Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

FERMI'S LARGE AREA TELESCOPE GOT YOU!

[Mizango]

Fermi doin' work.

[Max™]

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesau...ble-pillow.jpg

[Tristam]

This. I have no problem with trying to reform to prevent climate change. However, I do have a huge problem with the ideas that incur huge social and economic costs on companies/people based on models that still seem to be very controversial.

The models are not the only part of the science though, in fact they are one part of a mountain of experimental evidence. Also the myth that huge social and economic costs will accompany mitigating climate change are just that, a myth. The social and economic costs associated with forced adaptation to a new climate are likely far greater, and will only become greater with time. There will be costs for some, but there were costs associated with generating a carbon based energy infrastructure.

edit: The most honest criticisms of the models, which do exist, admit that very important fact, that the models are in fact meaningless without the evidence, and the evidence that exists is very substantial (absent of course multiple earths orbiting multiple suns that we can experiment with on faster timescales). There are honest criticisms of the models circulating in the literature, but those papers still support the overwhelming consensus regarding AGW.

[Tristam]

See, this is why I'll never be a good scientist. I just can't read (or write) 15 pages.

Or you'll be an amazing scientist who only publishes in science or nature. I have a hard time with journal articles, but mostly because I have a hard time remembering anything but the most important points months down the line. And if I only skim the article, forget it, I might remember that I read it and who the last author was but that's it. It's so difficult for me to figure out quickly what articles are truly worth me knowing in detail and whether I can spend a great deal of time studying it, vs. those articles that might have a nugget of truly useful information and how that might apply to my research. Plus hunting down and finding the best articles is a chore in and of itself. I have a short list of journals that I skim for good titles every week/month, but I know I overlook tons of stuff. And I'm increasingly finding that pubmed search functions suck horribly when just googling keywords gives more related articles that are then linked to pubmed.

In all seriousness though, I think I recall you wanting to go into applied physics? I have a friend at UCSD now in materials science, his papers are very short on average, no more than 5 pages. In his field, people publish very quickly and papers aren't too comprehensive. I'm actually jealous as hell, in my field, one publication could be 3-5 years of work.

[Ferion]

The models are not the only part of the science though, in fact they are one part of a mountain of experimental evidence. Also the myth that huge social and economic costs will accompany mitigating climate change are just that, a myth. The social and economic costs associated with forced adaptation to a new climate are likely far greater, and will only become greater with time. There will be costs for some, but there were costs associated with generating a carbon based energy infrastructure.

edit: The most honest criticisms of the models, which do exist, admit that very important fact, that the models are in fact meaningless without the evidence, and the evidence that exists is very substantial (absent of course multiple earths orbiting multiple suns that we can experiment with on faster timescales). There are honest criticisms of the models circulating in the literature, but those papers still support the overwhelming consensus regarding AGW.

First let me start off by saying that I'm not one of those people that think global warming doesn't exist. However, I am kind of cautious about it's actual impact considering in the 1970s there were a large group of climatologists screaming that the global temperature was cooling and we were about to enter an ice age. Granted we have much better means for running tests and modeling now, but still. To be honest I don't know enough of the science behind global warming to attempt to debate this, but from what I've read I've never really seen any ground breaking evidence that showed were about to ruin the earth. I've seen a pretty clear consensus that global warming does in fact exist, so there's no argument there. I just have not seen anything that warrants changing and even lowering aggregate social and economic standards for. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything to prevent climate change, but the current plans seem too expensive given our knowledge of the impact.

Also the myth that huge social and economic costs will accompany mitigating climate change are just that, a myth.

Not true. An economist named Nicholas Stern put together a report about global warming for the British government. He claimed that based on the research he read, and given the current ideas to prevent global warming the optimal amount that needed to be spent would be 1.5% of global GDP ($1.2 trillion).

[Psion]

So in other words, we just gotta cut out the US military budget for 2 years and we have more than enough to pay change for the entire world. <_<

Seriously, 1.2 trillion sounds like a lot, and it is, but it's hardly insurmountable considering the US military gets paid half of that every year. Hell, last year all defense related spending in the US was a little over a trillion, lol.

As for the benefits? Cleaner air, healthier oceans, less heart attacks and other ills associated with pollutants in the air and water, less health care costs due to healthier populations, less environmental damage and the costs incurred through trying to fix them up, new technologies and the boon to jobs created along with new technology leading to more new technologies... Seriously, people are freaking out just because it costs a little over a trillion dollars? That's chump change for the world.

