"Settled science" unsettled - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 12:33:04 pm
content: Nice read for today:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/09/we_have_more_to_learn_says_scientist_antarctic_sea_ice_at_all_time_record/A short article that's full of gem,.I like in particular this line:Quote"The failure of reality to match up...".If the reality fails to comply with our models, we just have to throw out the reality,How dare the reality!

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 12:53:16 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on October 09, 2014, 12:33:04 pmI'm rather baffled that this is what you get from that article. You know how science works, right?

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 01:46:15 pm
content: Yeah, quite a curt show of smoke and mirrors by a clueless magazine editor.Compare this to what and how the actual scientists are saying:http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-uci-study-indicates-loss-of-west-antarctic-glaciers-appears-unstoppablehttp://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-352http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_losshttp://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Antarctica_s_ice_losses

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:03:51 pm
content: This what happens when science is compromised with politics. Skepticism is suppressed and confidence in models is exaggerated.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:05:28 pm
content: Someone give me a good reason not to lock this thread right now...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:19:13 pm
content: The page is actually quite interesting, particularly the "related stories" section and the "climate store" advertisement,At least someone is benefiting from global warming.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 02:27:22 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 09, 2014, 02:05:28 pmIt generates ads revenue for you and some users find it interesting. It's a win-win, unless if you want to suppress skepticism.

author: gxti
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 03:31:50 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 09, 2014, 02:05:28 pmThere isn't one. And I don't say that because of anything to do with the science or un-science, but only because it will result in yet another sprawling, irrelevant "debate" where people nitpick at each other to pad their self-esteem. Burn it to the ground.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 04:28:30 pm
content: Unsettling "settled science" is an interesting and timely topic. For the longest time, the impossibility of "blue led" was widely accepted and some would argue "settled science".Then here came this little known Japanese whose invention didn't quite exactly match up well with "settled science".If it were not for his unsettling of "settled science", many things we take for granted today wouldn't be possible.

author: Terabyte2007
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 04:30:21 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 09, 2014, 02:05:28 pmOh boy, I see this thread having the possibility of getting wildly out of control.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 05:04:32 pm
content: Quote from: Terabyte2007 on October 09, 2014, 04:30:21 pmWhy do you want to control skepticism in 'settled science'? Skepticism is a key component of good science.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 09:05:46 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on October 09, 2014, 08:36:39 pmIs the science settled on your explanation? It seems that other possible explanations as well like the one below. It's this simplistic and dogmatic approach that gives real science bad rap.http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htmQuote

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 09:09:30 pm
content: Science has ALWAYS been "settled". Where "settled" is defined as the scientists of the day being satisfied with the status-quo because they didn't know any better.Which, by extrapolation, means that science is NEVER REALLY "settled" when you look at in the broader view.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 10:48:30 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 09, 2014, 10:37:28 pmWilfred, please stay on topic.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 11:13:15 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 09, 2014, 11:05:57 pmI actually see it as an honest discussion about science and it's challenges, the primary one IMO is to stay open minded and unbiased and not letting one's interests our agenda affect the conclusion. Those practices of 'the science is settled' or calling skeptics 'deniers' hurt real science in my opinion.

author: cloudscapes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2014, 11:33:15 pm
content: Actual science is "boring", unsellable, so I wouldn't trust most media to be accurate about it. Go straight to the source if you're interested in a topic.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 01:00:22 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 09, 2014, 11:05:57 pmIs locking the topic, a 'real' solution, or a convenient way to appease the masses and suppress debate that is inconvenient to the 'comfortable', politically convenient outcome?oh noes!

