[NatureNS] Global Warming - a bit long

References: <20080609191738.ofqz7ai5b2xw04w8@my5.dal.ca>
From: Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dal.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:25:13 -0300
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects

--Apple-Mail-375-760996281
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

Hi everyone:

I do teach all of my first-year students how the scientific method  
works. It has been adequately explained by others. Unlike religion,  
politics, economics, astrology, etc. the scientific method is a  
self-correcting mechanism. It is not based on opinion, per se, as the  
"general" view can be changed when new data is found. There is also a  
big disconnect between what a scientist means by "theory" compared to  
what the average person means. To a layman, "theory" is the same as  
"best guess". In science, "theory" means a large body of consistent  
knowledge for which there no exceptions have been found. That is why  
the "theory" of relativity or evolution by natural selection, etc are  
held in such high regard. There is an old saying that a first-rate  
theory predicts, a second-rate theory forbids, and a third-rate  
explains after the fact. Every time that a new technology has been made  
to test relativity, or a new prediction has been developed, the  
experimental results are in perfect agreement with the theory. While  
climate is a bit messier to deal with (climate is what you expect,  
weather is what you get) I think that the theoretical models of what  
will change seem to be consistent with what is being observed.

That being said, there are other mitigating circumstances.

1) When in comes to the long-term sustainability of the Earth's climate  
I tend to think it is best to err on the side of caution. Not that the  
Earth will really care one way or the other what we do.

(If you don't mind some course language, I would recommend George  
Carlin's take on the environmental "problem" if you want to look at the  
"big picture" at http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257 )

But if you think there will be a bit of an "economic correction" from  
trying to solve the problem, my instinct says that the cost of not  
fixing the problem is far worse. For example, I don't think China will  
be really too worried about making all of the crap that fills our  
dollar stores when they have to move 10s of millions of people as the  
ocuan levels rise....

2) Fossil fuels will start to run out and will become more expensive  
over time. Again, better to start adapting to that now, then to wait.

3) We have set up national parks, nature preserves etc, assuming that  
the climate would stay the same. Polar bears are already running into  
problems and they have the option of wandering around. Most animals  
inside parks are hemmed in by farmland, pasture, houses, etc.

Well those are a few more things to think about.

Pat



======================================================================== 
==
Patrick Kelly
Director of Computer Facilities
======================================================================== 
==
Faculty of Architecture and Planning
Dalhousie University
======================================================================== 
==
PO Box 1000 Stn Central                5410 Spring Garden Road
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4           Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4
Canada                                 Canada
======================================================================== 
==
Phone:(902) 494-3294    FAX:(902) 423-6672   E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca
======================================================================== 
==


--Apple-Mail-375-760996281
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

Hi everyone:


I do teach all of my first-year students how the scientific method
works. It has been adequately explained by others. Unlike religion,
politics, economics, astrology, etc. the scientific method is a
self-correcting mechanism. It is not based on opinion, per se, as the
"general" view can be changed when new data is found. There is also a
big disconnect between what a scientist means by "theory" compared to
what the average person means. To a layman, "theory" is the same as
"best guess". In science, "theory" means a large body of consistent
knowledge for which there no exceptions have been found. That is why
the "theory" of relativity or evolution by natural selection, etc are
held in such high regard. There is an old saying that a first-rate
theory predicts, a second-rate theory forbids, and a third-rate
explains after the fact. Every time that a new technology has been
made to test relativity, or a new prediction has been developed, the
experimental results are in perfect agreement with the theory. While
climate is a bit messier to deal with (climate is what you expect,
weather is what you get) I think that the theoretical models of what
will change seem to be consistent with what is being observed.


That being said, there are other mitigating circumstances.


1) When in comes to the long-term sustainability of the Earth's
climate I tend to think it is best to err on the side of caution. Not
that the Earth will really care one way or the other what we do. 


(If you don't mind some course language, I would recommend George
Carlin's take on the environmental "problem" if you want to look at
the "big picture" at http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257 )


But if you think there will be a bit of an "economic correction" from
trying to solve the problem, my instinct says that the cost of not
fixing the problem is far worse. For example, I don't think China will
be really too worried about making all of the crap that fills our
dollar stores when they have to move 10s of millions of people as the
ocuan levels rise....


2) Fossil fuels will start to run out and will become more expensive
over time. Again, better to start adapting to that now, then to wait.


3) We have set up national parks, nature preserves etc, assuming that
the climate would stay the same. Polar bears are already running into
problems and they have the option of wandering around. Most animals
inside parks are hemmed in by farmland, pasture, houses, etc.


Well those are a few more things to think about.


Pat



<fontfamily><param>Courier</param>

==========================================================================

Patrick Kelly

Director of Computer Facilities

==========================================================================

Faculty of Architecture and Planning

Dalhousie University

==========================================================================

PO Box 1000 Stn Central                5410 Spring Garden Road

Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4           Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4

Canada                                 Canada

==========================================================================

Phone:(902) 494-3294    FAX:(902) 423-6672  
E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca

==========================================================================

</fontfamily>


--Apple-Mail-375-760996281--

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive<