Вот кое-что с большей видимостью интеллектуальной гигиены, чем обычный материал поддакивающих друг другу «скептиков» и обычная сенсационная журналистика. Here are a few things with greater visibility of intellectual hygiene than the usual material assent to each other "skeptics" and the usual sensational journalism. Но для квалифицированной дискуссии читать и понимать все-таки лучше не этого парня, а научные работы и отчеты, на которые он ссылается. But for a qualified discussion to read and understand it's better than this guy, and research papers and reports, to which he refers. Ну и научные же работы, в которых делаются другие выводы. Well, the same academic work on which to make other conclusions.
Добавлено. Похоже, вводные параграфы в тексте, содержащие апелляцию к широкой публике и соотечественникам автора, способны вызывать неиллюзорный эмоциональный фон, влияющий на готовность к восприятию дальнейшего содержимого. Added. It seems that the introductory paragraphs in the text containing an appeal to the general public and fellow author, can cause neillyuzorny emotional background, influencing the willingness to accept further content. Если вы не уверены в своей способности отделять мух от компота, можете начать читать здесь . If you are not confident in their ability to separate flies from the compote, you can begin reading here.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
buldozr buldozr Создать аккаунт в ЖЖ Подробности Create Account Learn more
2010-01-11 22:40 (UTC) 2010-01-11 22:40 (UTC)
Bottom line: As far as I can tell there's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Bottom line: As far as I can tell there's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.
Только я вижу противоречие между "I worry / it seems likely" и "a mountain of scientific evidence"? But I see a contradiction between the "I worry / it seems likely" and "a mountain of scientific evidence"? Тем более, что под "mountain" он имеет в виду один(!) график CO2 в атмосфере в глобальном масштабе до 1950 года, и один(!) график измерения непосредственно в атмосфере с 1960 года, совсем в другом месте, в абсолютно другом временном масштабе и на высоте в три километра. Moreover, under the "mountain" he is referring to one (!) Schedule of CO2 in the atmosphere on a global scale before 1950, and one (!) Schedule measurements directly in the atmosphere since 1960, in another place, in an entirely different time scale and at an altitude of three kilometers. На графике временной продолжительностью в 400 000 лет колебания даже и в сотню лет длиной будут незаметны. On the timeline for a period of 400 000 years of hesitation, even in a hundred years in length will be imperceptible. Это не очевидно? It is not obvious?
Общее впечатление: трепотня, причём опасная, так как маскируется под научную. Overall impression: trepotnya, and dangerous, as disguised as science.
I've been discussing abrupt climate change on the internet for several years, mostly at Slashdot I've been discussing abrupt climate change on the internet for several years, mostly at Slashdot
А. Ну-ну. A. Well, well. Самое место. Most place. И "scientific evidence" у него большей частью надёрганы из википедии. And the "scientific evidence" had largely nadergany Wikipedia.
2010-01-12 00:32 (UTC) 2010-01-12 00:32 (UTC)
Эти слова относятся к несколько разным вещам. These words refer to several different things.
Тем более, что под "mountain" он имеет в виду один(!) график CO2 в атмосфере в глобальном масштабе до 1950 года, и один(!) график измерения непосредственно в атмосфере с 1960 года, совсем в другом месте, в абсолютно другом временном масштабе и на высоте в три километра. Moreover, under the "mountain" he is referring to one (!) Schedule of CO2 in the atmosphere on a global scale before 1950, and one (!) Schedule measurements directly in the atmosphere since 1960, in another place, in an entirely different time scale and at an altitude of three kilometers.
Можно со ссылками на графики? Possible with reference to the graphics? Мне сейчас лень в этом удостоверяться. I was just too lazy to verify this.
На графике временной продолжительностью в 400 000 лет колебания даже и в сотню лет длиной будут незаметны. On the timeline for a period of 400 000 years of hesitation, even in a hundred years in length will be imperceptible. Это не очевидно? It is not obvious?
По-моему, речь все же идет не о видимости зубчиков на графиках, а о конкретных данных, из которых эти графики построены. In my opinion, it still is not about visibility teeth on the charts, but the specific data from which these charts are constructed.
И "scientific evidence" у него большей частью надёрганы из википедии. And the "scientific evidence" had largely nadergany Wikipedia.
Даже если это так, НЯМС, это не мешает ему ссылаться на вполне научные публикации в рецензируемых журналах. Even so, NYAMS, it does not prevent it completely rely on scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. И даже помогать своим как бы оппонентам позиционировать их опорные статьи в паутине перекрестных ссылок и опровержений, существующей в научных работах. And even help their opponents as if their position supporting the article in the web of cross-references and denial that exists in scientific papers.
2010-01-12 06:35 (UTC) 2010-01-12 06:35 (UTC)
Эти слова относятся к несколько разным вещам. These words refer to several different things.
