|
Totally off-topic thread
|
|
| Watsisname | Date: Friday, 08.03.2013, 21:51 | Message # 676 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Yes, and the assimilation of knowledge gathered from study of the components leads to an understanding the whole. This may be seen by the literature.
This is similar idea as with reconstructing earth geologic history. One cannot simply figure it out from scratch all at once; one must instead look at all the pieces and put them together.
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 07:15 | Message # 677 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| Easier said than done. How many apples are there in the world? The evidence is out there, and individual apples are easy to count.
It's not my habit of thinking that somebody who knows these things well surely has found a hockey stick (or whatever) for global heat content, or if not, surely would have since all they have to do is to piece together every sample there is and collect the rest themselves from the world's remaining ocean beds, so I don't have to wonder. Or that if I expect something to be this or that way, I can simply google it until I find a paper that says it, and then I don't need to understand why, since somebody else has done that.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 07:28 | Message # 678 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| I'm sorry, I don't have any idea what you are trying to tell me. Can you clarify? I feel as if you're extremely skeptical about a vast field of study yet not actually trying to learn about it despite being provided with means of doing so. This confuses me greatly.
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 08:37 | Message # 679 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| I was saying that reconstructing past global ocean heat content based on what you list is hard (the ocean is big, deep and may not carry that many proxies), and while you seem to take it for granted that there exist robust results, as far as I know it's only been done locally and not over the entire globe. If anyone can point to something, I'd like to have a look at it (beyond the abstract/conclusion). I'm not skeptical about every study, but they're limited by their data, scope and assumptions and I try not to read more into them than that. But, yes, I'm a bit concerned for science that there could exist some kind of subconscious forced, obsessive thinking (figuratively, I don't mean it as a diagnosis) that if data are missing, it must be possible to reconstruct them. It's a dangerous thing scientifically to believe in something that might be forever lost and no longer exists.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
Edited by midtskogen - Saturday, 09.03.2013, 08:38 |
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 10:53 | Message # 680 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| I do not claim that it is not difficult (scientific research seldom is), or even complete. The ocean is a big, complex, dynamic system and it is coupled with other systems in ways that we have only begun to appreciate relatively recently. But yes, we are capable of determining the thermal history of the ocean thanks to many processes that record ocean temperature, and also thanks to our understanding of how these systems operate. You had asked for examples of this type of work and I have provided you with the means of finding them. This is a big and multidisciplinary field (particularly between atmospheric, biologic, oceanographic, and geologic sciences), and it cannot even begin to be summarized in one post or one paper. Most of the studies I could give you are not free to view anyway. I have university access to all the major journals but of course not everyone else shares such access.
Perusing the free-text literature, I came across this one, which is reasonably good and deals with the state of the oceans and the ocean-atmosphere coupling during the Late Miocene era. Take it as an example.
Quote It's a dangerous thing scientifically to believe in something that might be forever lost and no longer exists.
I/scientists do not 'believe' such things -- we generally know what the limits of scientific inquiry are. I'd love to be able to figure out if life once existed on Venus but any information that could answer that question was erased long ago. I claim we can figure out the thermodynamic history of the Earth's oceans because that's what the evidence tells me.
Hmm... this all sounds very similar to things that were written many pages ago. Déjà vu anyone?
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 11:20 | Message # 681 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Watsisname) this all sounds very similar to things that were written many pages ago. Déjà vu anyone?
Indeed...
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Aerospacefag | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 13:03 | Message # 682 |
 Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
| Quote (Watsisname) I/scientists do not 'believe' such things -- we generally know what the limits of scientific inquiry are.
Hey, just calm down, I'm sure he haven't intended to make discussion... personal.
The problem I was pointing at isn't actually a flaw in some scientific method of analysis, but rather the interaction between science ant public opinion. It sure creates strange situation, and some of the authenticity may be corrupted in the process. Though, it is easier to solve, if approach from science once again.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 13:35 | Message # 683 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Aerospacefag) Hey, just calm down
He seems pretty calm to me.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Antza2 | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 21:56 | Message # 684 |
 World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
| AlessiaCristallooo,
Spam will not be tolerated
Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 21:56 | Message # 685 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| AlessiaCristallooo, if you absolutely must make such disruptive posts, at least put them in a spoiler...
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| AlessiaCristallooo | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 22:07 | Message # 686 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 44
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) AlessiaCristallooo, if you absolutely must make such disruptive posts, at least put them in a spoiler...
That was supposed to be the funny thing 
Antza2, it was not spam 
|
| |
| |
| Antza2 | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 22:13 | Message # 687 |
|
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
| Quote (AlessiaCristallooo) Antza2, it was not spam
It upset the forum layout so i regarded it as spam. Next time you should put such posts in spoilers.
Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 23:19 | Message # 688 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Quote (Aerospacefag) Hey, just calm down, I'm sure he haven't intended to make discussion... personal.
There's nothing to take personally. Midtskogen was again bringing philosophy of science into the discussion, reminding that some things may not be possible to figure out since there might not be sufficient evidence surviving today. This is of course true, but in the context of determining the thermal history of the oceans is not as big of a hurdle to overcome as might be imagined.
Quote
The problem I was pointing at isn't actually a flaw in some scientific method of analysis, but rather the interaction between science ant public opinion. It sure creates strange situation, and some of the authenticity may be corrupted in the process. Though, it is easier to solve, if approach from science once again.
Right. We were originally discussing what the nature of the greenhouse effect and global warming were, and the physics that operates behind it, and the description of this that is given to the public. It is true that there is a world of detail that is being glossed over, but the underlying themes are still intact and quite correct. This is common to almost all sciences, as a full treatment would be too lengthy and too complicated to be viable to a popular audience. So a lot is left out in favor of explaining the most fundamental concepts.
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 23:45 | Message # 689 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| Quote (Watsisname) It is true that there is a world of detail that is being glossed over, but the underlying themes are still intact and quite correct.
I have no problems imagining that the underlying themes are quite correct, but many things concerning details are presented to explain it, and as far as science is concerned, there is no good in being correct if you're not correct for the right reasons.
Obviously, with so many predictions of how the climate will be in 100 years, somebody will be correct. But for precisely the right reasons?
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Sunday, 10.03.2013, 00:12 | Message # 690 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| midtskogen, we've already gone over this topic.
Climate sensitivity has an inherent uncertainty, and the future of greenhouse gas emissions is also uncertain. Accounting for both of these, predictions of future warming have a spread of possible values -- a probability distribution. This distribution shows that global temperature may be expected to rise by no less than 2°C by 2100, with upper estimates as high as 5°C, and a mean of 3 to 4.
Saying 'someone will be correct' and questioning if it is for the right reasons is really silly.
edit: For clarity, it is silly to say 'someone will be correct' because nobody is claiming a unique value, and 'the right reasons' is silly because there is inherent uncertainty involved in these types of predictions.
Edited by Watsisname - Sunday, 10.03.2013, 01:08 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
United States 
Norway 
Russian Federation 
Finland 
Italy