• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Human beliefs sure are weird. Why is it so difficult to get audiophiles to accept the existence of perceptual bias?

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,570
Likes
25,449
Location
Alfred, NY
The "97%" figure is tossed around a lot and many question it, especially because there's a selection bias. Being a physical scientist (NOT a climatologist!), I spend a lot of time with other physical scientists, and at least based on my limited sample set, I'd say there's a pretty diverse range of opinions. I have no idea what the number actually is, but I suppose that it very much depends on what the selection criteria are.

Of course, from a scientific standpoint, the important factor is not polling but actual data, evidence, and experimental verification of hypotheses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THW

Azeia

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
123
Likes
297
Of course, from a scientific standpoint, the important factor is not polling but actual data, evidence, and experimental verification of hypotheses.
Of course, but the "polling" part comes into play when laymen need to understand what the experts think on a particular topic. If everyone had to be an expert in every field, we'd all have to be immortal to learn all of those subjects and be perfectly qualified to read the data properly in any field. There must be a way to extract information out of scientific study and boil it down for the people who've chosen to specialize in a different field.

Also, once again, I should add, even if it was only half of climatologists, I would not want to take those odds. The reality is throwing a bit of R&D money towards renewables will have a near-zero negative impact on the economy, whereas if we don't do it, we could be destroying the environment.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,570
Likes
25,449
Location
Alfred, NY
Of course, but the "polling" part comes into play when laymen need to understand what the experts think on a particular topic. If everyone had to be an expert in every field, we'd all have to be immortal to learn all of those subjects and be perfectly qualified to read the data properly in any field. There must be a way to extract information out of scientific study and boil it down for the people who've chosen to specialize in a different field.

Fortunately, what's transferable between specialties is understanding how data are acquired, manipulated, and interpreted. One of my fun things to do (for certain values of "fun") is to ask the simple question, "What do you mean by 'the global temperature?' How is it measured and what are the parameterizations and error sources?" Not flippant, it's a serious question and one on which there's a lot of disagreement among the specialists in that particular field.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,161
Location
Singapore
Fortunately, what's transferable between specialties is understanding how data are acquired, manipulated, and interpreted. One of my fun things to do (for certain values of "fun") is to ask the simple question, "What do you mean by 'the global temperature?' How is it measured and what are the parameterizations and error sources?" Not flippant, it's a serious question and one on which there's a lot of disagreement among the specialists in that particular field.

Unfortunately very few people really give any thought to metrology and few engineers and scientists I know outside of those who are involved in experimentation, testing and monitoring requiring accurate measurement have ever seriously studied the subject. Which is unfortunate as a knowledge of metrology is very useful not just professionally but in life. I used to do engine emissions approval for marine engines and occasionally (shudder....) even stooped to wearing overalls and ear defenders to collect measured data myself and it is amazing how many BS tricks you can see through with a basic knowledge of measurement and instrumentation principles, or conversely baffle and obfuscate. Not that I'd ever do that. Obviously. Unless a client had paid me to do that.
 
Last edited:

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,570
Likes
25,449
Location
Alfred, NY
Not that I'd ever do that. Obviously. Unless a client had paid me to do that.

That's more key than most people realize.

And it's no secret that I'm a test and measurement geek. My first job after my post-doc was with Nicolet, in the early days of FFT. Coincidentally, I was measuring the infrared absorption of molecules...
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,316
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
I prefer to get my information about climate science from the world of science, and from sources that actually focus on science. The general grouping of physical sciences that do climate and global warming research is known as the "earth sciences." In addition to receiving links to climate science news each week, I also receive a weekly email with about 50 links to "new research" - articles and papers related to AGW/CC. Obviously, I cannot read them all, but it gives me an overview of what climate scientists are looking at. People who think that scientists are not looking at AGW/CC from all possible angles and openly subjecting their findins to public scrutiny are operating at the intellectual level of Beavis and Butthead.

Here is a typical set of links from my weekly email from Skeptical Science:

Articles:

Biology and climate change
The impact of climate change and human activity on the ecological status of Bosten Lake, NW China, revealed by a diatom record for the last 2000 years

Cross‐scale interactions dictate regional lake carbon flux and productivity response to future climate (open access)

Ecological water stress under projected climate change across hydroclimate gradients in the north central United States

Diverging phenological responses of Arctic seabirds to an earlier spring

Cloud cover and delayed herbivory relative to timing of spring onset interact to dampen climate change impacts on net ecosystem exchange in a
coastal Alaskan wetland (open access)


Impacts of climate and insect herbivory on productivity and physiology of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) in Alaskan boreal forests (open
access)


Renewable absorbents for CO2 capture: from biomass to nature

Sugarcane straw management for bioenergy: effects of global warming on greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon storage (open access)

Large herbivore assemblages in a changing climate: incorporating water dependence and thermoregulation (open access)

Physical science and climate change

Trends in Precipitation Days in the United States (open access)