People are freaking out over the cost, when in reality they don't take into account all the savings and benefits in exchange for it. It's like whining over the cost of toothpaste and taking time to brush your teeth, without considering the cost of having to get your teeth pulled out and replaced if you don't do it. And apparently, higher chance of heart attacks due to plaque buildup. <_<;

[Tristam]

Stern is also a key advocate of making those changes, which he calls "manageable", and a key part of his review was the immense cost of inaction. I've mentioned, in other threads, the article written for nature by Shell engineers about what the gov't investment in technology and infrastructure adaptation would need to be, and it also is very manageable but there simply must be some incentive for businesses to adjust or -and they are very explicit about this- they will not make that adjustment on their own because it would put them at a competitive disadvantage over the short term. edit: Although they are resigned to making the changes eventually as technology becomes cheaper and resources more scarce, they understand which way the wind is blowing and don't want to be left out of the loop when most energy eventually comes from other sources.

If you're really interested in discussing this, it's worth taking it to PMs, I have no problems with discussing these things, and I like honest questions about this type of research and what the impact studies are beginning to show (noone is honestly suggesting we're going to destroy the earth, but we're slowly becoming aware of what the problems might be), and I've addressed the cooling issue here and elsewhere, but it's been played out on this thread.

[Ferion]

Sorry I probably should have been more clear. I meant $1.2 trillion a year.

[Psion]

Still quite manageable, and again, the savings from better health and less damage to the environment easily outweigh the cost of inaction.

[Kaylia]

What are you working on Tristam, i always forget.

[Tristam]

I was never too specific, undergrad degree was biochemistry, did research on cholesterol metabolism then later did some organic chemistry research making cholesterol based organogelators. Grad degree was biochem/biophysics, used biophysical techniques to study regulation of motor protein kinetics. Postdoccin' right now, I'm working on the same family of proteins but in the context of the brain, trying to figure out what they're doing there and how they're regulated. A bit too early to say exactly where this project will head, but I'm following about three different leads that could all be interesting.

I know that's still not too specific, but if I start talking too much about my work I really go all over the place. I guess I could give out my pubs, but I'm terrified of tossing my real name around on the internet, not because I'm a hotshot, but it's pretty easy to figure out who my bosses are and how to fuck with me irl.

[Penthesilea]

I'd be interested in reading them. I recall you said you're at UPenn?

[Max™]

The models are not the only part of the science though, in fact they are one part of a mountain of experimental evidence. Also the myth that huge social and economic costs will accompany mitigating climate change are just that, a myth. The social and economic costs associated with forced adaptation to a new climate are likely far greater, and will only become greater with time. There will be costs for some, but there were costs associated with generating a carbon based energy infrastructure.

The models are the only part suggesting future warming, which assholes like Gore ran with, claiming shit will be absolutely fucked by a couple of degrees of warming.

It was warmer by LOW estimates of 2 C to high estimates of 4~7 C during the periods when the world looked like this 8000 and 5000 or so years ago.

Spoiler: show

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/earlyho.gif
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/midhol.gif

It is now COOLER than it was then, and the planet is MORE arid.

Spoiler: show

http://www.truthandliberty.com/image..._earth_now.png

So the idea that we would get something completely different from 2 to 4 C of warming than we have in the past is absurd.

edit: The most honest criticisms of the models, which do exist, admit that very important fact, that the models are in fact meaningless without the evidence, and the evidence that exists is very substantial (absent of course multiple earths orbiting multiple suns that we can experiment with on faster timescales). There are honest criticisms of the models circulating in the literature, but those papers still support the overwhelming consensus regarding AGW.

I don't think the problem is the evidence, I'm pretty sure the issue is with the methods used to make the models match the evidence in a manner which supports the "CO2 is a primary forcing" assumption. If in order to match your model to observations you have to assume that a particular natural system has a significant positive feedback effect, your model might need to be fixed. Nevermind if you have to use one with gain so high the feedback value is close to 1 (.67 to .80 for GCM's as I understand it), perhaps one should check out other processes with a feedback value close to 1 or more?

Nuclear fission has a feedback value greater than 1. Anyone know any stable processes with a positive feedback near 1?

[Kaylia]

I was never too specific, undergrad degree was biochemistry, did research on cholesterol metabolism then later did some organic chemistry research making cholesterol based organogelators. Grad degree was biochem/biophysics, used biophysical techniques to study regulation of motor protein kinetics. Postdoccin' right now, I'm working on the same family of proteins but in the context of the brain, trying to figure out what they're doing there and how they're regulated. A bit too early to say exactly where this project will head, but I'm following about three different leads that could all be interesting.

