Science and Inquiry discussion

While Glaciers Slept: Being Human in a Time of Climate Change looks like an interesting approach to dealing with climate change. Here is the Yes Magazine article:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/climate-in...

ETC: Not the NYT.

Thanks for the info, Betsy.

This looks to be an emotional response to climate change which may indeed influence some people.

The problem with such appeals is that it changes the subject from hardcore science to faith and almost religion. I get nervous when people do that.

For example, I was pleased in principle to hear that the pope recently declared his concern for climate change. However, he's not an expert on the subject and might just as easily have gone the other way for all I know. Science and the church do not make easy bedfellows.

Meanwhile, the pope completely ignores one of the major factors in climate change: then number of people on this planet, while his religion actively promotes population growth.

Well said, John. Couldn't agree more with every one of your points, although the pope has a little scientific training. Not that being a chemical lab tech umpteen years ago qualifies him for a scientific opinion.

I totally agree. Population growth is a key point, it's unpopular but true. People are scared by zero growth, but do they think we will exponentially grow to infinite and beyond? and without consequences?
Catholics usually cover me with insults when I try to explain some basic demography and details about the actual situations. And I think that Pope Francis' words won't be accepted by his people.

Jim, I am bothered by your statement. Who is qualified for a scientific opinion?

Mochajunkie wrote: "Jim, I am bothered by your statement. Who is qualified for a scientific opinion?"

People that are current in the particular science(s) under discussion.

I can understand feeling wary about emotional appeals, but in the end, very few are 'really' experts in the science. I have seen criticism of the popes science and economics, however, the appeal to care because of beauty, will likely resonate with more people than either of these (or even his theology). A news article I read on this suggested that the appeal to beauty is more honest too - as much as the science fascinates me, seeing nature motivates me more.
The complex combination of science, economics, politics and climate change's global scale means science alone is not the answer to this. It requires many perspectives, some less appealing/convincing than others, and continued discussion and debate.

The big problem I have with emotional appeals is they dumb down complex problems too much & don't leave much room for discussion or even common sense. Still, I agree with Angus that a problem of this size & complexity needs an emotional appeal. No one, much less a layman can understand all the factors & we need to chip away at what we can as we can.

Unfortunately, religions are hampered by their beliefs which often have no basis in fact. Luckily, most of their sacred writings seem to be vague enough to come around eventually. Let's just hope it doesn't take as long as the slavery issue did for the Christians. We don't have 1500+ years to spare on this one. Judging by the churches in my area, it might take that long. The 3 of the 4 closest ones are Baptists who are rabid creationists. Several have told me that Leviticus is a good guide for living - scary.

Betsy wrote: "While Glaciers Slept: Being Human in a Time of Climate Change looks like an interesting approach to dealing with climate change. Here is the Yes Magazine article:

http://www.yesma..."
Thanks for sharing. Sounds very interesting and unusual. As a person with more of a business and economics background (I try to keep up on science as much as possible, too), sometimes it is hard to establish values without quantitative measures (like money.) So I like her take on having big hearts, as well as big brains. In the end, the big hearts may be our salvation!
I would like to recommend an interesting novel that deals with climate change. It's called "The Greenlanders" by Jane Smiley, and it's set at the beginning of the Little Ice Age that eradicated the Greenlanders of European descent in, was it the fourteenth century? Anyway, it seems to be extremely well researched and made me notice the difference in the ways the European Greenlanders and the Inuit Greenlanders coped with their habitat. Needless to say, the Inuits managed well, with their kayaks, hunting techniques, etc. while those of European descent attempted to cling to their traditional customs, which did not work out too well for them. Very worthwhile read, not really science, but relevant to climate change.

Well, I hadn't expected to read that we might get a mini ice age in 15 years due to solar fluctuation. I don't know enough to have an opinion on its accuracy, though.
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ic...

