Gulf Stream slowdown

[SteveK]

1600 years ago, like yesterday in science.
After all science has determined the age of the earth.

scientists estimate that the Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old

4.5 Billion, give or take a few million.

Carbon dating got a remake last year, some things are older, some are younger. Accurate to 50-60,000 years.
Even the internet can be dated back some 50+ years.
So 1600 years ago, like it was yesterday.
Science, scientology, it is a religion.

 

[FF]

"There is a lot of junk published, where we laugh privately and say to ourselves "no one could possibly be foolish enough to believe THAT."


This is the science of PM.

Perception Management, in the past only a few had the pull to create what folks will think/believe about a subject
.
Kings, Popes. Dictators had the megaphone and supporters to create the "truth".

Today big tech has replaced governments as the source of information and so creates the "truth".

Anyone with a differing viewpoint is silenced by not having a voice.

If we wish to continue as a democratic republic the internet must be reopened to all.


As always, Eternal Vigilance is called for.

 

[KnotYet]

This thread could be used as a list of (some) people you hope never to look up at in the OR!

 

[Swa]

Or meet in a parking lot for some dentistry work

 

[FF]

One big con is the mix of MM with pollution.

Pollution is using your well as an outhouse , the MM con is mowing the lawn cuts down on CO2 mitigation.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,

Mr. FF. MM? You mean Man Made Climate Change?

 

[Hippocampus]

Wish the folks having trouble processing science had some basic understanding of how it works.

First the very basic way it works. The scientific method gives you a probability as a conclusion. Not an absolute fact. Rather a working fact. That fact can change with a paradigm shift. The probability of your working fact can be very high as in physics and engineering or lower as in biology and medicine.
The basic proof is a null hypothesis. The basic conclusion is “X is more likely than not at this probability “. For different branches of science the accepted probability varies. For instance in medicine a confidence level of 5% is commonly used I.e, this result is likely to be UNTRUE one out of twenty times.
At no time EVER, past or present, is science or a scientific statement not under constant questioning. The very basic way it works is that you set up a paradigm. You then do experiments and make observations. If just one experiment or observation can’t be explained by your paradigm or discounted by review and discovery of operative confounders or poor technique you’re forced to throw out your paradigm. Please read Thomas Kuhn to understand paradigm shifts.
Every time there’s been a major paradigm shift some people have trouble accepting it.
Catholic Church and the shift from a geocentric universe.
Folks still holding to creationism although Darwin’s origin of the species was more than a century ago.
General field theory although we still live under mutual assured destruction.
MMCC is such a paradigm shift.

 

[O C Diver]

Wish the folks having trouble processing science had some basic understanding of how it works.

First the very basic way it works. The scientific method gives you a probability as a conclusion. Not an absolute fact. Rather a working fact. That fact can change with a paradigm shift. The probability of your working fact can be very high as in physics and engineering or lower as in biology and medicine.
The basic proof is a null hypothesis. The basic conclusion is “X is more likely than not at this probability “. For different branches of science the accepted probability varies. For instance in medicine a confidence level of 5% is commonly used I.e, this result is likely to be UNTRUE one out of twenty times.
At no time EVER, past or present, is science or a scientific statement not under constant questioning. The very basic way it works is that you set up a paradigm. You then do experiments and make observations. If just one experiment or observation can’t be explained by your paradigm or discounted by review and discovery of operative confounders or poor technique you’re forced to throw out your paradigm. Please read Thomas Kuhn to understand paradigm shifts.
Every time there’s been a major paradigm shift some people have trouble accepting it.
Catholic Church and the shift from a geocentric universe.
Folks still holding to creationism although Darwin’s origin of the species was more than a century ago.
General field theory although we still live under mutual assured destruction.
MMCC is such a paradigm shift.

So then doesn't the scientific community have an obligation to tell the far left these things are possibilities / probabilities when the left screams "Settled Science, Climate Change Deniers"?

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

Settled science is the established working fact. Things like
DNA is the code for life in eukaryotes.
Or e=mc2
Or the current ongoing evolution of climate is impacted by mans actions.

Once again I implore you to actually read the International governmental report on climate change reports . Until you do you’re operating with second and third hand information. That tends to be quite distorted.

 

[kthoennes]

Isn't "settled science" an oxymoron?

 

[Hippocampus]

There is no emotion in science. Scientists only obligation is to produce good science. Political beliefs, religious beliefs, philosophies all have no standing. It is what is is. What you do with it is your own business.
As KY quotes science has no interest in what you or anyone else believes. It only wants further understanding that allows progressively better predictions.
I predict if I give this drug I’ll get this result. The accuracy of my prediction is X%.
I predict if I add these chemicals together the result is this chemical. The accuracy is X%.

