Can we really Save the Planet

[OnMyWay]

On 12/24/2019 at 1:54 PM, Heeb said:

So NASA is is putting out junk science now?

I don't know.  Are they?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[GeoffH]

8 minutes ago, Jack D said:

I got it too. I have only 5 billion years to worry about it. 

I loved my Y2K work, since it was easy money for me to work as a consultant,  testing already Y2K compliant PC’s and programs.

Can't leave it until the last billion years though... 

Most of what I was doing was boring, repetitious BIOS upgrades... machine after machine.

 

[Dave Hounddriver]

On 12/24/2019 at 10:30 AM, Tommy T. said:

I can attest that the science studied there was honest and productive. When NOAA speaks, people should listen

NOAH thought the same.

How can you people all swallow "Science" when history has shown us that the bulk of "Science" changes from generation to generation?  So the latest "Science" is global . .  "insert your word here".  Woopee!  Lets all get on that bandwagon.  They must know what they are doing because they put a man on the moon.  They are pretty smart fellers.  Lets get rid of God and trust scientists.

Next thing you know, people will be trusting politicians.  They are smart fellers too. 

Sorry if I am ridculing your faith, science people.  Others do it to my faith all the time.  You'll get used to it.

[Heeb]

1 hour ago, OnMyWay said:

I don't know.  Are they?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

What I got from that article is that it’s been increasing for the last 10,0000 years but the growth rate has slowed and may be reversed soon. Here’s a snippet from the article.

”But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

[OnMyWay]

11 minutes ago, Heeb said:

What I got from that article is that it’s been increasing for the last 10,0000 years but the growth rate has slowed and may be reversed soon. Here’s a snippet from the article.

”But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

I just noticed that the article was from 2015, then updated in 2017.

Another take away might be:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

So, they really don't know what is causing sea level rise and the IPCC report was wrong.  They will need more money to study it.

I don't mind spending money to study it, but I would like to see more money spent fixing the pollution problems of the oceans.  IMHO climate change doom and gloom is being used as a political tool to get votes.  They are exaggerating the problem to get votes and power that allow them to advance other unrelated ideologies / policies I don't like.

[GeoffH]

2 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

How can you people all swallow "Science" when history has shown us that the bulk of "Science" changes from generation to generation? 

<SNIP>

Sorry if I am ridculing your faith, science people.  Others do it to my faith all the time.  You'll get used to it.

It is possible to have faith in God and still believe in science (I do) and I don't believe I've ridiculed any one else's faith in the process (if I have then I apologize).

But I don't have 'faith' in science, faith implies a belief system and science isn't about belief.

Science is about research and learning so yes it changes as the testing creates different results.

I could point to Newton... was he wrong?  Some would say yes, but most would say not wrong (not right, just not wrong).  His theories were correct within the limits of his measuring ability.  Einstein has been shown to be more testable and more accurate.  Is he right?  Is he wrong?  Don't know and it doesn't matter.  What matters is if the 'theory' (which doesn't mean what most people think it does) produces repeatable and testable results.

And increasingly the 'theory' of global climate change is passing more and more tests, agreeing with more and more research being done and modeling is increasingly following real world trends closer and closer.

In science that means that even if the underlying 'theory' isn't in all details correct (like Newton) it can still be used to produce reliable predictions.

And those reliable predictions say that climate change is being caused and increased in severity primarily by increasing CO2 levels and that the increase in global CO2 level is primarily being driven by Man made influences.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by GeoffH

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, GeoffH said:

But I don't have 'faith' in science, faith implies a belief system and science isn't about belief.

 

1 hour ago, GeoffH said:

it can still be used to produce reliable predictions.

What is a prediction, if not a belief?  Do you believe the prediction or not?

Some applied science is about fact and prediction.  That science is the basis of a belief system.  They can prove "A" thus they believe "B".

Other science is about fact and conclusion.  That is provable.  I can prove that 1 + 2 = 3 thus I conclude that 3 - 2 = 1.  That latter kind of science isn't about belief.  I suggest people try not to confuse the two.

Math and chemistry are pure sciences whereas applied science uses portions of basic science to develop interventions.  The science which predicts man's contribution to global climate change is applied science.  It may be true but it requires a leap of faith to believe it.

 

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

 

What is a prediction, if not a belief?  Do you believe the prediction or not?

Some applied science is about fact and prediction.  That science is the basis of a belief system.  They can prove "A" thus they believe "B".

Other science is about fact and conclusion.  That is provable.  I can prove that 1 + 2 = 3 thus I conclude that 3 - 2 = 1.  That latter kind of science isn't about belief.  I suggest people try not to confuse the two.

Math and chemistry are pure sciences whereas applied science uses portions of basic science to develop interventions.  The science which predicts man's contribution to global climate change is applied science.  It may be true but it requires a leap of faith to believe it.

 

I don't 'believe' the predication, a belief is a feeling of truth held without evidence.

I accept the strong probability or if your prefer likely hood that the prediction will come true.

As for the whole applied science vs theoretical science I've always fallen into the camp that believes (as an applied science technician type) that the distinction is meaningless.  Science is science, one type is figuring out what to do and the other type is doing it.  They're just different stages in the process in my book.

But you're entitled to your views and I would defend our right to hold them if necessary, no matter if I agree or disagree with them.  That's part of living in a free country. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by GeoffH

[Marvin Boggs]

4 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

NOAH thought the same.

How can you people all swallow "Science" when history has shown us that the bulk of "Science" changes from generation to generation?  So the latest "Science" is global . .  "insert your word here".  Woopee!  Lets all get on that bandwagon.  They must know what they are doing because they put a man on the moon.  They are pretty smart fellers.  Lets get rid of God and trust scientists.

Next thing you know, people will be trusting politicians.  They are smart fellers too. 

Sorry if I am ridculing your faith, science people.  Others do it to my faith all the time.  You'll get used to it.

This is the point I was trying to drive the discussion toward.  On its face, the 'data' can be interpreted different ways, and it IS interpreted different ways -- according to funding, political whims, and those with various agendas.  A 'consensus' of science on a particularly complex topic ought to inherently make us realize something is off.  Every decade since the '60s has had an alarmist scare, which coincidentally required more tax dollars to solve.  Science has flip flopped so many times, it can be difficult to take them seriously.  I would LIKE to take them seriously, but I must evaluate a range of viewpoints on any given matter before simply "trusting NASA".  

These issues which may or may not affect all life on the planet can, and must, be carefully studied and considered.  But I do not for one second think that the 'research' on these matters is un-biased.  Look at any of the critical scientific breakthrough discoveries that went against the mainstream consensus of their time, such as helio-centrism proposed by Copernicus.

The policy makers would have you believe that humanity's only chance of survival is to give them all your money and let them pretty much control every aspect of your life. 

[Kuya John]

7 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

Rainfall?

Flooding and heavy rains rise 50% worldwide in a decade, figures show | Environment | The Guardian