Future climate and land use change impacts on river flows in the Tapajós Basin in the Brazilian Amazon (open access)

Pliocene warmth consistent with greenhouse gas forcing (open access)

Explaining Differences between Recent Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates with Tropical SSTs (open access)

The polar stratosphere as an arbiter of the projected tropical versus polar tug‐of‐war (open access)

Multi‐Model Analysis of the Atmospheric Response to Antarctic Sea Ice Loss at Quadrupled CO2 (open access)

The relationship of cloud number and size with their large‐scale environment in deep tropical convection (open access)

Sea ice detection using GNSS‐R data from TechDemoSat‐1 (open access)

Ecohydrology controls the geomorphic response to climate change (open access)

MJO teleconnections over the PNA region in climate models. Part I: Performance- and process-based skill metrics

The 2015–2016 carbon cycle as seen from OCO-2 and the global in situ network

Changes in concentrations of fine and coarse particles under the CO2-induced global warming

Improved probabilistic twenty-first century projections of sea surface temperature over East Asian marginal seas by considering uncertainty owing to model error and internal variability (open access)

Consecutive extreme flooding and heat wave in Japan: Are they becoming a norm? (open access)

Significant feedbacks of wetland methane release on climate change and the causes of their uncertainty (open access)

Development of quantitative metrics of plume migration at geologic CO2 storage sites

Impact of geochemical and geomechanical changes on CO2 sequestration potential in sandstone and limestone aquifers

Humans deal with climate change

Modeling of power sector decarbonization in China: comparisons of early and delayed mitigation towards 2-degree target (open access)

The carbon footprint of Danish diets (open access)

Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation (open access)

Redesigning knowledge systems for urban resilience

Star-shaped cities alleviate trade-off between climate change mitigation and adaptation (open access)

Amplification of risks to water supply at 1.5 °C and 2 °C in drying climates: a case study for Melbourne, Australia (open access)

The development of children’s environmental attitude and behavior

The contribution of carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector to future climate change (open access)

Climate change and air pollution: the connection between traffic intervention policies and public acceptance in a local context (open access)

Loss of profit in the hotel industry of the United States due to climate change (open access)

Assessment of policy conflict using systems thinking: A case study of carbon footprint reduction on Irish dairy farms

The Earth System Governance Project as a network organization: a critical assessment after ten years

Scarcity and Safe Operating Spaces: The Example of Natural Forests (open access)

The Effects of Discussion of Familiar or Non-Familiar Information on Opinions of Anthropogenic Climate Change (open access)

Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act

Estimating Chinese rural and urban residents’ carbon consumption and its drivers: considering capital formation as a productive input (open access)

Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options in smallholder production systems (open access)

Greenhouse gas fluxes and mitigation potential for managed lands in the Russian Federation (open access)

Parametric loss and damage insurance schemes as a means to enhance climate change resilience in developing countries (open access)

Mapping and clustering the adoption of carbon pricing policies: what polities price carbon and why? (open access)

Assessing negative carbon dioxide emissions from the perspective of a national “fair share” of the remaining global carbon budget (open access)

The levelized cost of carbon: a practical, if imperfect, method to compare CO2 abatement projects (open access)

Mid-Century Strategies: pathways to a low-carbon future? (open access)

Carbon storage and CO2 dynamics from wood products harvested in Brazil during 1900–2016 (open access)

Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature (open access)

Impact of climate change on financial analysis of a small hydropower project
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
AOC's statement was the complete opposite of what you are insinuating, she was stating that people are concerned about these issues, and that these concerns influence family planning, and she was stating this from the perspective of being dismayed at the situation, not encouraging it. She also happens to be entirely correct that people are already thinking this way. This is just simple quote-mining.
I think you're missing my point. Whether AOC is reacting to an existing situation or encouraging it is not the issue. Your link above makes the case that 'science' put together by people sitting at keyboards in their own imaginary worlds, is literally causing real people not to exist! I know some young people who are genuinely frightened about all this. When these fanatics say "We have 12 years to save the planet" the youngsters believe it is literally true. They are not old enough to have lived through the several previous "We have 12 years to save the planet"s starting 20-odd years ago.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,316
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Not flippant, it's a serious question and one on which there's a lot of disagreement among the specialists in that particular field.

Actually, there is very little disagreement among the true experts on global surface temperature measurements. I find it amusing that John Christy and Roy Spencer, heads of the teams that use computer models to calculate (not measure) mid-to-upper tropospheric temperatures from satellite microwave soundings (a place where humans do not live or grow their food) have revised their temperature charts upwards more often than those using the directly-measured surface temperature sets.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates
A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

John Abraham
Thu 11 May 2017 11.00 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018

Human emission of heat-trapping gases is causing the Earth to warm. We’ve known that for many decades. In fact, there are no reputable scientists that dispute this fact. There are, however, a few scientists who don’t think the warming will be very much or that we should worry about it. These contrarians have been shown to be wrong over and over again, like in the movie Groundhog Day. And, a new study just out shows they may have another error. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about.
Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.

