Large Hardon Collider

[Max™]

That's just how max always shows off his lack of science skills.

Yes, because averages of models which assume positive feedbacks are totally beyond reproach, so I clearly know nothing about science.

I know this much: nothing in science is exempt from being questioned, except climate change, apparently.


The other link with the videos worked, btw, Tristam.

[Eliseos]

You wouldn't be able to solve that rocket problem. It's a differential equation with at least two variables that you wouldn't be able to solve without boundary conditions. You don't know boundary conditions, so you can't answer that. Plus rocketry is a lot more difficult than you think it is.

Predicting the weather tomorrow has really no bearing on being able to check past trends with data. Again it's basically solving a differential equation given all kinds of variables that you don't really know for sure how they are going to interact with one another. That's why they give percentages on the chance of precipitation for tomorrow and the next day.

A couple degrees is pretty large of an increase for an average. It's not just "oh hey tomorrow is two degrees warmer than it was today." It's not "oh hey I was only off by two inches on this mile long sniper shot." It's more of "oh hey my name is Max and I'm a fucking idiot."

[Woozie]

You mostly keep motivated by the fact that you won't graduate/get fellowships or funding/get into where you want to go without continuing on.
This becomes even more true in graduate work than undergraduate work.

This. If I don't get good grades and get research done, I lose my graduate assistantship. That's more than enough reason to keep me motivated.

Edit: Oh, and I have a deadline. If I don't get good results by March, I don't get my free trip to Dallas (to present my research).

[Tristam]

eh, speaking of global warming, an article I found:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014171146.htm

That is interesting, another nail in the coffin of the "puny humans can't drastically change the climate" idea. I'm reading the paper right now, and the language in the paper is very strong. That might come back to haunt them, I'm never a big fan of superfluous adjectives, but they do a great job of distinguishing the feedback imposed by water vapor vs. the forcing imposed by CO2. It is a simple and straightforward experiment too, I bet alot of people right now are reading this going "I wish I had thought to do that" lol. They also provide values for CO2 which if fallen below would give a snowball earth scenario. Thanks for the notice on the paper tho, good find.

One thing to add to the paper, they toss in information about the 11 year sunspot cycle, as a way to say that the sun obviously is very stable over periods longer than a decade or two. This is of course true, but interestingly, sunspot # is generally a good indicator of the total solar irradiance, but recently sattelite measurements have shown that the contribution of warming wavelengths (as opposed to UV wavelengths) are not necessarily in sync with sunspot cycles. Possibly an update/refinement for GCMs?

[Max™]

You wouldn't be able to solve that rocket problem. It's a differential equation with at least two variables that you wouldn't be able to solve without boundary conditions. You don't know boundary conditions, so you can't answer that. Plus rocketry is a lot more difficult than you think it is.

I am actually aware of how difficult rocketry is, and I said estimate, not solution.

Technically though: http://webalt.markworld.com/webalt.html

I could pull out a suitable calculator and crunch some numbers based on various assumptions for the mass of the rocket, fuel type (and thus exhaust velocity), total fuel mass, etc.

That still only covers the scenario where the rocket functions as expected, which is FAR from the only possible scenario.

Predicting the weather tomorrow has really no bearing on being able to check past trends with data. Again it's basically solving a differential equation given all kinds of variables that you don't really know for sure how they are going to interact with one another. That's why they give percentages on the chance of precipitation for tomorrow and the next day.

A couple degrees is pretty large of an increase for an average. It's not just "oh hey tomorrow is two degrees warmer than it was today." It's not "oh hey I was only off by two inches on this mile long sniper shot." It's more of "oh hey my name is Max and I'm a fucking idiot."

It's more of "oh hey, I'm not going to pay attention to anything Max says cause I've already made up my mind to dismiss him", but thanks for playing, next time just save yourself the effort.

My point being that the models only reproduce past climate if certain assumptions are used, so is this a sign that the models are arbitrarily correct, or perhaps should we make certain the assumptions are correct, and we aren't enacting expensive economic policies based on an odd coincidence?