Jim,

These scare articles are worthless, but of course they are loved by the fossil fuel industry and stoked by ignorant journalists. The solar activity-climate change issue has been put forward by astronomers for some decades. Rigorous analysis shows that solar effects are relatively small and contribute only a few tenths of a degree C to global temperature. Moreover, the solar temperature effect is cyclic: there is a warming effect on part of the cycle and a cooling effect on another part with an 11-year period.

Even in the "little ice age" of the 17th century global temperature dropped by only about 0.5 C, half that of the human induced global warming from fossil fuel burning. So, to get an "ice age" in the current situation within 15 years would require some severe reduction in solar output.

It is not going to happen and serious astronomers know it.

Yes, John, I saw this article that disagrees completely.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_ten...

I had the same impression as Jim.
Unreliable model (based on hypotesis, that are based on other hypotesis. Model built on too few data), debatable correlations, unlikely forecast.
We won't freeze, don't worry.

Jim,

The article you quote does indeed seem to be a balanced discussion of the relevant issues.

Thanks for letting me know of it.

PS On a completely different topic, Pluto flyby was a few hours ago. Incredible, eh?

Pluto - hell yes!!! Awesome!!!

On the climate change articles, I think I found the first one so interesting because I was just reading The Silencers & much of the plot revolved around a scientist who turned traitor because he thought another atomic test would set up harmonic vibrations that would destroy the country.

Otherwise sane & brilliant people sometimes go off the deep end. Do they drop a mental decimal point or something? It's interesting just how easy it is to slip into paranoia.

Jim,

I expect you'll be hearing more about Pluto over the next year, certainly if as I do you check the NASA site from time to time.

Anyway, regarding your comment, 99% of science fiction is impossible. I usually refer to science fiction as "fiction of the impossible"! As you say someone has gone off the deep end, but these are usually ignorant journalists/film directors etc. They are hardly brilliant people.

Just to be clear, you think "99% of science fiction is impossible" not I. Oh, it doesn't happen exactly like the stories anymore than any fiction novel does real life, but an amazing amount is quite possible & some has happened in our lifetimes. One of my favorites was highlighted by the Sony-Apple dust up over their tablets. Apple said they came up with the form factor. Sony pointed to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.



Wow! The Dick Tracey watch is another. Flying cars, private space ships, & many others are coming true. If we ever come up with a FTL drive, all bets are off.
;)

Jim,

You have quoted one example from potentially thousands. Take one of the most popular science fiction programmes, star trek:

matter transfer, faster than light travel, abuse of general relativity etc. etc.

I like star trek, but let's not kid ourselves. Some things might be true by accident, mostly technology. Also, many other things are not obviously wrong, but are not right either.

Anyway, I haven't done a rigorous survey. Perhaps as many as 2% of science fiction is possible, twice what I said last time!

I don't see the flying cars you mention: you don't mean formula 1 racing cars in which the aerodynamics hasn't been calculated properly do you? I don't see private space ships either. Elon Musk's company is comparable in size to a major international company -- its worth billions of dollars. so it's only a private spaceship if you have billions of dollars. Do you? I don't know what an FTL drive is, sounds like fiction to me. You've been watching too many movies!

John, you need to quit taking everything so seriously. I don't even want to discuss anything with you any more.
:(

Evolution of weather forecasts:

Some years ago we had a normal "hot air from Africa", now we have "fearsome anticyclone Caronte with its fiery eye pumping muggy suffucant air from Algery" (literal translation from italian).

Some years ago, maps indicating isotherms across Europe had light blue shades on mountains, green, yellow, orange shades in warmer zones. Red in very hot zones. Today the colours chosen for this map are very different: 20°C areas were orange-yellow, 40°C areas were scarlet red. -60°C were required to have a blue shade. Entire Europe is coloured in deep yellow, orange and red.

Yes, it is a very hot summer, but they want to make it hotter! :)

The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World, just out this month, looks interesting.

Thanks for the pointer, Betsy. This book certainly looks interesting. I'm looking forward to reading it.