 

[Hippocampus]

Newtonian physics is just plain wrong. The work of Einstein, Planck etc. resulted in a paradigm shift. However Newtonian physics is adequate to fly a plane, build a bridge, understand how a curveball works.
Mendel and his sweet peas or Darwin on the Galapagos offered only the grossest of understanding of evolution and genetics. They didn’t know about DNA/RNA, histones or modifier genes. But that’s been adequate to predict outcomes when breeding farm animals, pets or food stuffs. We do it a hell of a lot better with our current understanding.
Science evolves. A working fact is still a working fact even after a paradigm shift. But after the shift you get a deeper understanding of where it fits into the puzzle of reality.

Settled science is settled science. Then you build on it.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. kt. I agree with the term "settled science" as a working proposition but like the phrase "terra firma", it is until it isn't.

 

[O C Diver]

Settled science is the established working fact. Things like
DNA is the code for life in eukaryotes.
Or e=mc2
Or the current ongoing evolution of climate is impacted by mans actions.

Once again I implore you to actually read the International governmental report on climate change reports . Until you do you’re operating with second and third hand information. That tends to be quite distorted.

A man is brought into a hospital with low blood pressure. The doctor orders a drug to raise it. The nurse says, "shouldn't we address the severed foot from which he is bleeding out?"

The climate continues to change without the impact of man. Man has an impact on the climate. At what point do the scientists follow the science to the logical conclusion that there is an over population of humans on the planet and an impact on the climate is one symptom. I guess that's politically incorrect. Tell me again science isn't impacted by politics.

Btw, reduce the human population of the planet to the level in 1928 and over 75% of human impact on the planet and environment goes away.

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

OC that’s a discussion totally outside science. How do you propose to act on your premise? My opinion (not science based) is you can’t. Are you a supporter of planned parenthood? Given the resistance to that intervention, GMOs and all similar aspects of society unless you want a one child program in a authoritarian dictatorship like mainland China don’t see it happening here. Given cultural norms in the undeveloped countries don’t see it happening there either.
But you’re also not differentiating between pure science and applied science. Medicine and engineering is applied science. It advances when there’s a perceived need and funding. Yes, politics is a driver as is economics. In your ER case you’re trained to do ABC. Airway, breathing, circulation all at once then triage your focus. Circulation means you stop the bleeding, give volume and pressors all at once. Your example isn’t representative of what occurs in an ER.
The meteorology you get from NOAA or your weather router is applied science. The investigation of climate (not weather) is pure science and goes where it goes as it evolves. The distinction between weather and climate is often overlooked as demonstrated by some of the above posts.

 

[boathealer]

Settled science is the established working fact. Things like
DNA is the code for life in eukaryotes.
Or e=mc2
Or the current ongoing evolution of climate is impacted by mans actions.

Once again I implore you to actually read the International governmental report on climate change reports . Until you do you’re operating with second and third hand information. That tends to be quite distorted.

The words "settled science" connote finality. This is not the case as with all science - rarely final.

These words are used by those in politics and others as a baseball bat and censuring tool to shut down any opposition, factual or otherwise - assigning a meaning to "settled" as finalized.

This is a very bad way to refer to "working facts", "current thinking" or "majority of the evidence", etc.

Scientific reports that do not agree with the "current thinking" are not second and third-hand information, or 'distorted', BTW. I fear you have the same interpretation of "settled science" as the media and green-party politicians.

 

[Hippocampus]

You’re making many assumptions about a person you don’t know. I’m old enough to have experienced many paradigm shifts in my field of both bench(pure) science and applied science. You’re also not defining what you perceive as “scientific reports “.
I’m curious. Have you read the IPCC? Please do. That would help you see how that science has evolved overtime.
BTW my politics are devoid of political party affiliation. My first requirement is having a moral, honest, pragmatic and intelligent individual. Unfortunately that’s so hard to find in either party at present. So try for the good not the ideal. Historically that’s resulted in about equal red and blue votes and multiple third party votes as well. Remain optimistic the Hegelian dialectic will continue to evolve so we will get better.

But my science is devoid of political considerations.

