![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rotschnjak.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt’s usually for us to trust scientists absolutely, however the nature of science is so, that each fact must be always under doubt. Science without doubts and alternative points of view transform to religion. Albert Einstein has made his theory of relativity because of doubts in classical Newtonian physic science; Nikola Copernicus had doubts in quite convenient and proved geocentric system of Ptolemaist, and he was right.
The first problem is in global warming events in pre-historic times. In those times we haven’t any anthropological influence, but we have global warming periods. What factors were caused such climatic changes? Glaciologists say that during the whole such periods are the high concentration of carbon dioxide. But there is a question, is this high concentration really a reason or a result of warming (with increasing of temperature the ocean and moors release carbon dioxide from water solutions), or it was synergetic a reason and a result simultaneously (the model of positive reverse relation, when warming causes increasing concentration of carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide causes warming).
Real problems the theory of global warming is in the question of oceanic steams self-regulation. If there is a greenhouse effect, the differences between equator and both poles will decrease, so the oceanic streams will be not so powerful. If the warm oceanic streams are not so powerful, it causes the refreezing of polar zones. If the polar zones are cool, the oceanic waters of these regions can solve more carbon dioxide from atmosphere…. Generally, the thing isn’t so easy, I suppose.
The next problem lays in the calculation of phytomass (biomass) of plants. If we have more carbon dioxide, plants growing is faster, so it cause the increasing of carbon deposition in moors, ocean and in organic stuff of the soil. But decay of this mass is faster too, and it causes the producing of methane, the more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
So, for real research we must calculate all this and many other factors in the unite punctual computer model, but today there are not even possibility such model to create. All models, which exist now, are worked not with factors, but with statistical correlations. Each statistical correlation could be not real, but pseudoreal.
The pseudoreal statistical correlation is the weak place in each mathematical model. We can find correlations between independent events or to understand this correlation not so, that it is really. For example, it could be correlation between the level of consummation of Coca-Cola and the level of crimes in some city, but all of us understand that these things are not caused by each other. Or it could be caused by each other, but the mechanism isn’t so easy. Not Coca-Cola in our city caused the increasing of crimes, but, for example, the Coca-Cola bar is used by drag-pushers as covering.
The theory of anthropological cause of global warming is very convenient for politicians. It is something like the actions of ancient priests. Politicians can not say: “The climate changes crucially. It’s dangerous, but we don’t know, what we can to do”. They say ‘Offer to our Gods, and they will be gracious’ ‘Decrease the emission of carbon dioxide’
For politicians it’s very dangerous to say that they don’t know what the people can to do for saving the situation. So, the struggle with global warming through the limitation of carbon dioxide emission (it’s really a new tax that help to support state expenditures, a positive moment for each politician) is the best way for them.
(no subject)
Date: 7/10/13 23:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/10/13 23:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/10/13 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/10/13 15:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 06:33 (UTC)You're aware that nearly every scientist on the planet will have read Kuhn, or at least, gotten the gist of it at some point in university? Individuals are likely to disagree with something new that comes along, but if the evidence is there, the paradigm shift will happen.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 15:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/10/13 15:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 06:30 (UTC)We're beyond the days of brilliant amateurs having anything to say about science, but even if there was such a genius outside of all formal scientific institutions, then they would still be able to get published somewhere. Unless, of course, what they were saying wasn't backed up by the evidence they presented.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/13 15:55 (UTC)