Science

[DoggyDaddy]

There's a difference between thick and that

Then I have been mislead by a former roommate. And to think I fell for it!

 

[lovemywoods]

As we know, the bulk of CO2 on planet Earth is dissolved in the oceans and large lakes. A rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics or chemistry lets us understands that when the water is cooler, more CO2 can be held in solution. When the water is warmer, less can be held. So while it would be a challenge to conduct experiments that demonstrate the causal relationship, the actual data are consistent with the hypothesis that temperature changes are driving the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around. I remain unable to understand why this isn't obvious to more people.

It is a factual reality that I've tried to keep in the collective consciousness both on INGO and in real life, but with little reaction. When I had more control of the curriculum of my classes and the subject arose, it was one of the points I raised in an attempt to encourage my students to seek a more comprehensive body of information regarding human influence on climate change. I will add that when one tries to teach students about the processes we call science and encourage them to ask questions and think critically, the majority will reject the challenge and choose instead to receive and accept information they receive from agenda-driven popular media.

Your last sentence is ominous.

 

[Alpo]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

 

[Dead Duck]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

Take that with a grain of [STRIKE]salt[/STRIKE] 40% sodium.

Ocean sink is all good but they just had to add the "Ozone Holes" for effect to appease their bosses. I'm leery of anyone who works under or with the World Meteorological Organization or should I say "The UN".

 

[KLB]

Quantum computing might be able to handle it.

Computing power is not the limiting factor here.

 

[2A_Tom]

Garbage in garbage out.

The real question is how does the computer know what data means? 01001001010010010101001010 tells the computer that certain data means 11101010100101001001 and that means that 1001010001010101010010010010 is the result and that proves that man is responsible for Climate change.


If you deny that you need to repent and get dipped into the Church of Apocalyptical Deviancy.

 

[Dead Duck]

Speaking of codes...

I know Man is number 1.
Does that make the wemens the 0s?

 

[JettaKnight]

Garbage in garbage out.

The real question is how does the computer know what data means? 01001001010010010101001010 tells the computer that certain data means 11101010100101001001 and that means that 1001010001010101010010010010 is the result and that proves that man is responsible for Climate change.


If you deny that you need to repent and get dipped into the Church of Apocalyptical Deviancy.

Prepare to have your mind blown.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/bit-flip


(Note: Comp engineers will find that episode painfully pedantic.)

 

[rhino]

Your last sentence is ominous.

And depressing. Imagine trying for six years to try to encourage some level of curiosity and be met with blank stares, class after class, semester after semester.

Science is impossible without curiosity and skepticism. Understanding the concept of science requires understanding curiosity and skepticism.

 

[Trigger Time]

Some guys do like 'em "thick".

Id hit it. Just so I could say i did
If i was single of coarse

 

[2A_Tom]

And depressing. Imagine trying for six years to try to encourage some level of curiosity and be met with blank stares, class after class, semester after semester.

Science is impossible without curiosity and skepticism. Understanding the concept of science requires understanding curiosity and skepticism.

I have developed a very thick coating of skepticism over the past several years.

 

[BugI02]

This is one of the assertions I would like to see a real ass climate scientist rebut. This is why I think society would be better served by real ass scientists on both sides have an honest debate rather than internet warriors repeating their side's experts on forums. I'm not saying you're doing that. But I also can't critique your statements myself. I have degrees in ee (more than 3 decades ago) and cs (more recent), neither of which really equips me well enough to know who is telling the truth at a deeper level. I haven't used anything from thermogoddamics during my 20 year ee career. Don't remember **** about what little chemistry I had to take. Didin't need to learn any of that stuff again for CS. And frankly, it's boring. But I'm pretty good with logic and data structures, and I know a thing or two about computer models. (Scientists write horrible software, btw). Most important to me, I know enough that I can follow a debate, even if it's real ass scientists, and make pretty accurate assessments about who's most full of ****.

As an engineer you should be able to adequately interpret the chart. Bonus points for extrapolating meaning of the fact curve is steeper in the range of temperatures we are currently in as well as CO2 is claimed to be a driver of ocean acidification which is claimed to be worsening as temperatures rise

View attachment 78492

 

[BugI02]

Speaking of codes...

I know Man is number 1.
Does that make the wemens the 0s?

Women aren't binary, they are the living embodiment of yes/no/maybe architecture

 

[Alpo]

Take that with a grain of [STRIKE]salt[/STRIKE] 40% sodium.

Ocean sink is all good but they just had to add the "Ozone Holes" for effect to appease their bosses. I'm leery of anyone who works under or with the World Meteorological Organization or should I say "The UN".

Take it as you like. I thought it was worth reading.

 

[chipbennett]

Take it as you like. I thought it was worth reading.

Interesting read, but I do note that it was written around 2007, and the primary modeler referenced was at East Anglia (email "hide the decline" scandal broke in 2009). So, I would view her conclusions with skepticism.

The most useful thing from that article is that the more we study what we think we know about the earth's climate, the more we learn that we don't know what we don't know.

 

[jamil]

The most useful thing from that article is that the more we study what we think we know about the earth's climate, the more we learn that we don't know what we don't know.

I agree. It’s a reasonable conclusion based on observation.

 

[Alpo]

Interesting read, but I do note that it was written around 2007, and the primary modeler referenced was at East Anglia (email "hide the decline" scandal broke in 2009). So, I would view her conclusions with skepticism.

The most useful thing from that article is that the more we study what we think we know about the earth's climate, the more we learn that we don't know what we don't know.

Agree. It is tiring to hear the arguments from both sides...even from the "professional scientists" on the discussion boards (including this one). We are going to have 10 billion people on this planet in the not too distant future. I liked the way things were when I was a little tyke (about 2.5 billion worldwide and 150 million in the USA). Too many mouthbreathers around today.

 

[2A_Tom]

Narcissism and personal interests reign.

 

[Dead Duck]

Agree. It is tiring to hear the arguments from both sides...even from the "professional scientists" on the discussion boards (including this one). We are going to have 10 billion people on this planet in the not too distant future. I liked the way things were when I was a little tyke (about 2.5 billion worldwide and 150 million in the USA). Too many mouthbreathers around today.

The war takes care of that problem.

Oh ya. It hasn't happened yet..... No worries, just stay on high ground.

 

[T.Lex]

A key assumption about cosmological redshift might be wrong, which calls into question whether "dark energy" is even a thing.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/s...ught-we-knew-about-dark-energy-might-be-wrong