When They Tell You The Science Is In, It Never Is

[Aloysius]

Science is a tool (as in instrument, not a troll)... I know, coz I once worked in a company that's studying weather and oceans.. As you know I have spent my entire free time telling keyboard warriors what science is all about.

 

People use Science to support their objective findings, lessor people abuse science to support their subjective opinion. You are better than that Aloy.. Don't quote individual research and say that's the last say. It doesn't work that way, Science is more complicated than that.

 

There are reports saying Australia students rank badly in both Science and Maths. If the experts are right about the future world is a world of automation and AI, these are the two skills Australia need in order to be productive again.

 

Granted few are privileged enough to be exposed to some of these things like I did.

 

But if you can appreciate from my perspective, imagine boiling your kettle for your cuppa. Look at the wattage of your kettle (prob 1000W and over). Now look at that amount of energy expended to heat just 1.2 to 1.5 L of water to boiling point. Look at how long it takes to turn water from room temperature to boiling point.

 

Think of that volume of water, the difference in temperature from boiling to room, the energy that is used to heat up the water, and the energy that is wasted. Appreciate just how inefficient water actually is to take on heat.


Transfer that to the huge body of ocean (The ocean is so big and vast people despite everything, still can't even find a missing Malaysia Airlines plane).

 

Now imagine how much 0.1 degree rise in that volume of water actually means in terms of energy. People who understood so far will realise in shock and horror will realise that 0.1 degree rise means in terms of energy. 

 

But wait, it doesn't stop there, is it possible that warmer water actually freezes faster than colder water? Google Mpemba effect.

 

 

I agree - my point is that the science is never in, that people use science to support their particular faith - that which cannot be proved but can be believed.

 

The establishment climate scientists have their faith too, and  contrary "facts" are denied - the very same behaviour they accuse "non - Believers" of.

 

The science can believed - the modelling and faith based conjecture is open to question.

 

There seems to  be some belief that modelling and conjecture is fact - it isn't as many of the previous dire predictions in the past made by these self styled gurus (faith again) failed to materialise.

 

Those are facts too - claims and predictions made in faith in the "modelling" have not all come to pass. 

 

Should we discount those facts, or should we maintain a healthy scepticism?

 

Thank you for your considered post - I can but agree with your sentiments about our failure to support and encourage the science subject in the education systems - it appears to be more about having a good time.

 

My grandkids have the good fortune to go to a very culturally diverse school - the lead shown by parents of asian origin kids is exemplary in their commitment to excellence particularly in science subjects.

[treblid]

I agree - my point is that the science is never in, that people use science to support their particular faith - that which cannot be proved but can be believed.

There is a distinction between "science is never in" vs "peoples' opinion never is".

 

The establishment climate scientists have their faith too, and  contrary "facts" are denied - the very same behaviour they accuse "non - Believers" of.

What? Like Pauline Hanson's stunt that the GBR is ok?

 

That stunt is akin to me looking out my bedroom window and state there is no bush fire at all at X or Y.

 

The science can believed - the modelling and faith based conjecture is open to question.


There seems to  be some belief that modelling and conjecture is fact - it isn't as many of the previous dire predictions in the past made by these self styled gurus (faith again) failed to materialise.

 

Those are facts too - claims and predictions made in faith in the "modelling" have not all come to pass.

I'm one of those who believe in the skills and intelligence of the modelers, and I don't do that based on conjecturing what they do, as I actually did work with these physicists.

 

So how do these models work? Well, first, we measure the hell out of the weather system. We then build mathematical models to simulate the weather system of a particular region in a big arse computer. We 'draw' out the coast line, the topography and bathymetry of the region, and then run the model over it.

 

In modelling there are forecasts (predict the weather), and hindcasts (simulate past events). Now with hindcasts we can verify the accuracy of the model, we use the output of these models, and plot a hell lot of graphs and charts to see how the computer simulated values coincide with the actual measured values.

 

With a lot of hardwork and smart people, the models can 

a) Predict the formation of cyclones

B) Predict it's possible path

c) Predict it's wind speed and intensity

d) and more.

 

The problem is the interpretation of language. Layman (which I guess you are), use the word 'predict' in the context of 'foretold'. Scientists use the word predict as in the context of 'forecast'.

 

When something is foretold, you only need faith that it will come to pass. 

 

When something is forecast, it's based on numerical/statistical analysis, and there is a probability this event will happen. 

 

Think of these models as an early warning system, it is not a oracle or a seer. And it is not 'godlike' in the sense it can predict the future.

 

Should we discount those facts, or should we maintain a healthy scepticism?

Yes you should discount those myths.

 

Models are only going to be as good as existing measured data. Thanks to a lot of ignorance. The Australian government actually butchered the industry. Many people in this field are out of the job, some of the brightest have left the country.

 

With no new measured data, the models are going to go outdated over time because the constituents are no longer accurate.

 

 

Thank you for your considered post - I can but agree with your sentiments about our failure to support and encourage the science subject in the education systems - it appears to be more about having a good time.