 

[Northern Spy]

There is no emotion in science. Scientists only obligation is to produce good science. Political beliefs, religious beliefs, philosophies all have no standing. It is what is is. What you do with it is your own business.
As KY quotes science has no interest in what you or anyone else believes. It only wants further understanding that allows progressively better predictions.
I predict if I give this drug I’ll get this result. The accuracy of my prediction is X%.
I predict if I add these chemicals together the result is this chemical. The accuracy is X%.

So every scientist is altruistic?

They, unlike us mere mortals, resist tenure, raises, funding, bigger lab budgets, and ego stroking by media articles giving them their fifteen minutes of fame?

Let's be honest, few (not many) scientist are downright attention whores and strive to manipulate public opinion.

Maybe if some scientists (the ones in the public spotlight) wore their sponsors logo on their lab coats like a race car driver we could take some of their pronouncements a bit more sceptically.

I believe in climate change, I believe that we as humans have affected the rate of climate change. I remain very sceptical of the dour predictions as they do not seem based upon consequence or likelihood. Usually such predictions or taken out of context by journalists or politicians.

Personally, I believe that much of the gratitude should be reserved for the engineers that apply science. It will be this group of people that will keep our world functioning more or less.

We have much larger societal or existential problems than MMCC that should be addressed, but are not, as they aren't as sticky as MMCC to media and politicians. The world leadership's handling of COVID, leaves me wondering if intergovernmental organizations can manage anything.

Most of the scientists I've ever interacted with say things like "We don't know, but we are trying to figure it out", or " We think this might be happening".

Science is merely a methodology of discovering new areas of human ignorance. It is a humbling process, not an arrogant one.

Most of the people that tell me that I am anti-science have an arts degree of some sort. I find that arrogant.

Yes. I have read the IPCC. Looking forward to AR6.

 

[boathealer]

You’re making many assumptions about a person you don’t know. I’m old enough to have experienced many paradigm shifts in my field of both bench(pure) science and applied science. You’re also not defining what you perceive as “scientific reports “.
I’m curious. Have you read the IPCC? Please do. That would help you see how that science has evolved overtime.
BTW my politics are devoid of political party affiliation. My first requirement is having a moral, honest, pragmatic and intelligent individual. Unfortunately that’s so hard to find in either party at present. So try for the good not the ideal. Historically that’s resulted in about equal red and blue votes and multiple third party votes as well. Remain optimistic the Hegelian dialectic will continue to evolve so we will get better.

But my science is devoid of political considerations.

Yes, I have read the IPCC report.

There were assumptions and predictions made early on that have already shown themselves to not have come to pass. The changes to the report over time show this. This very fact could lead one to suspect some of the remaining models, claims and assumptions, no?

I don't disagree with the general consensus that there is climate change and humans are contributing to SOME of the change. What I disagree with is the (implied) "Directive" that we must immediately hurt people to stave off the destruction of our entire existence.

Add to that that the IPCC IS governmental and therefore politics are necessarily involved. Climate scientists, like all humans in an agenda-driven (even if 'scientific') body, can be biased. There have also been claims of corruption.

I don't disagree with the general consensus that there IS climate change and humans are contributing to SOME of the change. To what extent that contribution has occurred is not "settled science" in my opinion due to flawed assumptions, inaccurate predictions (already proven), politics. Many other scientists and scholars are calling out these problems (likely distorted, though, right?).

Yes, we should be doing all we can to reduce CO2 emissions - no one (I don't think) is arguing that. Killing jobs and destroying peoples lives in the name of "saving the planet" is, however, ludicrous at this point, given the extent of what we know FOR SURE (not assumptions, not model predictions). "We have X years left to avoid a crisis! Oh, my!".

This is the same thing I said over 2 years ago: https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=815102&postcount=28

This whole area of "science", whether you like it or not, has become an "industry" and is somewhat self-supporting and self-fulfilling. This, with its own ecosystem, can't help but self-propagate a bias. Alarmists gaming the system for political power makes it all the worse.

It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true (Waddington, 1941).​

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. OC. "... logical conclusion that there is an over population of humans on the planet..." That's not a logical conclusion, at all, IMO. Indiscriminate waste is one of the major problems. There are billions upon billions of $$ just sitting in landfills, worldwide. Stuff that can recycled and/or re-used.


Making substantially better use (the 3 R's) of limited resources (fossil fuels, ores and water etc.) will go a LONG way to remediating the current ills. One factor to also consider is the unequal use of said resources AND the imbalance of $$ between have and have not nations.


Forget about 1928. Consider the depression during the 30's. VERY little wastage there. A good number of people couldn't afford to simply throw stuff out and buy new so they used and re-used every little bit. Stuff was repaired, not tossed and replace with the latest gadget/fashion/appliance or car. Try and find someone to repair your toaster or re-sole your shoes today.


