What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Still waiting to hear what George has do e personally. Solar array? Geothermal? Anything?
Eh, I might have missed part of this conversation, but let me jump in here.
Well, this IS my exact my area of education. Let me say that Geoman's explanation was essentially correct in this context.
10x10 is about 100ish in experimental and observational science.
10x10 is exactly 100 is mathematics. Whether or not 10x10 is exactly 100 or not in theoretical physics depends on your area - fields like quantum mechanics have some inherent uncertainty, while classic mechanics generally doesn't.
Anyway, as was explained above, anything that involves measurements has uncertainty. When you do math with measurements, including putting those measurements into your mathematical equations, the uncertainties propagate. This means, that from a STRICTLY MATHEMATICAL PERSPECTECTIVE, 10x10 is about 100 with some statistical uncertainty. This is why you can read any scientific paper and they will always quote their results with an uncertainty attached to it if they have made actual measurements.
That's just how math works - if you put uncertain numbers in, you get an uncertain result out.
Well, statistics can certainly be abused. There is no doubt about that. But right now statistics is probably the single most marketable thing you can do right now, with the possible exception of programming. There are a hell of a lot of companies out of there willing to pay people $100k+ if they are decent at stats.
There is simply no way to handle large quantities of data without knowing your statistics. You can't do science without statistics, you can't deal with a non trivial amount of data without statistics, you just can't do much without it.
Like I said, there are certainly spin artists out there who misuse stats. But if you think that statistics is BS, then you have never tried to work with data in a serious way, because serious data analysis is basically a statistics exercise.
Not to get too picky, but the uncertainty attaches to measurements, not the math itself. 10x10 is exactly 100. Something measured to be 10 units multiplied by something else measured to be 10 units is indeed 100 plus or minus a margin of measurement error.
Yes you get too nitpicky. Math by itself is perfect but also perfectly useless.
With one exception maybe: it's perfect in an artificial financial setting where everyone follows the rules...
Like the simple case where 1 euro + 1 euro = 2 euros. That's accurate.
But even this breaks down when you get to high numbers. 1 trillion euros + 1 trillion euros = 2 trillion euros that's for sure, but in practice there's extra inflation if there's an extra 1 trillion euro's all of a sudden, which means that those 2 trillion euros can't buy you any more than the 1 trillion euros. So for practical applications, this mathematical solution is pretty worthless.
Remember 'jumping the shark'?
Remember that 'good advice'?
The topic is Global Warming, not the sociology of Mathematics....
Nice to know: mathematical solutions are worthless. Pretty much takes care of the AGW argument. We can all go home now.
Yeah, because he gave an example of ONE situation in which a purely mathematical solution is not applicable, it logically follows that ALL models which have math are worthless. Because that's how logic works.
So you're saying AGW is not a 'practical application' of math?
Nah, I said that that particular solution was worthless.
Math is very useful, I've said that before, but it's just not perfect.
Even a house... someone can design a house that's a perfect 10x10 square meters on paper, but when the construction workers put it together, they use with materials that are not perfect, so it won't be a perfect 10x10 square meter house. That's how mathematics loses some of its accuracy when applied to the real world.
Well my original point was:
GW predicts a warming of about 10 degrees celcius if humans burn everything that's in the ground.
You are being nitpicky about a pacific oscillation event that suppresses warming by about 0.1 degrees celcius.
Now you're saying that because of this, the models are wrong and therefore worthless.
I'm saying: they're still useful, and this oceanic oscillation gives a 1% error in the long-term predictions. I think that's acceptable, because that's how the real world works: you cannot model and predict everything.
I make/cause Hurricanes, Typhoons, Cyclones, Tornadoes, Floods, Hunger Happen and causing Asteroids Meteors and Comets to hit our planet and/or the others planets and the list goes on & on, all because I am Dickmatized ...
Yet they don't want to listen to the EXPERTS in the scientific Community nope in stead a lot of them want to blame it on us Homosexuals. LMFGAO...
Again...use a different analogy...because again you are WRONG.
FFS I have been doing this for 40 years. When you catch up I still won't listen to you...because I will be dead.
And well before then you will not be here posting drivel.
Get back on topic or get off this site.
Yes okay. It's all technobabble anyway, no reason to fight over this.