[Max™]

That is interesting, another nail in the coffin of the "puny humans can't drastically change the climate" idea. I'm reading the paper right now, and the language in the paper is very strong. That might come back to haunt them, I'm never a big fan of superfluous adjectives, but they do a great job of distinguishing the feedback imposed by water vapor vs. the forcing imposed by CO2. It is a simple and straightforward experiment too, I bet alot of people right now are reading this going "I wish I had thought to do that" lol. They also provide values for CO2 which if fallen below would give a snowball earth scenario. Thanks for the notice on the paper tho, good find.

Hmmm, I'm wondering if they are strictly focusing on the stratospheric water vapor, like the IPCC reports do (for some reason), and if they fixed that little error where they treated precipitation as a purely cooling factor, when condensation actually releases heat, while reducing the infrared it traps as well.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).
"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

So the planet didn't exist before about 500k years ago, or it doesn't matter because it was so long ago, and CO2 acts differently now?

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/163...o2sealevel.png

One thing to add to the paper, they toss in information about the 11 year sunspot cycle, as a way to say that the sun obviously is very stable over periods longer than a decade or two. This is of course true, but interestingly, sunspot # is generally a good indicator of the total solar irradiance, but recently sattelite measurements have shown that the contribution of warming wavelengths (as opposed to UV wavelengths) are not necessarily in sync with sunspot cycles. Possibly an update/refinement for GCMs?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1006141558.htm

Decline in Sun's Activity Does Not Always Mean That Earth Becomes Cooler, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2010) — The Sun's activity has recently affected Earth's atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun's activity does not always mean that Earth becomes cooler.


It is well established that the Sun's activity waxes and wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching Earth decreases. This latest study looked at the Sun's activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a declining part of its 11-year activity cycle.

Although the Sun's activity declined over this period, the new research shows that it may have actually caused Earth to become warmer. Contrary to expectations, the amount of energy reaching Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than decreased as the Sun's activity declined, causing this warming effect.

[Shiroikage]

This. If I don't get good grades and get research done, I lose my graduate assistantship. That's more than enough reason to keep me motivated.

Edit: Oh, and I have a deadline. If I don't get good results by March, I don't get my free trip to Dallas (to present my research).

Plus losing motivation is the name of the game in university, especially graduate school.

Along those same lines, I think I might just do an M.Sc.. I'm having doubts about whether academia's right for me.

[Tristam]

Hmmm, I'm wondering if they are strictly focusing on the stratospheric water vapor, like the IPCC reports do (for some reason), and if they fixed that little error where they treated precipitation as a purely cooling factor, when condensation actually releases heat, while reducing the infrared it traps as well.

I just.... lol... you seriously don't understand why it's net cooling when you answer your own quesiton? Evaporation/condensation is neutral, reducing infrared absorption results in net cooling. The point of the paper is that water is removed rapidly due to rain, CO2 is not. We've been over this before, and you keep missing the most basic of points.

[Max™]

The point of the paper was that in their models, changing something causes something to happen.

Given the way the IPCC themselves state that tropospheric water vapor isn't something they focus on, I'm curious if this study did, because it is actually a major factor.

Evaporation over the ocean and condensation over land is not quite the same though, as the most important factor of global temperatures is the heat exchange between equator and poles.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap4.htm

You keep assuming I'm missing basic points because I don't come to the conclusions you think I should.

[Ferion]

Haha unfortunately I'm still an undergrad so I don't have the type of motivators everyone at the graduate level has. It's practically mandatory that I get an A in this class if I want to consider going to grad school, so this is past exam was a little discouraging. Didn't mean to vent on here, but I appreciate everyone's advice.

Along those same lines, I think I might just do an M.Sc.. I'm having doubts about whether academia's right for me.

You could always get your Phd and then go work on Wall Street. (I'm assuming you're in grad school for physics?)

[Shiroikage]

Nah, biochemistry. I'm doing structural biology work at the moment. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with academia now that I'm closer to it and get to see more of the politics, and I'm not really sure that I want to end up doing research with my degree in the end. The way I see it, a PhD is more likely to limit career choices than an MSc and going back to get a PhD later is still available as opposed to withdrawing after 4-5 years of a PhD and getting a 5 year MSc.

And you are significantly overestimating the motivation of people in grad school.

[Eliseos]

I could pull out a suitable calculator

The point is, you can't calculate it yourself. Scienced.