I'm curious where you found the statistic in your last comment..."1928/75%"? Link perhaps?

 

[socalrider]

Yes, we should be doing all we can to reduce CO2 emissions - no one (I don't think) is arguing that.

I think a lot of people here are arguing exactly that.

Killing jobs and destroying peoples lives in the name of "saving the planet" is, however, ludicrous at this point, given the extent of what we know FOR SURE (not assumptions, not model predictions). "We have X years left to avoid a crisis! Oh, my!".

The frustrating thing about this to me is that what we are looking at is a tremendous opportunity for wealth creation. For example, shifting from digging coal and oil out of the ground to producing power from renewable sources results in all sorts of benefits. Maybe without all the mercury pollution it'll be safe to eat Ahi sashimi more than once per month. Electric cars are amazing now that batteries are better.

We don't need to cripple the economy to make this transition. On the contrary! Just look at how many coal mining jobs there are versus wind turbine technicians. How would you rather be employed?

 

[boathealer]

On the contrary! Just look at how many coal mining jobs there are versus wind turbine technicians. How would you rather be employed?

Maybe ask the thousands of pipeline workers who are just now out of a job? How should they feed their families? Or the coal miners now on welfare from the last wave of "green" decisions. I guess they should all go out and "learn how to code" or go make solar panels in China.

There is a real-people and economic side to all this "science" that none of the decision-makers seem to care about. There is a way to do this without cannibalizing current technologies and industry, but it is not politically-expedient to research and investigate the solutions.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. b. Yes, those displaced by "green" decisions can and should be retrained BUT who is willing to spend the $$ to do so? I can see any government attempting to do so being chastised for wasting $$.

 

[boathealer]

Greetings,
Mr. b. Yes, those displaced by "green" decisions can and should be retrained BUT who is willing to spend the $$ to do so? I can see any government attempting to do so being chastised for wasting $$.

RT - My guess is those displaced people would not be chastising anyone for allowing for them to be part of the solution.

I would also venture to guess that nearly all of them would be more than happy to initiate and fund the career-change process themselves if given more than a few hours notice that they would be "displaced". Piss-poor politics and planning.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. b. I'm quite sure the chastising would not come from the new trainees. It would come from those who seem to criticize EVERY government program started to better the lot of people's lives as a waste of $$.

 

[richard_wb]

"Maybe ask the thousands of pipeline workers who are just now out of a job? "

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keystone-pipeline-biden/

 

[KnotYet]

"Maybe ask the thousands of pipeline workers who are just now out of a job? "

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keystone-pipeline-biden/

And those 50 workers that actually did lose their jobs are PISSED!

 

[O C Diver]

OC that’s a discussion totally outside science. How do you propose to act on your premise? My opinion (not science based) is you can’t. Are you a supporter of planned parenthood? Given the resistance to that intervention, GMOs and all similar aspects of society unless you want a one child program in a authoritarian dictatorship like mainland China don’t see it happening here. Given cultural norms in the undeveloped countries don’t see it happening there either.
But you’re also not differentiating between pure science and applied science. Medicine and engineering is applied science. It advances when there’s a perceived need and funding. Yes, politics is a driver as is economics. In your ER case you’re trained to do ABC. Airway, breathing, circulation all at once then triage your focus. Circulation means you stop the bleeding, give volume and pressors all at once. Your example isn’t representative of what occurs in an ER.
The meteorology you get from NOAA or your weather router is applied science. The investigation of climate (not weather) is pure science and goes where it goes as it evolves. The distinction between weather and climate is often overlooked as demonstrated by some of the above posts.

The patient analogy was't meant to represent the medical field, just point out that sometimes you don't take diagnosis to the final cause, instead you treat the symptoms.

I have no plan for dealing with the over population of the planet, that will take a catastrophic event. However, even you have to realize the human population has a sustainable limit (whether we have passed it or not).

