Eocene and Global Warming

[MOBIUS]

@ this thread!

[Ramo]

Doesn't sound easy at all now that you describe it. Could two model with wildly different conclusions pass this review though? I mean, let's say one model breaks the world into square cells, and the other into hexagons or something. Equally valid, but a change like that could have a major impact on the eventual output.

One of those codes would be pretty crappy then, and then hopefully would fail peer review. If it does pass, other people could publish on the crappiness of the code after getting crappy results. Look, there's nothing that a scientist loves more than making other scientists look like fools. We're an arrogant bunch.

I do some similar research (mantle physics, instead of the atmosphere). This sort of stuff is pretty rigorous.

[Ramo]

Evolution is contested, mostly by bible thumpers, and holds up well to criticism.

Einstein was fixing a model (Newton's) which was universally accepted but proved to be flawed. Newton of course, grew up when Aristotle was universally accepted and proved flawed. Of course, even Einstein was wrong when it came to quantum mechanics.

How do you know that the the cool kids aren't just getting the herd to follow them in these cases? Have you studied quantum field theory? How do you know that it's valid?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ramo
How do you know that the the cool kids aren't just getting the herd to follow them in these cases? Have you studied quantum field theory? How do you know that it's valid?

Good point, one that's often brought up about superstrings. Sexy high profile theories get more attention than they deserve. It happens, but the method takes care of it.

I'd say it doesn't really matter. Aside from what we spend on particle accelerators, these aren't really public policy issues. However, I've seen news reports that it may cost tens of trillions of dollars to fight global warming. That's something where we should be careful we're not just buying into some bogus crap.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ramo
One of those codes would be pretty crappy then, and then hopefully would fail peer review. If it does pass, other people could publish on the crappiness of the code after getting crappy results. Look, there's nothing that a scientist loves more than making other scientists look like fools. We're an arrogant bunch.

I do some similar research (mantle physics, instead of the atmosphere). This sort of stuff is pretty rigorous.

Okay, cool. It's good to have someone who knows what they're talking about.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ramo
The point is that they don't publish in peer reviewed academic journals because they have to keep their methodology secret. That makes it inherently nontransparent (and therefore subject to political meddling and exaggerations) in a way that science cannot be due to its transparency. Comparing science and intelligence is completely ludicrous.

Anyone who thinks the IPCC wasn't "subject to political meddling and exaggerations" is fooling him or herself. IPCC and related models deliberately ignore ameliorating effects like accelerated icecap accumulation observed in ice cores through periods of interglacial warming.

[Ramo]

Good point, one that's often brought up about superstrings.

QFT isn't just a "sexy high profile theory," but part of the consensus view of physics community. My point is exactly that QFT has stood up very well (we don't have the energies needed to test alternatives). I took a class in QFT, and know a fair amount about it. But I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to do more complicated calculations, nor do I have the resources to conduct the experiments to verify them.

The reason why I have confidence that these theories can accurately predict the behavior of the physical world is that peer reviewed scientific literature says that they're accurate. Most of us can't become specialists in every highly technical subject, so we rely on scientific consensus.

I don't see why questions that deal with public policy should be any different.

[Ramo]

Anyone who thinks the IPCC wasn't "subject to political meddling and exaggerations" is fooling him or herself. IPCC and related models deliberately ignore ameliorating effects like accelerated icecap accumulation observed in ice cores through periods of interglacial warming.

I didn't bring up the IPCC... And it's a very conservative organization that avoids throwing wild ideas into their reports to reach the widest possible consensus. Perhaps what you're talking about (I'm not familiar with it) isn't accepted by the community at large.

[MOBIUS]

...Or he could just be talking out of his arse. He usually does.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Straybow
Anyone who thinks the IPCC wasn't "subject to political meddling and exaggerations" is fooling him or herself. IPCC and related models deliberately ignore ameliorating effects like accelerated icecap accumulation observed in ice cores through periods of interglacial warming.

You are correct. There was massive political pressure on the IPCC . . . to downplay the seriousness of the problem.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The big fear, however, is that global warming could trigger a shut down of the global currents, which would lead to a new ice age.

Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

[Felch]

I saw it Spencer, but figured it wasn't worth disputing.

All it shows me is that nobody knows what's going to happen.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Does no one else see how ridiculous this is?

Is it as ridiculous as inanimate matter giving rise to intelligent life? Is it as ridiculous as an entire universe coming to existence out of nothing?

That is, in fact, a well understood possibility, however ludicrous it may seem to you. In fact, it has happened several times in the past, so, if it's ridiculous, so what. It's a real possibility.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ramo
QFT isn't just a "sexy high profile theory," but part of the consensus view of physics community. My point is exactly that QFT has stood up very well (we don't have the energies needed to test alternatives). I took a class in QFT, and know a fair amount about it. But I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to do more complicated calculations, nor do I have the resources to conduct the experiments to verify them.

The reason why I have confidence that these theories can accurately predict the behavior of the physical world is that peer reviewed scientific literature says that they're accurate. Most of us can't become specialists in every highly technical subject, so we rely on scientific consensus.

I don't see why questions that deal with public policy should be any different.

I'm sorry. I didn't bother looking it up, I don't use the term everyday, and I forgot what it meant. I assumed based on the context that it was some sexy, untested, guesswork. But I am aware, now that you remind me, that QFT is remarkably effective at predicting experimental outcomes, if it is what I think it is.

I guess, to reanswer your question now that I understand it, my point still sort of stands. I don't really care about QFT, because it's not something that has anything to do with my daily life. So I accept whatever the scientific consensus is, and move on. With evolution, we know that micro-evolution exists, it has a very real effect on antibiotics for example. And as far as that goes, I believe in it, and take it seriously. I also accept that it does a good job of explaining the origin of the species. But I'm not willing to let the government start spending trillions of dollars on it.

That's the real issue here. Just how sure of these models can you be when trillions of dollars are on the line? That's a lot more of a real world question than QFT, one where healthy skepticism is a civic responsibility.

[Ramo]

Dealing with the consequences of climate change is likely to be unfathomably expensive. Hundreds of millions of people are simply going to be living in nonviable areas. We're talking about ridiculous sums to deal with this. And then there's war over land and resources.

All we have to do is what Western and Northern Europe have basically already done. Switch to nuclear, organize society to be denser, invest in mass transit. In the long term, work out something like deep geothermal. We can do this, and it isn't going to break the bank. Incentivize the behavior and fund the project by a cap and trade system with a 100% auction and/or a carbon tax. And this isn't money going down the drain; we're going to have to make these investments anyways, so as a bonus we get stop to the planet from possibly being ****ed.

If we conservatively peg the odds of the consensus being accurate at 50% (and I'd say that it's considerably higher), the cost/benefit analysis says stop the climate change.