Прочитай ещё раз. Read again. Приведу более полную цитату: Give a more complete quote:
There are also negative feedback effects, such as the fact that trees grow faster in higher CO2 and thus store more CO2 in their wood. There are also negative feedback effects, such as the fact that trees grow faster in higher CO2 and thus store more CO2 in their wood. [Update by Dr. [Update by Dr. Landis: Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says that hotter objects radiate more, and higher temperatures = more evaporation = more clouds = higher albedo.] But I worry that the abrupt spike in CO2 levels might cause positive feedback effects to dominate– at least temporarily. Landis: Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says that hotter objects radiate more, and higher temperatures = more evaporation = more clouds = higher albedo.] But I worry that the abrupt spike in CO2 levels might cause positive feedback effects to dominate-at least temporarily. In other words, it seems likely that a little bit of warming will lead to more warming. In other words, it seems likely that a little bit of warming will lead to more warming.
Bottom line: As far as I can tell there's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Bottom line: As far as I can tell there's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern.
То есть он сознательно отбрасывает "scientific evidence", не укладывающиеся в его мировоззрение, так как "I worry" и "it seems". That is, he consciously rejects "scientific evidence", does not fit into his worldview, as "I worry" and "it seems".
Можно со ссылками на графики? Possible with reference to the graphics? Мне сейчас лень в этом удостоверяться. I was just too lazy to verify this.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/tempera http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/tempera
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trend http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trend
По-моему, речь все же идет не о видимости зубчиков на графиках, а о конкретных данных, из которых эти графики построены. In my opinion, it still is not about visibility teeth on the charts, but the specific data from which these charts are constructed.
Так и я о том же. So I have about the same. Цитата из статьи про измерения CO2 за 400000 лет: "The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years." Quote from the article about the measurement of CO2 over 400000 years: "The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years." И как можно сравнивать данные, усреднённые за полторы тысячи лет, с измерениями по годам за пятьдесят лет? And how can you compare the data, averaged over fifteen hundred years, with measurements for years over fifty years? С таким усреднением и сейчас всё очень хорошо. With this averaging is all very well.
это не мешает ему ссылаться на вполне научные публикации в рецензируемых журналах it does not prevent it completely rely on scientific publications in refereed journals
Ссылаться на научные публикации недостаточно. To refer to scientific publications is not enough. Неплохо бы ссылаться на публикации по делу, а не просто так, и правильно интерпретировать результаты этих публикаций. Not bad to rely on the publication of the case, and not just so, and correctly interpret the results of these publications. В противном случае такие ссылки просто создают псевдонаучную видимость "a mountain of scientific evidence". Otherwise, such references merely create a pseudo-visibility "a mountain of scientific evidence".
On a completely different note, as an ordinary American I think we should do something about this matter. On a completely different note, as an ordinary American I think we should do something about this matter. We're still the most technologically advanced nation in the world, with one of the largest, best educated workforces in history. We're still the most technologically advanced nation in the world, with one of the largest, best educated workforces in history. Our economy is very capitalistic, which makes us highly adaptable compared to more socialist countries that are mired in bureaucracy. Our economy is very capitalistic, which makes us highly adaptable compared to more socialist countries that are mired in bureaucracy. If any country can solve this problem, it's us. If any country can solve this problem, it's us.
К тому же, он, похоже, идиот. Moreover, it seems, you idiot.
Hello Hello
2010-01-12 09:22 (UTC) 2010-01-12 09:22 (UTC)
http://translate.google.com/translate?h http://translate.google.com/translate?h
I'm sure this is a mis-translation. I'm sure this is a mis-translation. I'm a scientist, and we're all taught from early in our careers not to reject any evidence. I'm a scientist, and we're all taught from early in our careers not to reject any evidence.
Buldozr is right. Buldozr is right. Those words refer to different things. Those words refer to different things.
There's a mountain of scientific evidence that CO2 warms the climate, and that a temperature rise of at least ~4C by 2100 is likely if we don't stop emitting CO2. There's a mountain of scientific evidence that CO2 warms the climate, and that a temperature rise of at least ~ 4C by 2100 is likely if we don't stop emitting CO2. Here I'm referring to the position taken by the IPCC 4th report. Here I'm referring to the position taken by the IPCC 4th report.
All those positive feedback effects are listed to show why I'm worried that maybe the IPCC was too optimistic. All those positive feedback effects are listed to show why I'm worried that maybe the IPCC was too optimistic. Maybe we'll see a bigger increase than 4C by 2100. Maybe we'll see a bigger increase than 4C by 2100. But this statement is only a worry, as I said. But this statement is only a worry, as I said. There's no good evidence that we're approaching a "tipping point" and there's no current evidence to show that a "runaway greenhouse" is about to start. There's no good evidence that we're approaching a "tipping point" and there's no current evidence to show that a "runaway greenhouse" is about to start.
Yes, the original Vostok paper had low resolution, but studies like Delmotte 2004 and Jouzel 2007 have examined the data at a resolution of ~100 years and largely support the conclusions in the original paper. Yes, the Original Vostok paper had low Resolution, but Studies like Delmotte 2004 and Jouzel 2007 have examined the data at a resolution of ~ 100 years and largely support the conclusions in the original paper.