This article says that 21,000 Arctic species may disappear if climate change heats up the Arctic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140214075511.htm
I'm not sure if this is bad, after all if the temperatures increase, there will be a much richer ecosystem in the Arctic...
All of this does feed into Global Warming, the topic here. Global Warming models are sophisticated physical models which use a lot of math, but as we are trying to show above, this is NOT the same as a purely mathematical model. It is just easier to do this with a few basic examples, rather than trying to jump to modeling something as ungodly complicated as the entire planet. After all, if we can't agree on how to compute the area of a room by multiplying two numbers together, how can we agree on how to apply really, really, REALLY complicated models to the entire planet?
In fact, I would actually say that this is the crux of the issue: how does one judge whether or not a model is wrong? After all, if we insist that they are purely mathematical, any tiny deviation means that they are "wrong". However, if we acknowledge that Global Warming models are physical models, then we have to start paying attention to uncertainties.
Basically, we have to determine whether or not the actual measurements deviate from the predictions given the uncertainties associated with the properties of the models that aren't purely mathematical. So this discussion is actually critically important.
There isn't any reason to get hostile over this, but he isn't wrong.
For example, a fairly common question in an introductory physics lab is to ask:
"What is the area of a 12m x 12m room?"
Students who write 144m lose the points because they are wrong in the context of experimental physics (and most other experimental sciences, in additional to many theoretical sciences). The correct answer is usually 140m, which is quite different than what you would get from a pure math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_arithmetic
Of course, significant figures are really just an approximation to the more sophisticated propagation of uncertainty, but the basic point is the same.
And anyway, I'm not saying this to be a jerk or to be confrontational about this. I taught this kind of stuff at universities of years, so I kind of care about it, and since I taught at universities for so many years, I actually do care about science literacy.
What the heck are you smoking?
In the drug-addled 60's I might have got equally esoteric and 'theoretical' but arithmetic is always arithmetic...no matter how many drugs you abuse.
12 x 12 is always 144 unless you are too lazy to work it out and say...."couldn't give a fuck...but it's around 140".
Too much BS is wasted on arty-farty interpretations of 'theoretical science'. "12 x 12 only equals 144 if both numbers feel good about themselves...."
It's patently absurd.
To be absolutely clear....unless you say what is the area of about 12 meters by about 12 meter room...THEN AND ONLY THEN can you suggest ABOUT 140 as a reasonable answer.
But even then...'140' is wrong.
GeomanNL wasn't using a correct analogy......attempting to suggest a building 'must' deviate in accuracy from a drawing. It is not necessarily the case at all.
Lmao, somebody doesn't understand the concept of significant figures.
Please read the link that I included. Specifically, the bit about using significant figures and multiplication (and note that it includes some equations which are actually not correct from a purely mathematical perspective, but are correct in the context of sig figs). I'll quote the relevant part:
"When multiplying or dividing numbers, the result is rounded to the number of significant figures in the factor with the least significant figures."
12 has two sig figs. Thus, by the above rule, the answer can only have 2 sig figs. Thus, in experimental physics 12m x 12m is 140. If you write 144 in a physics class, you generally get points off because it is not correct in the context of experimental physics. (12.0m x 12.0 is 144m).
Anyway, as I've been trying to explain, science isn't math. It uses math, but you can't stubbornly insist on using purely mathematical principles in many cases, which is why this is relevant to this conversation on Global Warming.
None of this is "artsy-fartsy". It is actually EXTREMELY rigorous - practicing scientists are being careful. We don't want to indicate a higher precision result that what we can have gotten via our measurements.
Oh...I'm entirely aware of 'significant figures' but you see....where it DOES NOT apply to Architecture is in the regulation of dimensioning standards.
In Oz [I'll ignore those backward countries still hanging on to the Imperial system] the system of measurment is Metric. In Architecture the unit of measurement is millimeter...ergo a 12 x 12 meter room in Architecture is legally/formally required to be 12000 x 12000 and the actual SIGNIFICANT places is 5, not 2.
So....the answer IN ARCHITECTURE to 12m X 12m is LEGALLY 144.00 sq. M.
It can NEVER be 140.
This is patently why the Architectural analogy is WRONG.