 

My grandkids have the good fortune to go to a very culturally diverse school - the lead shown by parents of asian origin kids is exemplary in their commitment to excellence particularly in science subjects.

A lot of the jobs of the future will require these skills, at a moment only a small handful of jobs exist today that require these highly trained skills. In the future all the low level jobs you see today will be handled by automation and or other forms of AI.

 

People in the future can no longer rely on traditional blue collar jobs to earn a living in the future - they will all be done by robots. If you think this wouldn't happen in your life time look around. Emerging technologies like self driving cars are already taking hold. Software is already being used diagnose medical conditions. 

 

Australia is ill equipped for this future.

 

Industries of the future is continually being decimated by people of today. People who voted in a government who like them are more focused on looking at some disillusioned past, too fearful to look forward.

[Aloysius]

Thank you for your condescending post Myrantz 

 

I guess my (your) rants is what you are perfectly portraying.

 

On one hand you extol the virtues of modelling and a paragraph later explain it's failures.

 

Well done.

 

As for forecasts and predictions - it really doesn't matter what you call them - if they prove wrong.

[treblid]

Thank you for your condescending post Myrantz 

 

I guess my (your) rants is what you are perfectly portraying.

 

On one hand you extol the virtues of modelling and a paragraph later explain it's failures.

 

Well done.

 

As for forecasts and predictions - it really doesn't matter what you call them - if they prove wrong.

What do you mean it's failures?

 

Let me give you another example. BOM has added a new feature that says chance of rain: X%. And now let's say that number is 50%.

 

How do you prove if it's 50% right, or 50% wrong? And then if you think further again? What are you trying to prove anyway?

 

Your retort of "prove wrong" is exactly like Hanson trying to prove parts of the GBR is not being bleached by only visiting parts of the reef that isn't bleached.

[POWERZONE]

You're not wrong. I vote for releasing more helium into the atmosphere so her voice sounds like a dog whistle and attracts her real supporters. LOL

[Aloysius]

the climate change debate is getting to the point where depending on whoever is in power and what they believe will determine the policy and budgeting till the next election when a new mob comes in and reverses everything the other mob did

 

one thing wont change ... and that is business ...

 

businesses who support green initiatives will reap rewards from the consumers who believe in green energy, it will be as simple as that, and as soon as the more environmentally challenged businesses realise this startling phenomenon they too will reluctantly get on board and advertise that they recycle their water for instance

 

scientists will have no bearing or relevance ... it will all be decided by the consumer

 

 

that is my vision for the future lol

 

 

A democracy of some kind!

[Aloysius]

What do you mean it's failures?

 

Let me give you another example. BOM has added a new feature that says chance of rain: X%. And now let's say that number is 50%.

 

How do you prove if it's 50% right, or 50% wrong? And then if you think further again? What are you trying to prove anyway?

 

Your retort of "prove wrong" is exactly like Hanson trying to prove parts of the GBR is not being bleached by only visiting parts of the reef that isn't bleached.

You appear to want to tie me to Pauline Hanson Myrantz :Cry:

 

Are you modelling another theory that says all those who disagree with your particular belief system automatically share their belief systems? :blink:

 

That's as elitist as your last post! :notworthy:

 

It is also wrong :Talking:  :Talking:  :Talking:

[treblid]

You appear to want to tie me to Pauline Hanson Myrantz :Cry:

If you mean by comparing you to making specious arguments like she always do, then yes.


Apologies if you find that offensive. For better or worse I cannot easily think of any other people who try to put forward an argument without proper basis.


 

Are you modelling another theory that says all those who disagree with your particular belief system automatically share their belief systems? :blink:

 

That's as elitist as your last post!

 

It is also wrong    

If this is indeed a belief system sadly the next generation is not part of this. Thanks to the powers that be, Australia has bred an entire generation who cannot interpret or understand the meaning of graphs and table data. Thanks to the powers that be, we have bred an new generation of people who may well not find work to pay off million dollar houses.

 

BTW, needless to say some of the earlier data models are pretty shocking.. But over a decade of measurements and refinements things are not that bad now, and it will continue to improve. Alas this government fired the entire CSIRO measurement team, so perhaps the private sector can pick up the slack. I don't know what the future is.

 

All I can say is it take decades to come to this, and just a single government term to destroy it. now the brightest people are either retired or will leave this country. Depriving the next generation to learn from the brightest minds in this particular field.

[Aloysius]

Meanwhile the Antarctic ice continues to grow because it's getting warmer?

 

Model that Myrantz!

 

Not sure what argument you are referring to specious or otherwise.

 

My only argument from the original argument was that the climate change folks have among them deniers too.

 

Deniers are apparently not restricted to Climate sceptics.

 

You almost confirm my point with your criticism of "early modelling"

 

 

Gracious it's OK to question Newtonian modelling and Einsteinian modelling - but don't dare question climate change modelling.

 

How does that work?

