Welcome to Gaia! ::

Not really that harmful, although in truth R³ is also an abstraction, since the space you live in doesn't go on forever, nor is it really the same in all directions.

And I'm really against the "little bit of information is better than none" idea. Some things don't make sense in pieces, and if you don't have a complete picture, then the most common results are either you assume you have a complete picture or you make up the rest. In either case, what you end up with is often completely different from what the original was, in ways that lead to utter tripe.

For instance, quantum mechanics. People hear about the non-determinism of quantum observation, and because they only hear that you can't predict fully what will happen, they assume this means that anything can happen. They hear that the system is determined only after observation and because they only hear "observation" without any definition of such, they assume that consciousness can affect physics. So we end up with all sorts of mysticism and crap and people trying to justify crackpottery by saying "scientists said so!".

Even if they mean well, it turns to crap eventually. You get a string of "I heard that___" or "I think this means____" and the accumulation of erroneous assumptions and inductions leads to people thinking that the world will end in 2012, or that we live on the back of an extraterrestrial's credit card, or that the Bermuda triangle is a wormhole.

People are stupid, and people are gullible, and people are bad at communicating. I know I'm being unfair to the millions of intelligent people on our planet, but rational, analytical thought is not something that the average human being is good at. What we are good at is taking a little bit of information, making a lot of s**t up and trying to convince ourselves and others that we somehow used the first to get the second; it's how we get through each day with our minds intact and it is not good for any sort of academics.

I'm sure my wording here could be much improved, but basically:



Points one, two and three are fairly basic. The fourth point is the only point on which there seems to be any scientific disagreement.

Things like paleoclimatology are not necessary to "prove" global warming. They are just useful issues to study.

The first point is obvious, even with just a cartoon image explaining the greenhouse effect. The only argument I have ever seen offered against this point is, "But CO2 only makes up a tiny percent of the atmosphere!" While it is an understandable point of confusion, it in no way contradicts anything. Most people understand small amounts of something can have large effects.

The second point is a bit harder to explain, in that it requires actual calculations. Even so, a reasonable estimate can be reached from a single equation, meaning it is easy enough to explain to people.

Once you get to the third point, you can't give a step-by-step guide to the average person. I never understood why there was such focus on a single value anyway, as each impact of global warming would likely be a problem at different sensitivities. On the technical level, I would like to see more work done showing how much warming will cause which effects to what extent.

In any event, the final point is the one I think is probably the most important. We know there are feedbacks, both positive and negative. Most known feedbacks are defined well defined in direction, if not actual strength. However, the effect of clouds is not well defined. There is even dispute as to whether this would be a positive or negative feedback. Given that cloud cover is one of the strongest climatic feedbacks, I think it deserves much more focus.

On a personal note, I would like to see a lot more funding and focus for global warming. Currently the problem is being studied in the ad hoc approach normal to science. I would like to see a much more organized attempt at studying the problem, similar to what one would expect from an engineering report (say, for building a bridge).

Theory versus reality: I think I finally understand the distinction. I used to understand this but it got blurred when I started trying to understand theoretical physics. Theory isn't necessarily "perfect." Neither is reality. They just follow different rules. They are both beautiful in their own way. 3nodding

Today's in-class "homework" problem for Math 622:

A train leaves Seattle going at 50 mph. At the same time, a train leaves Philadelphia going at 60 mph. What's the cohomology of a line bundle on CPⁿ?

For that specifically I would go directly to the papers, which should explain it in detail if they are good papers. Look in an academic database that stores climate/earth science/atmospheric science info. You could also go to the library and look for any textbooks on the subject which may exist.

Then try to piece it together. Look at some papers which did climate surveys or collected relevant data, save them to your hard drive for reference or take notes on their methodologies. Look up the properties of CO2, and other relevant concepts mentioned in the papers, maybe take some notes on the things that are unfamiliar, and think about what you would do if you were analyzing the data yourself. You might not be able to get the whole picture but you can learn more about it that way.