I know the science and regulation of measurement in Architecture better than many...simply because I lived through [professionally] the change from Imperial to Metric....it started around '72 and "finished" around '76 ...after which Imperial-dimensioned work was no longer acceptable in Planning and Building. We had two stages of 'transition'....Hard Conversion....and Soft Conversion.
Hard was absurd as at one stage I was REQUIRED to redimension a building that was around 100 feet long to be exact to 0.5 of a millimeter....otherwise there was a discrepancy in conversion.
Eventually 'Soft' was accepted....and legislation/regulation meant that a length of 8 feet could now be 2400mm. [depending on circumstance].
And yes, that is NOT 2.4m. The standard requires mm.
Incidentally...if you ever take note of a Land Surveyor's drawing you'll find [in Metric] it will be in Meters...to 2 decimal places...in the 12M instance it will be 12.00m .... reason being the legal requirement for accuracy is 1 centimeter.
So when the next person is looking for an example for analogous comment they really need to look elsewhere....
Now, if instead you are discussing the acceptable tolerance for 'error' between the absolute/correct Architectural drawing and what the fat-arsed tradie bothers to build....again there are regulated standards - depending on what part/component of the structure.
Example...a Shop Drawing I did once for a 50m portal frame....it was accurate to the mm ....tolerance for construction/fabrication was plus or minus 20mm over 50000 ...as sole-plate holes were 20mm larger than the incast studs....
This isn't an architecture conversation. This is a science conversation. And we have been very careful to qualify our statements by saying things like "IN EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS...".
You might say something like "well, you are talking about rooms, so of course architecture applies". Not at all. Once again, it all depends on context. If I'm building a room to hold X volume of gas for a physics experiment, it would be completely inappropriate to assume that I was doing everything at an accuracy of 1 cm for each linear dimension because that was the legal architectural standard in Australia. I'd want to be MUCH more rigorous and actually propagate the uncertainty (or, if an approximation is good enough, use sig figs).
Similarly, if I have students assemble some 12m x 12m frame in a lab, it would be crazy to assume that the resulting area is accurate down to the square cm simply because my students are not professional architects.
So, in the context of staying on the subject of this thread, what just so happens to be a legal standard for architecture in Australia probably isn't on topic in my opinion.
It is why one of the participants in this thread is now on 'vacation'.
I also know it is not an Architecture thread...which is patently why people need to choose 'better' analogies.
My 'mistake' was allowing myself to be trolled....
83 pages of GW thread has revolved around the mechanics of data interpretation ...by the 2 diametrically-opposed ends of an unresolved 'debate'.
Both use the concept of theoretical approximation to prove or disprove their views.
Both cannot be right,
...but both can be wrong....
Shouldn't be a prerquisite for reading a tape measure....you probably need more intelligent/capable students if they cannot make something that is 12 x 12.
....and/or follow your instruction/request....
How sad it is... to see global warming take such a hard left off course.
I came here today wanting to diss a few more of those global warming models/theories... and what do I get... arithmetic and the square root of 12.
Not fair!!!! If I wanted a square root I'd have... um... never mind. That's a whole different topic for perhaps another time... cos I'm not here to do as the Romans do.
So anyway, I have this whole new theory about global warming and who is responsible. Anyone else notice that things started to heat up with the advent of the Winter Olympics? For mine, it's the Olympic Committee who is resposinsible, for all those hot,sweaty athletes prancing about in the snow and melting it with all their huffing and puffing as they excel in their chosen sport. You see, the less snow there is the hotter the planet gets, and here are these Winter Olympians depleting it with every bobsled ride and downhill slalom.
And if that's not enough, what aboiut those female skiers who decided to go topless and started a major thaw with their headlights. No, it's just not good enough. Not only are these athletes scaring native wildlife, they're depleting a very valuable resource the planet depends on... and I don't see imports from the polar caps of Mars arriving anytime soon. I therefore implore that you contact your respective olympic committee members... no, I insist on it, and demand a cessation of the Winter olympics forthwith....IMMEDIATELY!!!
And if any skiers are halfway down the slope at the cessation of said games, they will have to hang ten and wait until it is ecologically safe to bring them down the rest of the way... in other words, rescue their sorry frozen arses.
Useful facts.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
