"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." said once Wernher Von Braun, the man who send "the man" to the Moon...
Quite interesting how goes the thinking of scientists capable of achieving something for mankind. Something real, palpable, progressive and (sometimes) even positive. It's about a self induced skepticism. They say "I don't know" more often than they say "I know." Because a knoledgeable man knows that he "knows" little.
But there are egomaniacs, people considering themselves at
least equal with God. In their mind, these people cannot fail to know. That's unacceptable to their gonflated ego. Usually such people, when they call themselves scientists, rather serve political or economical interests. They don't research because they don't know and thirst to discover. They research because they want to prove some preconceived idea, be it an obsession or a calculated interest. This is why they actually believe to know "everything" or almost, or just enough to prove their theory. No matter what.
Take this quote: "The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues."
Really? I don't know how a computer modeling study can explain wherefrom comes the carbon dioxide. From bovine flatulations or from coal mills? And how comes that volcanoes and the Sun and, maybe, dinosaurs, got all crammed in the so diverse, but yet so tight, "natural causes" that are less and less important in the causality of climate on Earth. This because of the mightly SUV and the oil industry. Yes, "manmade causes" are on par with eons of natural causes at work. This when global change experts talk about warming, ice cap melting, sea level rising and The Day After Tomorrow. But how about when the Earth is going to cool?
On with the next quote: "But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade." Woo, the know-it-all super-egoes were suddenly faced with an "unexpected" expansion of the polar ice cap. The computer modeling was wrong then? Who knows, depends on how heavily you're invested in the Oracle of Delphi.
""One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice," says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. "The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.""
Yeah sure. We can say anything, whatever that computer spits out, so far we keep blaming "human activity" that we want to predict, unlike climate variability that we wished to nail but, surprisingly, we fail at it. More than once. Read for yourself.
"Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
"When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there's no escaping the loss of ice in the summer," Kay says."
Aha, so they are surprised at how wrong they were interpreting computer modeling about the past decades, they say that the cooler planet will expand its polar ice cap for the coming decade, contradicting their previous alarmist global warming statements, and then they're at it again: in five or six decades the ice will be gone.
Do you need a college degree or just a functioning brain between your ears to figure that out? No, not the melting of the North Pole, but the politics knowing better than the scientific method, better than computer modeling - which, by the way, most often delivers results conform with the parameters fed to them in the data input.
In 1979, we're told, accurate satellite measurements began sending us data, about the melting ice cap. About one thousand years earlier, brave Norse and Danish seamen reached a vast land where they settled before landing on the shores of present day New York. This huge island at the North, they called it Greenland. Wondering why?
Probably that Earth experienced several blue sea, ice cap free, North Pole instances in history before 1979. But who can tell if simulating computer models aren't fed with appropriate data?
"The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters," Kay says. "We can't measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural."
In Wernher von Braun's words: "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
|< Prev||Next >|