Sometimes scientific research involves multiple lines of evidence, from multiple fields, where no one can be an expert in every field.
For example , past climate reconstruction, which is relevant here, can easily involve people studying isotope ratios in glaciers, morraines below glaciers, tree-ring widths in the mountains, erosion patterns, land-use changes, etc.
So if multiple lines of evidence point to one conclusion, that’s sometimes stronger than one line of evidence.
Once again, you seem to have a frail grasp of science. Where is your control group? What is your methodology? Is your “experiment” repeatable?
And I disagree that the earth orbits the sun, or that you can ever prove that.
I think that’s a rather safe bet.
Knowing all the variables is impossible. That butterfly flapping its wings in East Sheboygan probably does contribute in an infinitesimal way, but enough of the large moving parts are indicating, via any number of computer models, that things aren’t good. Ten years ago, smart people at USGS were writing that:
A few unusually big tropical storms and hurricanes don’t “prove” global warming is happening. But the hurricane season of 2005, which included monsters Katrina and Rita, has at least pointed anecdotally toward the predictions of extreme weather that have accompanied most climate change scenarios. Scientists around the globe have been making these predictions and warnings about climate change for decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988 by the United Nations, has issued strong statements about the changing climate and has written a comprehensive study of it and its potential effects (IPCC 2001). This team, which includes more than 2000 scientists from 100 countries, represents the largest scientific collaboration in history. Public understanding of the issue varies. Many in the science community recognize climate change as a serious matter where the consequences are likely to continue for many centuries.
You mention that climate change is a fact, and that we need to adapt to it. Why bother if it’s going to change back to being chilly all the time in another twenty or fifty years? Why bother with throwing money at atomic or solar if we’ve got a built-out infrastructure that supports fossil fuels, especially if it doesn’t matter if we burn those fuels?
“We’re all gonna die” rhetoric is a conveniently trumped up phrase–maybe go ask the folks on the Tuvalu or Marshall Islands about their thoughts on climate change and how they’re going to live through it.
First, feedback loops are real, and second, the Earth is a big place with a lot of stuff to heat up. Stick a cold iron skillet on a blazing hot stove and then touch the skillet after five seconds–the effects of that heat input won’t be noticeable at that point, but I’m sure you can guess what it will be like in thirty seconds or a minute.
I like cap and trade, myself, because I think at this point the US government is so completely corrupt that it’s incapable of regulating corporate misbehavior - except, perhaps, by setting the corporations against each other. Cap and trade makes carbon releases part of inter-corporation competition, instead of being something you could just bribe congress (or EPA inspectors) to exempt you from…
In the 1980s, Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, and in 1989, Bush the Elder used cap and trade to cut sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain in half.
Really, until Democratic boogey-men like Clinton and Obama endorsed it, cap and trade was a Republican triumph; a minimal government intervention in the free market that actually works. It’s sort of halfway between an EPA mandate and a voluntary compliance program, and so far it’s worked far better than either one. Originally it was a bipartisan compromise between the two approaches. But today vanishingly few of our political class are interested in statesmanship and government; all they care about is getting re-elected and filling their own pockets.
“Oops! You really don’t know? That is the hypothesis. Yes, it is assumed to be true so”
It is KNOWN that water drops off as rain and snow.
It is KNOWN that the more energetic molecules like methane decay in the air.
It is KNOWN that CO2 sticks around.
no comment
Why has no one mentioned Russell’s teapot yet?
Calc IV plus linear algebra good enough? I only require up to calc III or linear algebra, but I could find room to study other math in my spare time. I think people generally overestimate their autodidacticism, but I don’t need to become adept (at least not at first) just proficient.
You don’t need linear algebra for thermo. It’s more for general scientific computation. Vector calculus and differential equations would be sufficient to get through Schroeder. You will learn some statistics along the way, but he covers all that you need in that regard in the book (almost, but you can fill in the minor gaps in that regard with google.) You can get through about the first third to half with just multivariable differentiation, but you need multivariable integration, and to be able to do change of variables, to get through the rest. If you’re teaching yourself this stuff, a cramster account is really helpful, since they have worked solutions to a lot of the problems. (I’m not sure if they cover Schroeder or not, it would be worth checking before you got an account.)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
