Since we're chatting about AGW...
Chris Mihos
Arguments". it's about how scientists work through competing theories.
we start w/ the Copernican Revolution, talk about the distances to
galaxies, the development of the Big Bang model, the argument in the
late 19th/early20th century about what powers the sun, etc. we also
talk about modern debates: dark matter, dark energy, alternative
gravity. Is Pluto a planet? What killed the dinosaurs, that kind of
stuff. It's a seminar class and it's fun getting the students thinking
about the scientific process. we talk a bit about biases, funding, and
policy issues as well.
I specifically *dont* get into things like AGW, evolution, and other
things outside my area of expertise.
But one of the questions I have my students think about is this: when
faced with a scientific issue where you believe X and the other side
believes Y, what evidence would it take to make you move from X to Y?
So I thought I'd toss this out to the AGW discussion:
- if you believe in AGW, what evidence would make you change your
mind?
- if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
likely to be correct?
This questions aren't so much about strict proof, but rather about
whether you believe a specific model is likely to be true. There are
not simple answers to this question, I know. But I figure since I'm
constantly tossing it out to my students, I'd also toss it out to
rsfc...
CheeseHusker dos
Damn you for being all professorial....
Simple and short answer - to see changes outside of perceived
historical movements - ie - something "unusual".
More complex answer would have to involve a discussion on the "good/
bad" merits of GW in general first before any sort of worrying about
AGW.
RaginPage
It would be tough because there are so many factors. Probably a well
done study that takes into account as many factors as possible,
including biomass, forrestation, volcanic activity, as well as
adjusting for what is believed to be cyclical oceanic H2O vapor
studies, CO2 emissions based on vehicle emissions, factory emissions,
population density etc.
Right now, I see temperature studies that correlate only 2-3 of the
above factors usually.
Brent
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> ...so I'm teaching a class this semester called "Astronomical
> Arguments". it's about how scientists work through competing theories.
> we start w/ the Copernican Revolution, talk about the distances to
> galaxies, the development of the Big Bang model, the argument in the
> late 19th/early20th century about what powers the sun, etc. we also
> talk about modern debates: dark matter, dark energy, alternative
> gravity. Is Pluto a planet? What killed the dinosaurs, that kind of
> stuff. It's a seminar class and it's fun getting the students thinking
> about the scientific process. we talk a bit about biases, funding, and
> policy issues as well.
>
> I specifically *dont* get into things like AGW, evolution, and other
> things outside my area of expertise.
>
> But one of the questions I have my students think about is this: when
> faced with a scientific issue where you believe X and the other side
> believes Y, what evidence would it take to make you move from X to Y?
>
> So I thought I'd toss this out to the AGW discussion:
>
> - if you believe in AGW, what evidence would make you change your
> mind?
>
> - if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
> demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
> likely to be correct?
I'm skeptical as to exactly how much A is causing GW, but GW
itself has me concerned. My biggest concern is the melting
ice cover and lower reflectivity, a nasty feedback loop.
--Tedward
McMahone
Interesting question
> - if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
> demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
> likely to be correct?
For starters, I don't really understand why we can have global
warming, but the actual temperatures aren't warmer. I had the data
from the 1900s from all over America (and from about 1950 forward from
S. America and Africa). Doing decade by decade averaging, I found the
30s to be the hottest decade of the 1900s--and the 90s finished about
4th. And the 90s weren't even the hottest in foreign data banks. So
if the Earth's temperature is getting hotter, why isn't it getting
hotter in at least one actual location I can find. That frustrated me
a good bit when the whole stuff was starting 10 years ago.
Simply being open about the data would be a big difference maker as
well. This whole business of saying "I'm not going to show my data
because you might find something wrong with it" is way outside the
bounds of science in my book.
The difficulty is that I don't know what studies to trust -- and since
some of the studies agree with what little I could do with the data I
had, I'm having a hard time buying the other.