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

Academic science is as cut throat political as it can get. Scientists are humans and from me or Pilou you can stories how ego, self interest, interpersonal animosities make it hard to move forward. Still there are constrained formats that permit and in fact force forward movement.
The IPCC reports evolve. With each one the understanding is deeper and the predictions have better confidence levels so improve.science forces you to admit incorrect assumptions, accepted confounders and improve. This is very obvious if you’ve been following those reports.
Why does this occur in spite of the venality of the parties involved? First it’s publish or perish. If you don’t get your grants approved you don’t have monies coming into your lab and even if you have life long tenure you’re not a player. Getting grant approval depends on where your project is prioritize on a list. Funding agencies start at the top and work their way down until all funds are dispersed. You may spend weeks or even months writing a grant proposal only to have it not funded.
Sure the granting agencies may be influenced by politics but they are under great pressure to meet their mandate. If they don’t they get fired. Their mandate is to fund good science that furthers the advancement of knowledge in their field. So they pick studies that are of interest and inform the research of other scientists in that field. They don’t want to waste money so look at length at the validity of the methodology that grant proposal will use. They look at the supporting literature. But they often fund grants with novel thinking looking for paradigm shifts.
In academic science if you don’t get grants you don’t publish. That means if you don’t publish your soon out the door. Your institution judges your performance by your publications. Where they where published, how many, how often your studies are cited by other scientists. In short your production and reputation.
Editors of the journals will send out a proposed article about a study to other scientists in that field (peer review). Depending upon that critique (mostly aimed at whether the methodology meets standards) they will then prioritize it in view of their judgment as to its interest to their subscribers. Once they run out of space in their journal it’s shelved. But the first step in all fields is making the cut on the strength of the science. This is usually determined by methodology.
All papers in all fields have variations of the same basic format.
Introduction-brief recount of what’s known and not known. Why you undertook the study. What you’re trying to prove or disprove. Why that’s important to know.
Methodology- exactly how you ran your study. Exactly how you’re going to look at the results (usually your statistics). You need to do this before the study as determining this beforehand gets rid of the opportunity for many of the biases referred to in prior posts.
Results- your data set and your statistics.
Conclusions- what your study proved or disproved and the limitations of your study in making inferences.
Discussion- where to go from here. How this result fits into the big picture. What would be interesting to look at now you have the result from this study.

The big bugaboo in science is to eliminate bias. Observation bias, sampling bias, incorrect statistics applied, so called type 1 or type 2 errors etc. in science bias has a somewhat different usage than in common speech. It’s anything that distorts your data collection so your observations don’t reflect what’s really going on. Papers are not published or are withdrawn if bias that could influence results are detected. Climate science is the same as other science. A poor study is a poor study. A bad paper is a bad paper. As new things are shared old ways of thinking are discarded. It’s very messy and quite argumentative. From the outside it looks like everything is being questioned and nothing is agreed on. But that’s not true. Overtime a consensus is achieved. Sure there are those that remain outside that consensus.
The overwhelming consensus is that MMCC is occurring and will result in deleterious results for mankind. What to do about that is up to agencies outside the scientific community. Science can help inform multinationals, governments, and the public in the hopes we make good decisions. But it’s not science’s purview to make those decisions.

 

[O C Diver]

Greetings,
Mr. OC. "... logical conclusion that there is an over population of humans on the planet..." That's not a logical conclusion, at all, IMO. Indiscriminate waste is one of the major problems. There are billions upon billions of $$ just sitting in landfills, worldwide. Stuff that can recycled and/or re-used.


Making substantially better use (the 3 R's) of limited resources (fossil fuels, ores and water etc.) will go a LONG way to remediating the current ills. One factor to also consider is the unequal use of said resources AND the imbalance of $$ between have and have not nations.


Forget about 1928. Consider the depression during the 30's. VERY little wastage there. A good number of people couldn't afford to simply throw stuff out and buy new so they used and re-used every little bit. Stuff was repaired, not tossed and replace with the latest gadget/fashion/appliance or car. Try and find someone to repair your toaster or re-sole your shoes today.


I'm curious where you found the statistic in your last comment..."1928/75%"? Link perhaps?

Mr. RT,
With all do respect, you need to stick your head in the ocean. I've done it all my working life. We are systematically depleting the oceans of their animal diversity and polluting them in the process. 100 years ago the Chesapeake bay was clear, teaming with life and vegetation. It's now a brown cesspool. The third world countries are doing the same thing to their jungles. When you deplete species like the salmon population to the point where you have to farm them in the ocean, that should be a clear message that the problem goes far beyond fossil fuels and water.

Regarding 1928 / 75%:
In 1928 the estimated world population was 2 billion. Less than 100 years later, it's very close to 8 billion. If you removed 75% of the population and associated stuff, theoretically you remove 75% of man's impact on the planet. If done in a thoughtful way, the reduction would be greater as you would likely leave all the green energy power generation and likely eliminate coal, nuclear and fuel oil power production, leaving natural gas to cover shortages. Taking that approach to the rest of man's impact on the planet, might get you above 80%.



Ted