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 01:00:48 am
content: So called climate "skeptics" like to make a lot of hoopla about the seasonal growth of the surface area of antarctic sea ice. It's true that the extent of it's winter sea ice is larger despite the ocean around it being warmer. It's puzzling and complex but in no way refutes global warming -as theskeptical science articlelinked to earlier explains.There are several reasons for this and many reasons why increasing winter surface area of ocean ice around the antarctic does not contradict global warming. Probably most importantly is thatmost of the Antarctic ice sheet is land based ice whose volume is decreasingOf course the Arctic ice is mostly sea ice and is dramatically shrinking as is Greenland's ice.It's the global volume of ice that matters - not the winter surface area of sea ice around Antarctica.Just like pointing to regional seasonal cold temperatures does not explain away a global mean temperature increase, pointing out increases in localized seasonal sea ice surface area does not explain away decreasing global ice volume. Surely any engineer can understand the difference.BTW - the title of this post is just silly. Almost nothing in science is "settled" . No climate scientist would claim that there is nothing more to learn. The state of knowledge is constantly updated as new data comes in and better models are developed. But just because what we know and understand is constantly evolving does not mean that our current understanding is wrong -just incomplete -as always.

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 01:15:41 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on October 09, 2014, 09:09:30 pmThis here. And though at the moment we do see some warming this science is not only far from settled, its also been politicized which makes it doubly awful. Note, I am not saying that climate change doesnt exist, I am saying that to say its settled is far too short sighted and premature. The models dont include near the amount of data they should. It was only more recently anyone even took into account the massive number of made made water bodies, which contain no small amount of water by the way.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 01:40:16 am
content: Saying it is not settled is very different than saying there is not broad agreement about some basic tenents:* The earth is rapidly warming in a way that is not accounted for by any known natural cycle.* Atmospheric CO2 is rising rapidly due to burning of fossil fuels and is now at levels last seen hundreds of millenia ago when the earth was much warmer.* CO2 is a greenhouse gas.* Despite many attempts to find other explanations, the evidence is overwhelming that the rapid rate of increase in global mean temperature is due to human burning of fossil fuels.Lots of specifics are yet to be learned and what the earths temperature will do and what it's impact will be in the future is still uncertain but that in no way refutes what we do know.WhenNASA and every major scientific organizationand97% of top peer reviewed scientific journal articles over the past few decades agree on these points,you have to be a major conspiracy theorist to conclude that all those scientists from diverse backgrounds and political persuasions are all colluding to deceive.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 03:04:56 am
content: I'm not skeptical of science, but I am of bandwagons.

author: electrophiliate
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 03:18:27 am
content: There are several possible explanations for the increase in localized surface ice without contradicting the notion of *global* warming:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008122102.htmI'm never going to spend much time probing the depths of the models or analyze the data, but it appears to me that the main points of anthropogenic climate change and global warming are (relatively) "settled", at least enough to have some confidence in the conclusions?:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. Any good reason to believe otherwise? No doubt there is still much to learn about what is happening, but we are witnessing a refinement of models rather than a debunking of the overall premise e.g.:"Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warminghttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988The global climate is complicated and multifactorial, cyclical with feedback mechanisms. Glacial cycles and previous warming periods are not inconsistent with anthropogenic climate change. Carbon levels have fluctuated throughout history and are related to the climate and temperature of the planet. Much carbon has been captured over millions of years (locked up in fossil fuels) and humans have been rapidly reintroducing that back into the system. We have essentially interfered with a slow natural process. 150 years is a blink of an eye on the geological time scale.The 'denialism' that began in the 1980's can be traced back to the coal and oil industries?http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d8006http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/august/1344299325/robert-manne/dark-victoryThere has been talk of a pause or delay in the increased temperatures, but I'm not entirely sure how that fits into 13 of the 14 hottest years on record (globally) having occurred since 2001?http://theconversation.com/2013-was-australias-hottest-year-warm-for-much-of-the-world-21670.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 03:28:46 am
content: Quote from: zapta on October 09, 2014, 02:27:22 pmRed herring.I don't give a rats about ad revenue.And it's not a win-win, it's a lose-lose if the anti global warming crowd are let lose. No different to religion or *insert conspiracy theory here*

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 03:34:49 am
content: But now I know why the ice in my soft drink isn't there when I look back after a few minutes... Global Warming !! aargh. And I have reproducible proof.

