2 is up 30%, CH4 is up over 100% and NO is up around 30-35%. There is no natural reason for this to occur.
Fact....these gases are greenhouse gases. If it weren't for the natural presence of them and water vapor the earth would be 60 degrees cooler and generally uninhabitable. But too much of them and it throws the balance off. As an example of how delicate the balances are, look at the El Nino effect. It is a mass of warm water that displaces the usual cold water that forms every winter off the Western coast of South America...the temp difference? Around 5-7 degrees C...may not sound like much but it is a huge amount of heat energy (1 calorie is the energy required to raise 1 CC of water 1 degree Celsius)
Fact....On a universal scale mankind exists within a very small temperature range outside of which we will perish. Our actions in Shakespeare's time would have no effect on the atmosphere. We are affecting it now. See fact one.
Fact...once the aforementioned gases are in the atmosphere we can't do anything about it.
What we don't know is...at what concentration the temperature will start rising. By then it will be too late. It will keep on rising as more heat is trapped than is radiated back into space. More heat=more water vapor=more heat etc.
Do you actually believe the vast majority of the scientific community has come up with this idea just to make your life tougher? That is very paranoid thinking. Why would they do that?
Isn't Gravity a law now? I thought Super Ronnie signed it into law just after single-handedly crushing the Evil Empire.
[Edited by Thumper on 05-24-2001 at 03:39 PM]
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Now...
...that's what I'm talkin' about.
Thumper echoes the concerns from a lot of people who understand equilibrium (which is nature's way of sorting out chaos) in a large system like a planet. The changes are small but the movement irresistable...sort of like the Borg.
Law of gravity...all I can remember from engineering school so many years ago (we were still using slide rules...can you believe it) is that we could calculate for it, predict it, but really didn't know why. Maybe that's changed, but there are definitely laws for dealing with it.
Looks like we'll be raising wheat and citrus in England before long...and Wonderbread will come from Canada.
...that's what I'm talkin' about.
Thumper echoes the concerns from a lot of people who understand equilibrium (which is nature's way of sorting out chaos) in a large system like a planet. The changes are small but the movement irresistable...sort of like the Borg.
Law of gravity...all I can remember from engineering school so many years ago (we were still using slide rules...can you believe it) is that we could calculate for it, predict it, but really didn't know why. Maybe that's changed, but there are definitely laws for dealing with it.
Looks like we'll be raising wheat and citrus in England before long...and Wonderbread will come from Canada.
Andra_Jenny said:
Why on earth do you want not to be judged on the basis of what you say, but on the same basis as 'warmingmongers'?
Andra_Jenny said:
Everything that can't be proven 100% through 'science' is pop culture going by your argument. What's so bad about 'pop culture' anyway? It's a)popular, and b) ['our'] culture. Seems reasonable enough to me ...
