|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| doc_ido wrote: |
Looks like I did miss some out in my (admittedly quick) calculation - or add some in, it should be 0.004 moles like you posted. I would have posted the answer as 2.4 x 10^21 molecules, but wasn't sure if the OP would understand standard form. :roll[: |
Oh he must. He's a self professed master of critical thinking and population genetics. Surely exponents are not beyond him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
In the 1970s it was the Ice Age cometh. Now, 30 years later, Global Warming morphed into Climate Change Cometh.
The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [1977]
Yeah, the earth's climate changes. So what?
________________________________________
A careful reading of Wikipedia articles related to the 'coming ice age' mania in the 1970s shows careful editing out of references to the fact that the big threat being pushed on the rest of us back then was global cooling.
Most of you are too young to be able to ascertain the subtleties taking place. |
The sign of a true internet nut is when he uses his own quoting style. Anyway, that stuff about they predicted an ice age in the 1970s is myth:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
A small group of scientists thought so, they got a lot of press. It was not exactly a consensus.
Zenas did you run that calculation yourself? Do you agree or disagree with the figures? Any comments on our findings that the OP's authority just pulled numbers out of his butt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was enrolled in a university during the 1970s that is known as a science school. The dominate theory at that time, despite what Wikipedia says today, was the coming Ice Age. I know, I was there.
It's akin to the six million six million six million myth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
I was enrolled in a university during the 1970s that is known as a science school. The dominate theory at that time, despite what Wikipedia says today, was the coming Ice Age. I know, I was there.
It's akin to the six million six million six million myth. |
I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No one can be as dumb as you. |
You just might be in the running. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Keep in mind that tree rings are not an infallible source either though. And NASA has revised its weather map making the 1930's the hottest decade on record. |
If you took the time to investigate that link, you'd see they use multiple methods. Now, can you find scientific studies that indicate such methods are wholly unreliable? |
Here's a source for tree rings
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html (see third paragraph)
Oh and just for the record I never said "wholly unreliable".
I have class now, but I'll get back to you after lunch about some of the other methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Keep in mind that tree rings are not an infallible source either though. And NASA has revised its weather map making the 1930's the hottest decade on record. |
If you took the time to investigate that link, you'd see they use multiple methods. Now, can you find scientific studies that indicate such methods are wholly unreliable? |
Here's one for tree rings
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html (see third paragraph)
Oh and just for the record I never said "wholly unreliable".
I have class now, but I'll get back to you after lunch about some of the other methods. |
What am I to conclude from that page? That scientists can't, along with other inferential methods, use tree rings to plot a reasonably correct picture of climate history? There are error bars, sure. Your point exactly? Because you're just muddying it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's look at some of these other methods (my comments are in italics) Quotes are taken from your link.
Ice Isotopes- "Current understanding does not allow us to separate the temperature part of this signal rigorously" Which could mean anything from 'the data is not in' to 'this is not wholly reliable' to 'we don't have a clue'
Glacier length and mass balance records
"Glacier length records need to be updated to extend temperature reconstructions from 1990 to the present". I noticed while reading that link that the most current data appeared to be from 1990. Nearly 20 years on, what have they got?
Boreholes do "..provide information about long-term temperature trends but not about decadal or annual variations". That being so it would therefore seem like a number of such variations would skew the long-term temperature reading no?
Basically my point is that to draw accurate conclusions about climate change, rigorous scientific methods have to be used which have a 100% accuracy rating or very nearly. What that link offers is a number of scientific methods but they are hedged about with caveats.
If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vancouver
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
Exactly my sentiments.
Open up drilling in Canada and the US. Build 50 more refineries. Build 20 more nuclear plants.
Continue to work on new technologies.
BC is about to get a 2 percent carbon tax on our gas. Gas is at 1.40 a litre right now. What a joke! |
148 now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc_ido
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| I was enrolled in a university during the 1970s that is known as a science school. |
What was your major, Zenas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Basically my point is that to draw accurate conclusions about climate change, rigorous scientific methods have to be used which have a 100% accuracy rating or very nearly. What that link offers is a number of scientific methods but they are hedged about with caveats. |
Who says any scientific measure has to be 100% accurate? All scientists speak in caveats. All science has error bars. Could you show me, in the science to infering the earth's climate history, that these methods are not acceptable in science?
| Quote: |
| If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure. |
If an asteroid was coming to earth, the only time the probability of it hitting earth is at 1 is when it is too late. What do you propose in that case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| doc_ido wrote: |
| Zenas wrote: |
| I was enrolled in a university during the 1970s that is known as a science school. |
What was your major, Zenas? |
Isn't that the saddest come back? You show him the documentation of this myth and he responds with this. A man who doubts basic math, he asks us to now trust his authority. He don't much get it, do he? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Basically my point is that to draw accurate conclusions about climate change, rigorous scientific methods have to be used which have a 100% accuracy rating or very nearly. What that link offers is a number of scientific methods but they are hedged about with caveats. |
Who says any scientific measure has to be 100% accurate? All scientists speak in caveats. All science has error bars. Could you show me, in the science to infering the earth's climate history, that these methods are not acceptable in science?