author: nixfu
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 04:05:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 09, 2014, 02:05:28 pmit's been civil so far?!but wait, eventually the zealots from both sides will show up.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 04:26:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 10, 2014, 03:28:46 amDave, do you say that the science is settled and the models are accurate enough and there is no room for skeptism?

author: os40la
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 04:32:55 am
content: Quote from: nixfu on October 10, 2014, 04:05:07 amThe reality of this thread will soon match up with that model.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 04:50:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 10, 2014, 03:28:46 amHe's right because the goal of the anti global warming science crowd is not to prove anything - but only to spread uncertainty and doubt which is achieved just by bringing up this topic over and over again.It's instructive that even scientists who have set out to prove there was no link between human CO2 emissions and global warming havecome to the conclusion that there is indeed a linkafter looking at the data.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 05:05:08 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 10, 2014, 04:50:27 amSome of us see models that were sold to us with great confidence and then failed to match reality and start to question the process. It would be better for science to disclose the real confidence level and uncertainty rather than clamming it's 'settled' and demonizing skeptics. After all It's science, not religion.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 05:08:27 am
content: Quote from: zapta on October 10, 2014, 05:05:08 amHmmm. Maybe THAT isn't settled and that's why there is such widespread "agnosticism" and "atheism".

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 05:16:14 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 10, 2014, 04:50:27 amAnd that's not just anyone, it's Richard Muller.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 05:18:08 am
content: Quote from: zapta on October 10, 2014, 05:05:08 amThat's a straw man argument. I've never seen any climate scientist claim that the science was "settled". But again, saying there is more to learn does not mean the current understanding is wrong.There is always more to learn, models to be refined, new data to be taken into account.It's fine to take the position that you don't trust science and the scientific community. But when you have an issue that has been closely examined for decades now by literally thousands of scientists from many different disciplines and from around the globe and the same basic conclusion continues to be reached - it's disingenuous to say you're interested in the science but dispute that AGW is real.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 05:18:26 am
content: Quote from: zapta on October 10, 2014, 05:05:08 amThey do. Go read the IPCC report, it's in the first dozen or so pages. They give an actual number for their confidence level (it's a confidence "band" in percentage).So many people actually miss this basic fact.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 05:57:29 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 10, 2014, 04:50:27 amYes it would be so much simpler if they just went away. The problem is it is so much easier to be a AGW enthusiast and there is much more money in it.Sceptics get accused of destroying the planet, murdering babies, and likened to Hitler murdering Jews while enthusiasts get to proudly wear their heart on their sleeves, saving the planet, babies, and being likened to motherhood and apple pie. On top of that we love to hear profits of doom and bit of pious self flagellation always goes down well.Given that huge bias and the propensity for people to believe any old shit if they think enough other people believe it I will remain very sceptical about anything to do with AGW.Quote from: mtdoc on October 10, 2014, 04:50:27 amPlease point me at the sceptics who deny the greenhouse effect is real or that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The question is how significant the effect is, how much is anthropomorphic, and what if anything we should be doing about it. As best I can tell at the moment despite increasing CO2 concentrations the rate of warming has been pretty much constant for the last 18 years and that rate is well below the lowest predicted by IPCC and their many computer models. They seem to be desperately trying to find where the extra heat went to avoid having to admit that maybe it was never there. Their predictions for the last 18 years were wrong I don't have much confidence in their ability to predict the next 18 years.If you want another reason to be sceptical Obama one of the most important people in the world tweeted"Ninety-seven per cent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, manmade and dangerous."Which is pure crap see:http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 06:13:48 am
content: And so it goes...

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 06:30:58 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 10, 2014, 06:13:48 amLike I said - so much easier if they would quit bugging me and let me get on with saving the planet.As long as you are righteous who cares about being right.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 10, 2014, 06:49:24 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on October 10, 2014, 06:13:48 amYup, and it's only going to get worse until this become the most debated thread on the forum, always at the top of the unread list just annoying the crap out of everyone.It's a troll from the get go.Locked.