[treblid]

Meanwhile the Antarctic ice continues to grow because it's getting warmer?


Model that Myrantz!

Why not test this yourself? Put two cups into your freezer, one with hot water, and the other at room temperature. Which one turns into ice first?

 

Not sure what argument you are referring to specious or otherwise.

See about :lol:

 

My only argument from the original argument was that the climate change folks have among them deniers too.

 

Deniers are apparently not restricted to Climate sceptics.

 

You almost confirm my point with your criticism of "early modelling"

Modelling is not new. It's used in other fields too, say economics. All the ABS statistics you see is a form of modelling. How good/bad the economy is doing is the output from a model.

 

Are there economics sceptics? If so, what is their conspiracy theory?


 

Gracious it's OK to question Newtonian modelling and Einsteinian modelling - but don't dare question climate change modelling.

 

How does that work?

You should go on Q&A.. That'd be fun...  Oh wait dejavu...

 

See full episode here.

[Aloysius]

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Montserrat, Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif;">A warning by scientists that solar activity has reached its lowest since 2011 has raised concern that the Sun could reach solar minimum earlier than expected. This has sparked fears that the world could be on the brink of a new mini ice-age.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Montserrat, Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif;">Signs that the Sun could reach solar minimum earlier than previously expected were obtained from images captured by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) between November 14 and 18. The images show the face of the Sun unexpectedly blank, with only very few barely-visible sunspots, as <a class="" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3980462/The-dead-sun-Stunning-Nasa-image-reveals-barren-solar-surface-lowest-level-activity-2011.html">reported</a> by the Daily Mail.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3784712/new-min...FZdGIIj.99

 

Q& A that Myrantz!!  You argue just like the rest of the talking heads.

 

Clever but not wise.

 

The science is never in :Talking:  :Talking:  :Talking:

[treblid]

So you believe Cheyenne MacDonald over Brian Cox?

 

[treblid]

 

tried it .. but i couldnt tell with the door closed

:LMAO:

[Aloysius]

So you believe Cheyenne MacDonald over Brian Cox?

 

Huh?


Sceptics are sceptical!!

[Aloysius]

tried it .. but i couldnt tell with the door closed

An obtuse response to an even more obtuse post!!


Nice!

[treblid]

An obtuse response to an even more obtuse post!!


Nice!

Understood only by a person with an obtuse mind?

 

Gold!

 

Anyway, modelling is about using data of the past to predict the future. And scientists are trying to find ice cores dating back to a million years. (Link)

 

The idea is that by studying the past climate, scientists will able to make more accurate predictions about how it will change in the future.

 

Science is the currency of influence in Antartica huh? In the future Science may well be the currency of influence of the world. If only if Australia students today are good at it. :angry2:

[Aloysius]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/me...ro/8111554

 

Global methane gas emissions are growing at the fastest rate in decades and food production could be to blame, new analysis has revealed.

 

Recent figures show carbon dioxide emissions have plateaued over the past three years, with emissions from fossil fuels and industry projected to grow by just 0.2 per cent this year.

 

New science coming in hey?

 

But because CO2 has plateaued we still need to worry about people growing crops and thereby producing methane.  The bastarrrrrrrrrds!!

[Aloysius]

Understood only by a person with an obtuse mind?

 

Gold!

 

Anyway, modelling is about using data of the past to predict the future. And scientists are trying to find ice cores dating back to a million years. (Link)

 

 

 

Science is the currency of influence in Antartica huh? In the future Science may well be the currency of influence of the world. If only if Australia students today are good at it. :angry2:

 

 

Science has always been the currency of influence!!!!!

 

Science is good!

 

Poor and biased interpretation of science is bad!

 

Elitism is generally bad and almost always unwarranted.

[treblid]

Science has always been the currency of influence!!!!!

Certainly not so in the Australian government. Linky. Can't have carbon trading because it was Labor's idea...  :blink: 


 

Science is good!

 

Poor and biased interpretation of science is bad!

 

Elitism is generally bad and almost always unwarranted.

Calling students poor in STEM isn't elitism, it's supposed to be a wake up call...

[POWERZONE]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/me...ro/8111554
 
[background=#f9f9f9]Global methane gas emissions are growing at the fastest rate in decades and food production could be to blame, new analysis has revealed.[/size][/background]



 
Recent figures show carbon dioxide emissions have plateaued over the past three years[background=#f9f9f9], with emissions from fossil fuels and industry projected to grow by just 0.2 per cent this year.[/size][/background]


 
[background=#f9f9f9]New science coming in hey?[/size][/background]


 
[background=#f9f9f9]But because CO2 has plateaued we still need to worry about people growing crops and thereby producing methane.  The bastarrrrrrrrrds!![/size][/background]

Obviously this bastardy is a good development that can be attributed to alternative power generation then.

Sticking with coal instead of progressing to solar/wind farms wouldn't have produced a fall in emissions.

Your earlier post suggesting the planet is getting cooler is a further testimony.