Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8818)	12/10/2010 7:55:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

<<I'd like to know the difference between "arctic" and "tropical" methane molecules.>> Well, you will need to take a class in molecular chemistry. Post grad probably. Not to answer that question. A methane molecule is a methane molecule. It doesn't come in different forms, they are all CH4. One atom of carbon bound with four hydrogen atoms. Of course different molecules of methane have different characteristics, they are at different temperatures, surrounded by different other molecules, located in different places, still I doubt he really "developed a fast way to distinguish arctic methane molecules from tropical methane molecules". Perhaps he found a way to figure out how much of the methane in the atmosphere came from the arctic and how much came from the tropics (and perhaps how much came from subtropics and temperate areas). People don't generally challenge brain surgeons because they know they can't. Sure they can. They may not be able to do surgery, they may not know nearly as much about the brain, or even human biology and anatomy in general, but an educated person with some relevant knowledge might reasonable disagree with a statement about the brain made by the surgeon, and certainty could reasonable disagree in areas outside his specialty. But they feel by looking out the window they can challenge PHD atmospheric scientists. The area of atmospheric science, is far broader than the area of brain surgery. The area of climate change is even broader, because it includes not only atmospheric science (and the study of oceans and volcano, and effects from space), but also issues of economics, engineering, politics, etc. If at atmospheric scientist tells me that methane is a "greenhouse gas", I'm unlikely to disagree (mostly because I already know it is, but even if I didn't I would tend to either take him at his word or check other sources, rather than just disagreeing with a basic point directly in his area of competency if I was ignorant in that area). If on the other hand he makes a statement like "we need to implement policy X withing 5 years and policy Y within 15, because if we don't there will be a massive climate change disaster much worse than the cost of these policies, than he is making a statement outside of his expertise. Not only because there is much more to such issues than just atmospheric science, but also because the atmospheric science itself isn't that certain.