I know that's still not too specific, but if I start talking too much about my work I really go all over the place. I guess I could give out my pubs, but I'm terrified of tossing my real name around on the internet, not because I'm a hotshot, but it's pretty easy to figure out who my bosses are and how to fuck with me irl.

I'm tempted to be a dick and say "just chemistry" , but that's pretty nice . I didnt know you were working on a post doc.

And don't worry about your publications if you don't want to post them. I probably wouldn't even understand the abstract....that's how much I know about biochem/biophys. >_>

[Ferion]

Stern is also a key advocate of making those changes, which he calls "manageable", and a key part of his review was the immense cost of inaction.

The only problem is that his review is highly criticized by other economists. Many have claimed that he over exaggerated the impact of climate change and underestimated the cost that would be needed to reverse it. He used a discount rate of 1.4% which is very low. The lower the discount rate the more beneficial reducing green house gas emission looks. To be honest I completely agree with the rest of your post, it's just the economics of reversing global warming that I don't agree with. We need to come up with cheaper solutions if we want to start making any kind of change. Stern actually changed his estimate to 2% of GDP per year in 2008, which many economists feel is still too low. Also I could be wrong, but doesn't cutting carbon emissions take years to start showing any kind of improvement?

As for the benefits? Cleaner air, healthier oceans, less heart attacks and other ills associated with pollutants in the air and water, less health care costs due to healthier populations, less environmental damage and the costs incurred through trying to fix them up, new technologies and the boon to jobs created along with new technology leading to more new technologies... Seriously, people are freaking out just because it costs a little over a trillion dollars? That's chump change for the world.

Apparently Stern revised his estimate so it's actually $2.4 trillion a year, and I wouldn't be surprised if he increased it again. You do realize that $1.2 trillion is larger than most country's economies right? Also, I'm pretty sure that economists have taken the kind of savings you're talking about into consideration or they wouldn't be very good at their job. I would like to see what data/models say that the world will save even close to $1.2 trillion($2.4 trillion) through carbon emission cuts. Those savings may have even been included into Stern's estimate of the cost, I'm not sure if he used Present Value or Net Present Value to come up with his figures though.

Edit: If these kind of posts are off topic/boring I'll gladly take it to PMs.

[Shiroikage]

I'm tempted to be a dick and say "just chemistry" , but that's pretty nice . I didnt know you were working on a post doc.

And don't worry about your publications if you don't want to post them. I probably wouldn't even understand the abstract....that's how much I know about biochem/biophys. >_>

don't be hatin' on biochemistry

[idklol]

I wondered if anyone could help me. Science has always interested me but i've never really gone any further than having an interest. Looking for somewhere on the web where i could learn some pretty basic science, any decent sites for this kind of stuff?

[BerenTebogo]

Getting really frustrated with a physics problem. I've solved it, got the right answer, my friends have solved it, got the right answer. Problem is we've used two different methods which appear to be entirely irreconcilable and it's going to drive me nuts if I don't really understand the heart of the problem.

"A 1588 g mass is on a horizontal surface with mu-k = 0.400, and is in contact with a massless spring with a force constant of 745 N/m which is compressed. When the spring is released, it does 3.73 J of work on the mass while returning to its equilibrium position. Calculate the distance the spring was compressed."

Now, how I solved it was Workdone = 1/2*kx^2 or basically 3.73 = k/2 * x^2

How my friends solved it (i believe, nobody is on at the moment) 3.73J = (1/2)kx^2 - μmg*x and used the quadratic formula I believe.

Now I used my method on all of their problems (different masses and mu values) and produced the right answer for every distinct total work given, which leads me to believe that something funky is up. I think the root of the screwy-ness has to do with hooke's constant being given in joules, but I can't connect the dots 100%.

What about this problem makes the mass and coefficient of friction both relevant and irrelevant at the same time?

Edit: The book (which is in my car and fuck the cold) gives instructions to integrate kxdx between xi and xf and just use the values of integration as variables and cancel. This pisses me off, not sure exactly why, but I feel it's a total cop-out regarding some inherent property to this type of problem that allows them to not explain the calculus to the students who haven't learned it yet. Am I wrong that if you don't know the limits of integration you just have to take an indefinite integral and not some made-up xi squiggle xf magicmath?

[Tristam]

I'd be interested in reading them. I recall you said you're at UPenn?

I'll hit you up with a PM with the links, I was at penn for grad school but my postdoc is in a gov't lab.