Politically: I'd like to see some of those who claim they believe it's
a serious problem propose some things that could actually help in the
short run -- like building nuclear power plants. If we'd started that
10 years ago, we could have a good group up and running now -- and be
drastically reducing carbon emissions. But those who claim this is a
serious problem also seem to consistently oppose any solution that
might work that doesn't involve drastic gov't control--which makes me
very suspicious. Yes, I know there are other problems with nuclear
and that it's not cheap -- but it is the one tech we know will work
now.
Marty
Marty
Zaphod Beeblebrox
11/24/2009 2:05 PM???
> ...so I'm teaching a class this semester called "Astronomical
> Arguments". it's about how scientists work through competing theories.
> we start w/ the Copernican Revolution, talk about the distances to
> galaxies, the development of the Big Bang model, the argument in the
> late 19th/early20th century about what powers the sun, etc. we also
> talk about modern debates: dark matter, dark energy, alternative
> gravity. Is Pluto a planet? What killed the dinosaurs, that kind of
> stuff. It's a seminar class and it's fun getting the students thinking
> about the scientific process. we talk a bit about biases, funding, and
> policy issues as well.
>
> I specifically *dont* get into things like AGW, evolution, and other
> things outside my area of expertise.
>
> But one of the questions I have my students think about is this: when
> faced with a scientific issue where you believe X and the other side
> believes Y, what evidence would it take to make you move from X to Y?
>
> So I thought I'd toss this out to the AGW discussion:
>
> - if you believe in AGW, what evidence would make you change your
> mind?
>
> - if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
> demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
> likely to be correct?
>
Well, that's a really tough question because it assumes that I'm
knowledgeable enough about the field to make an intelligent decision.
OK, my training obliges me to keep an open mind. However, this is not
really my area of expertise, so I guess the biggest factor in my
decision would be (1) how the "experts" in the field felt, and (2) the
degree of agreement by the experts in the field. So if a significant
majority of climatologists (or whatever scientific experts are relevant)
and statisticians (who are trained to interpret data) feel that the data
pointed one way, but a bunch of journalists or radio talk show hosts or
Hoover or - for that matter - AlGore, felt it pointed the opposite way -
I'd definitely lean in favor of the scientists...
> This questions aren't so much about strict proof, but rather about
> whether you believe a specific model is likely to be true.
I think the answer to this is very highly correlated with the degree of
knowledge you have about the model...
Michael Press
<b4acdc84-0b31-43e1...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Chris Mihos <cmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - if you believe in AGW, what evidence would make you change your
> mind?
>
> - if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
> demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
> likely to be correct?
Bzzzt! You phrase this in terms of belief.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Do not worry. We are in the midst of an ice age that
started 2-3 million years ago with no forseeable end.
It probably began with the formation of the isthmus
between North and South America. There is not enough
warm water circulation to the Arctic to keep it from
freezing up. At that time Antarctica froze over, and
remains frozen to this day. We are at the end of an
interglacial period.
Coming soon! The Return of the Continental Ice Sheets.
--
Michael Press
Chris Mihos
> In article
> <b4acdc84-0b31-43e1-a923-38eea45bb...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Chris Mihos <cmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - if you believe in AGW, what evidence would make you change your
> > mind?
>
> > - if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
> > demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
> > likely to be correct?
>
> Bzzzt! You phrase this in terms of belief.
>
How else should it be phrased?
Unclaimed Mysteries
He's riffing on a wingnut talking point about liberals having no
foundation for their opinions than fuzzy beliefs.
-cls
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
What Does A Yellow Light Mean?
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/blog
Michael Press
<080e4909-9790-4f6d...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Chris Mihos <cmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 1:36 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b4acdc84-0b31-43e1-a923-38eea45bb...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chris Mihos <cmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > - if you believe in AGW, what evidence would make you change your
> > > mind?
> >
> > > - if you don't believe in AGW, or you don't believe AGW has been
> > > demonstrated, what evidence would make you believe that AGW is in fact
> > > likely to be correct?
> >
> > Bzzzt! You phrase this in terms of belief.
> >
>
> How else should it be phrased?
No discussion of belief is possible, so
do not bring it up.
--
Michael Press