Also, more recent evidence shows that CO2 is higher than at any point in the last 15 million years: Also, more recent evidence shows that CO2 is higher than at any point in the last 15 million years:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20
I think that news article is referring to this article in Science: I think that news article is referring to this article in Science:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1981 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1981
I only refer to wikipedia for general terms like "Milankovitch cycles" and "metastability". I only refer to wikipedia for general terms like "Milankovitch cycles" and "metastability". I think most people who would want to see a definition for these terms wouldn't want to read a journal article. I think most people who would want to see a definition for these terms wouldn't want to read a journal article. More substantial and important conclusions are taken from peer-reviewed journal articles and the IPCC 4th report. More substantial and important conclusions are taken from peer-reviewed journal articles and the IPCC 4th report.
I'm sure your statement here was also mis-translated. I'm sure your statement here was also mis-translated. But you've quoted a part of the article that is aimed at a different audience. But you've quoted a part of the article that is aimed at a different audience. Notice at the start of the article that I only need to talk to conservative Republican people- the kind of people who voted for George W. Notice at the start of the article that I only need to talk to conservative Republican people-the kind of people who voted for George W. Bush and John McCain and Sarah Palin. Bush and John McCain and Sarah Palin. I don't have to talk to democrats who voted for Obama. I don't have to talk to democrats who voted for Obama.
That political aspect is annoying. That political aspect is annoying. I would rather focus on science alone. I would rather focus on science alone. But the only people I need to talk to are conservative Republican Americans, so I need to choose my words carefully. But the only people I need to talk to are conservative Republican Americans, so I need to choose my words carefully. I'm trying to connect with them by stressing that America can still play a constructive and helpful role in the world. I'm trying to connect with them by stressing that America can still play a constructive and helpful role in the world.
I hope my comments are clear. I hope my comments are clear. Again, sorry for replying in english- I realize that it's very rude of me. Again, sorry for replying in english-I realize that it's very rude of me. One disadvantage of living in America is that there aren't many chances to practice other languages... One disadvantage of living in America is that there aren't many chances to practice other languages ...
Re: Hello Re: Hello
2010-01-12 11:44 (UTC) 2010-01-12 11:44 (UTC)
Never mind; it's a pleasant surprise that you cared enough to translate and give a thorough reply. Never mind; it's a pleasant surprise that you cared enough to translate and give a thorough reply.
Not by a long shot; but avysk probably did not expect you to come by ;) Not by a long shot; but avysk probably did not expect you to come by;)
No problem at all: we the other participants in this thread so far need to know English to do our job, and my reference to your page implied that everybody who wants to meaningfully comment should do as well (it seems that automated translations are even worse in this direction). No problem at all: we the other participants in this thread so far need to know English to do our job, and my reference to your page implied that everybody who wants to meaningfully comment should do as well (it seems that automated translations are even worse in this direction).
Re: Hello Re: Hello
2010-01-12 12:55 (UTC) 2010-01-12 12:55 (UTC)
Not to mention that the "resolution here is too low" argument implies an assumption that the recent upswing is just a fluke, the likes of which probably happened in the last 500k years (without any specific evidence thereof in any of the proxy data), and there may be some processes that will bring it nicely in line for the allegedly smoothed average. Not to mention that the "resolution here is too low" argument implies an assumption that the recent upswing is just a fluke, the likes of which probably happened in the last 500k years (without any specific evidence thereof in any of the proxy data), and there may be some processes that will bring it nicely in line for the allegedly smoothed average. Again, no evidence is offered about specific processes that could do that, and which should better made themselves felt now than in 900 years. Again, no evidence is offered about specific processes that could do that, and which should better made themselves felt now than in 900 years.
Re: Hello Re: Hello
2010-01-12 13:29 (UTC) 2010-01-12 13:29 (UTC)
Incidentally, the words "off the scale" in the article link to this picture: Incidentally, the words "off the scale" in the article link to this picture:
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/j http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/j
Each color in the CO2 concentration graph is from different proxies using different methods and different temporal averaging. Each color in the CO2 concentration graph is from different proxies using different methods and different temporal averaging. But they all tell a consistent story: CO2 levels are generally slow to change naturally, but then in the 20th century CO2 levels shot up to levels unseen since before our species appeared. But they all tell a consistent story: CO2 levels are generally slow to change naturally, but then in the 20th century CO2 levels shot up to levels unseen since before our species appeared.
I'd really like to believe that his magical mechanism existed, which would make all our emitted CO2 vanish. I'd really like to believe that his magical mechanism existed, which would make all our emitted CO2 vanish. Unfortunately, we're probably going to have to figure out how to fix this problem ourselves without help from a magical carbon sink. Unfortunately, we're probably going to have to figure out how to fix this problem ourselves without help from a magical carbon sink.