[Max™]

Ah, so you can bust out solutions for a given arbitrary differential equation in your head on the fly... and I thought I was the one with autism.

Heck of a neat trick, though last I checked, using a calculator for convenience/speed isn't a sin.

[Psion]

I'm glad I provided an article that was worth reading to people ^^; Its hard for me to find good science websites. I recently removed livescience from my link list cause although it approves of gays (good), it also is biased against other things, such as paranormal claims. (it dismisses it without even examining the evidence for a case. (bad, because although the chances of an actual UFO visiting us is slight, you never know when it might be an actual ET, or new military weapon, or other unusual phenomena)

This website seemed better since it just shows reports and summaries without the huge biases livescience does.

Also, why the fuss about global warming? If it's right, we do something about it, we avert or lessen disaster. If the whole thing turns out to be one overblown hoax? Well shit, we invested millions of dollars into new technology on renewable energy, more sustainable and enviornmentally friendly materials, and lowered the amount of CO2 in the air, which in case you forgot, even if it isnt warming up the air, is drastically acidifying the oceans to the point that creatures who use calcium in the water to form their shells (was it calcium carbonate?) arehaving the things erode, resulting in thinner shells and absolute havoc on the food chain of the oceans. And of course, renewable resources = less need for petroleum which = less control oil companies have over our lives, plus less wars on oil = less war, more happy = better economies all around = more technology and happy for everyone. The only downside is perhaps minor impacts to people's lives in the form of inconveniences, but ones that are far better than what we will face in the near future if nothing is done to curb our trashing of the planet.

So honestly, who cares if global warming is overblown? Its a win-win situation to support it, and a lose-lose situation if we don't. We can sort out later on if it actually was overblown or not, when we're relaxing in our houses and offices cooled by solar/wind/fusion energy and made of enviornmentally friendly materials. :3

[Max™]

Edit: Wow, guess Jonathan Coulton needs to revise his song.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us...brot.html?_r=1

Benoît B. Mandelbrot, a maverick mathematician who developed an innovative theory of roughness and applied it to physics, biology, finance and many other fields, died on Thursday in Cambridge, Mass. He was 85.

His death was caused by pancreatic cancer, his wife, Aliette, said. He had lived in Cambridge.

We can do the renewable energy shit without enacting drastic economic policies based on outcomes of computer modeling exercises.

I don't think a return to temperatures which were previously called "optimum", as in "holocene climate optimum" would be a catastrophic event.

The ph change in the ocean is a valid problem, and one which actually fits as a confirmed result of increased CO2 levels. I am pretty sure that the biosphere has taken more damage from other activities though, and again have to point out that it is FUCKING INSANE to call CO2 "pollution".

Without CO2, photosynthesis is kinda fucked, isn't it?

[Psion]

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms.

-per wikipedia

Looks like excess CO2 easily qualifies as a pollutant, as the addition of more CO2 has caused great instability and harm to our oceans if nothing else.

No one's saying CO2 is bad. It's just too much of a good thing, too fast. I doubt previously the ecosystem has had to deal with CO2 levels rising as much as they did in only a few hundred years. Too much in excess can kill you, with anything. too much oxygen? death. too much water? death. too much heat or cold? death.

What's worse is because oceans are generally quite stable, marine creatures are even more sensitive to changes than land animals. Seriously, lower the PH of an ocean tank by .2, even .1, and you can often see the havoc it wrecks on everything inside. shits SENSITIVE. There's a reason saltwater tanks are notorious for their difficulty. Any change in current, temperature (which is also rising, btw ^_^ ) or PH will send death in its wake, and the more quickly it changes the nastier the shock. Theres a reason why there's major infestations of jellyfish in areas all over the world now. would land creatures survive a change in mean temperatures and CO2 well enough? probably, though the more sensitive ones would die. Would the ocean? Well... I hope we find some good recipes for jellyfish as a main ingredient along with kelp, cause thats all we're gonna be hauling in if things arent stopped. And the oceans are starting to lose their power to hold CO2 back as well, which means once that saturation point is reached, things are going to get even worse.

We got a crisis on our hands. Unfortunatly, its in the sweet spot of death where it's too slow for people to register the danger, but too fast for us to put it off any longer. our generation may very well be the first to experience the negative effects of what we've done.