Oh they may be perfectly acceptable in science...it doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn from them are correct...particularly when this is based on data of which the newest is nearly 20 years old.
| Quote: |
| If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure. |
If an asteroid was coming to earth, the only time the probability of it hitting earth is at 1 is when it is too late. What do you propose in that case? |
If an asteroid big enough to destroy the earth does come for us...there's not much we can do about it anyway. We could try to destroy it with nuclear weapons but given that these things travel (on average) about 25 kilometers per second, it would be pretty difficult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Basically my point is that to draw accurate conclusions about climate change, rigorous scientific methods have to be used which have a 100% accuracy rating or very nearly. What that link offers is a number of scientific methods but they are hedged about with caveats. |
Who says any scientific measure has to be 100% accurate? All scientists speak in caveats. All science has error bars. Could you show me, in the science to infering the earth's climate history, that these methods are not acceptable in science?
Oh they may be perfectly acceptable in science...it doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn from them are correct...particularly when this is based on data of which the newest is nearly 20 years old.
| Quote: |
| If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure. |
If an asteroid was coming to earth, the only time the probability of it hitting earth is at 1 is when it is too late. What do you propose in that case? |
If an asteroid big enough to destroy the earth does come for us...there's not much we can do about it anyway. We could try to destroy it with nuclear weapons but given that these things travel (on average) about 25 kilometers per second, it would be pretty difficult. |
You missed my point. My point is many times we have to be proactive and work from the best predictive data which we know could be wrong. If we wait until the probability = 1, it is too late. By definition it has happened or nearly so. In the case of an asteroid, if one attacks the problem early, while probability is less than 1, one can alter an asteroid's path. Longer you wait, harder it is to do it. Although you also achieve a higher confidence in your doom.
With the debate about tree rings and other inferential data, as far as I can tell you're arguing such methods have error bars and we can't draw 100% accurate conclusions and therefore such conclusions are to be treated... how?
You also miss the point that such methods compare their results to other methods. While one method might be wrong, if two other methods also fall upon the same line, the odds that this is mere error is very, very low. Radio metric dating is, for example, checked by things like tree rings. Whether in 1300 the average temp was really 15c or 17c is less important than the how the data points fall upon the line and the trend in that line. If three different inferential methods all reveal a similar trend, and it is mathematically unlikely its based on error, then that seems rather significant and valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Basically my point is that to draw accurate conclusions about climate change, rigorous scientific methods have to be used which have a 100% accuracy rating or very nearly. What that link offers is a number of scientific methods but they are hedged about with caveats. |
Who says any scientific measure has to be 100% accurate? All scientists speak in caveats. All science has error bars. Could you show me, in the science to infering the earth's climate history, that these methods are not acceptable in science?
Oh they may be perfectly acceptable in science...it doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn from them are correct...particularly when this is based on data of which the newest is nearly 20 years old.
| Quote: |
| If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure. |
If an asteroid was coming to earth, the only time the probability of it hitting earth is at 1 is when it is too late. What do you propose in that case? |
If an asteroid big enough to destroy the earth does come for us...there's not much we can do about it anyway. We could try to destroy it with nuclear weapons but given that these things travel (on average) about 25 kilometers per second, it would be pretty difficult. |
You missed my point. My point is many times we have to be proactive and work from the best predictive data which we know could be wrong. If we wait until the probability = 1, it is too late. By definition it has happened or nearly so. In the case of an asteroid, if one attacks the problem early, while probability is less than 1, one can alter an asteroid's path. Longer you wait, harder it is to do it. Although you also achieve a higher confidence in your doom.
Well I've never said to wait until the probability factor=1...more like 1 in 1000 or so. But to go to the other side of the coin it makes no sense to launch a thousand nuclear missiles at an asteriod which has about a 1 in a million chance of striking the earth.
With the debate about tree rings and other inferential data, as far as I can tell you're arguing such methods have error bars and we can't draw 100% accurate conclusions and therefore such conclusions are to be treated... how?
With caution given that (a) the data is almost 2 decades old and (b) that if (however unlikely it is) we are wrong our economies will suffer disastrous effects that they may never recover from. With things that are not going to have a long-term effect , it doesn't matter if we are wrong. We need fresher and more data on this point.
You also miss the point that such methods compare their results to other methods. While one method might be wrong, if two other methods also fall upon the same line, the odds that this is mere error is very, very low. Radio metric dating is, for example, checked by things like tree rings. Whether in 1300 the average temp was really 15c or 17c is less important than the how the data points fall upon the line and the trend in that line. If three different inferential methods all reveal a similar trend, and it is mathematically unlikely its based on error, then that seems rather significant and valid. |
True however how many of these methods account for variations? And I would really like to see data from the 1990's-2000's to compare with these past readings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
