|
CuriousLord -> RE: No consensus on global warming (9/12/2007 11:14:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling
"We scientists"? You've yet to be conferred your bachelor's, I gather from your profile. Though you're clearly a bright young'un (not meant to be condescending), do you know yet, for instance, what peer review is (I actually didn't as an undergrad)? You're probably too busy with exams to hang out at the library and pour through climatology-related journals, so you've no sense for how far out of date your take on this consensus is. You might, as a proxy test, just drop in to your school's geology/environmental sciences department, and let them know that you don't think the science is "there yet" on anthropogenic (sorry, "human caused", don't want to press your sensitive pretension buttons) climate change. You are going to be laughed out of their offices, I promise you. If you aren't, I shudder in anticipatory sympathy for your school's next acreditation audit.
Meh, standards have changed with time. We get our fair share of peer-reviewed research for fun. I'll grant you, though, that I can't recall any of mine being involved with climentology, nor have I do as much as one might outside of an under-grad program.
It's entirely possible new numbers have been collected. I'd appreciate it if you can point out some you may know of off-handedly. I can check the school's catalogs later for articles on it, but it'd be easier if I knew a specific work to look for.
I hope you understand that my teasing you about the pretentiousness was entirely a joke. But, for the record, "anthropogenic" wouldn't have done it- that's a good term, like "genetics" would've been. Now, if you used "homosapien-driven contributions to the positive derivative of the average micromerically squared function of the molecular velocity relative to the average intertial frame of the surrounding environment" instead of "antropogenic climate change", then I'd have had an excuse to tease you again. ;)
For me, teasing's a sign of affection. Well, good-natured teasing, anyhow. Also, you must excuse the massive number of typos I'm sure I've made. I manage the research at the cost of sleep. =/
quote:
ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneelingquote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Edit: Actually, I saw you tell someone else you're pretty educated, and I'll admit you seem to know your fair share. So I'd like to ask.. incase you know..
Do you know of an open-source "green house effect" model? The particulars of locations with their specific atmospheric composition functions aren't necessary, I'd just like the mathematical model.
I thought we had that thread a month or two ago. I don't know offhand of one specifically designed for the greenhouse effect in isolation. You understand I assume that a complete climate model would have dozens of other processes in it as well, with some complex nonlinear interactions amongst them. There are lots of places to go to on the web to get relative absorption data for different GH gases - though not, perhaps, broken down much in the way of spectral resolution. Why exactly are you after this - a project?
Blah, I've forgotten about that thread until you've mentioned it. It's mostly for the sake of interest.
My primary mode of learning is tearing such things apart. If presented with one, I could rip it apart, understand its mechanisms and the mathematics and scientific theories involved in it, and simply have grown far more. I'm not entirely sure why normal education seems to revolve around baby steps, but it's far too slow to be practical. The human mind, when applied in earnest, strikes me as capable of so much more.
In any case, I do not consider myself a member of my peer group. I do not see why they can't just tell us to go beyond the examples that they demand we practice. One of my classes is demanding I learn Van deer Waal's equations. Why?! We're just applying instances of a greater concept! An old concept, and we'll have so much more to do after this! Why do they just not give us the most difficult thing that they can muster, break it down, and allow us to do the same with the ...
Okay. You know what? I haven't slept in about a week now, and I've just noticed I have a propencity to rant aimlessly. If I can this damn busy work out of the way, I might get a couple hours in tonight, and I won't be such an irritated, dysjuctive mind.
Also, my apologies if I was condescending earlier. My perceptions aren't quite up to an admirable level; it's a bit embarrasing.
|
|
|
|