Oh yes, and I'm speaking from some experience on fish and their sensitivity. I've owned plenty of freshwater tanks, and even that was pretty hard to maintain. My 50 gallon tank was able to withstand some abuse due to its large size, but even then if the PH or temperature went more than .2 or 2-3 degrees, I would look forward to floating carcasses in a day or less. Fortunately, some of my fish were rather hardy. zebrafish and angelfish aren't the easiest things to kill, nor algae eaters. (mine was named smilodon, and he got biiiig lol)

[Khamsin]

It's clear that while it's uncertain, when you consider how clear it is, it's certainly not uncertain.
Excerpt from an APS comment on Climate Change, paraphrased for... clarity?

Nice neutral paraphrase, but I think APS was really saying that scientists have a solid basis for showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere clearly causes a warming effect. However, further study and advancements in the field are required to reliably determine the magnitude of the effect compared to other factors. They're acknowledging that there are still a lot of unknowns and more research is required, however what they have found so far is scientifically valid and is enough to show the field has promise, and is not unfounded.

A better paraphrase would be:

It's clear that while some aspects are uncertain, when you consider how clear other aspects are, it's certainly not an unfounded scam based in pseudoscience.

[Eliseos]

Ah, so you can bust out solutions for a given arbitrary differential equation in your head on the fly... and I thought I was the one with autism.

Heck of a neat trick, though last I checked, using a calculator for convenience/speed isn't a sin.

Again, this is you showing you don't know what the fuck. You don't solve differential equations with a damned calculator, you do it with pencil & paper. The hard ones you solve with Matlab, and that isn't a calculator, it's a computer program. And no, by calculator, you didn't mean Matlab.

Also, your internet autism is showing because I never said I can solve differential equations in my head. I said I have the tools to be able to solve them, you'd be lost and would have no idea what to do with the problem given to you.

[Woozie]

Plus losing motivation is the name of the game in university, especially graduate school.

Along those same lines, I think I might just do an M.Sc.. I'm having doubts about whether academia's right for me.

Nah, biochemistry. I'm doing structural biology work at the moment. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with academia now that I'm closer to it and get to see more of the politics, and I'm not really sure that I want to end up doing research with my degree in the end. The way I see it, a PhD is more likely to limit career choices than an MSc and going back to get a PhD later is still available as opposed to withdrawing after 4-5 years of a PhD and getting a 5 year MSc.

And you are significantly overestimating the motivation of people in grad school.

For the first time ever, academia is no longer my first choice in terms of career options. When people used to ask me what I wanted to do, I'd say "professor, but I'm thinking about <other stuff>", but now I say "<other stuff> but I'm thinking about professor". My biggest issue has more to do with the pay. I've known for the longest that if I want to be a physicist, I'd have to get used to not getting paid as much as I could be in other careers I could have done (i.e. engineering). I'm just beginning to realize how much it takes to become a professor. I wouldn't be making decent money until my mid 40s or early 50s on that route, and even then I'd still be making less than my other options. The only professors who seem to make good money are professors that are 55+ working at a good Research I university. I've always known the money situation was good, but I didn't realize how bad it was until my summer REU when our professors explain our career options in detail. There was one engineer in our group and one computer scientist. They're the only people who still felt optimistic after hearing about our career choices.

I still have the option of going into medical physics, engineering, or getting a physics PhD but getting some lab job where I'm more of an engineer or something else than a physicist. I'm leaning heavily towards one of those now.

Sorry if my post didn't make sense. I'm really sick and feeling woozy (get it!? Woozie!? HAHAHAHA... okay that joke sucked) and can't think straight, but I'm pretty sure my spelling and grammar is fine in this post. If not, I'll fix it later.

[Tristam]

I think at this point if you don't at least consider careers outside of academia you're seriously shooting yourself in the foot. The jobs just aren't there, to say nothing of funding sources not keeping pace with inflation. The way I'm approaching my postdoc is that I've set up my project so that the skills I'm learning are more marketable to industry, however if I get lucky and discover something nifty that I can hang my hat on, I'll apply for a grant, and if that doesn't work out, off to industry.