To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface. Those temperatures are rising too. We are also seeing ice melting and sea level rising around the planet.

So, the evidence is clear. What Christy and Spencer focus on is the temperatures measured far above the Earth’s surface in the troposphere and the stratosphere. Generally, over the past few decades these two scientists have claimed the troposphere temperatures are not rising very rapidly. This argument has been picked up to deny the reality of human caused climate change – but it has been found to be wrong.

What kinds of errors have been made? Well first, let’s understand how these two researchers measure atmospheric temperatures. They are not using thermometers, rather they are using microwave signals from the atmosphere to deduce temperatures. The microwave sensors are on satellites which rapidly circle the planet.

Some of the problems they have struggled with relate to satellite altitudes (they slowly fall over their lifetimes, and this orbital decay biases the readings); satellite drift (their orbits shift east-west a small amount causing an error); they errantly include stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites. It’s pretty deep stuff, but I have written about the errors multiple times here, and here for people who want a deeper dive into the details.
 
Last edited:

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,318
Likes
9,462
Enough of this climate change debate. How about something related to audio gear or music?
 

Azeia

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
123
Likes
297
I think you're missing my point. Whether AOC is reacting to an existing situation or encouraging it is not the issue. Your link above makes the case that 'science' put together by people sitting at keyboards in their own imaginary worlds, is literally causing real people not to exist! I know some young people who are genuinely frightened about all this. When these fanatics say "We have 12 years to save the planet" the youngsters believe it is literally true. They are not old enough to have lived through the several previous "We have 12 years to save the planet"s starting 20-odd years ago.
You continue to beg the question in all of these responses. The moment we establish that you're wrong about the science being "imaginary" and wrong that these people are fanatics, your point falls apart because it becomes justifiable to warn about what is coming, in order to try and stop it.

You have to first establish why you've arbitrarily decided that the scientific consensus on climate is wrong while you are right before you can move on to chastise people for being "alarmists", because you haven't proven they are alarmists yet.

Enough of this climate change debate. How about something related to audio gear or music?
The thread is about science denialism though; as I mentioned in a previous post, perhaps it should've been posted in one of the off-topic forum sections rather than here, but that's on OP, not us.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,316
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Enough of this climate change debate. How about something related to audio gear or music?
Hey Ron, You're acting like this is the only thread at ASR. Rather than coming here and complaining, I do believe that there is a plethora of other threads here that would be more to your liking.

No one is forcing you to come here, but your reaction demonstrates that you are quite uncomfortable with the subject, more so than with controversial audio issues. Perhaps it is because that even skeptics can harbor at the back of their mind thoughts that there is a possibility that global warming is real, that climate scientists are correct, and that our children's future is in jeopardy.

As Gringo expats say here in Panama, "Tranquillo, dude!"
 

graz_lag

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
1,296
Likes
1,584
Location
Le Mans, France
Hey Ron, You're acting like this is the only thread at ASR. Rather than coming here and complaining, I do believe that there is a plethora of other threads here that would be more to your liking.

No one is forcing you to come here, but your reaction demonstrates that you are quite uncomfortable with the subject, more so than with controversial audio issues. Perhaps it is because that even skeptics can harbor at the back of their mind thoughts that there is a possibility that global warming is real, that climate scientists are correct, and that our children's future is in jeopardy.

As Gringo expats say here in Panama, "Tranquillo, dude!"

globalwarmingknickers.jpg
 
OP
Z

Zerimas

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
160
Likes
113
@Azeia
First off, I want to address people who are making snarky remarks about how off-topic all of this is; fair point, except that in that case you'd have to blame OP for starting the topic in the first place, or perhaps for posting it in the wrong forum section. Perhaps "Fun topics" would be better? not that this is particularly "fun", but I can't see any other options, and there is a similar active topic there right now about comparing hobby/science of audio vs dog breeding, but since no one views dogs as "political", I guess that's perfectly fine, right?

Sorry! I figured this was cool for the "general" chat since it is a pretty generalized topic about audio. I didn't predict this sort of debate would break out.

I apologize. This seems like one of the few places on the internet were it is actually possible to have an intelligent and (at least reasonably) civil discussion. Browsing reddit makes my insides feel sad.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,318
Likes
9,462
As Gringo expats say here in Panama, "Tranquillo, dude!"

Climate change is an important topic which has little relationship to what this site is about. As for science denial, the debate spills over into whether climate science is sound or not. Even if the science is 100% good and CO2 emissions are the principle cause of warming there is an enormous debate as to how the problem should be approached.

So to say there are other threads is giving my point of view the short shrift.

Next time I am in Panama, I will buy the first round.
 

Azeia

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
123
Likes
297
Climate change is an important topic which has little relationship to what this site is about. As for science denial, the debate spills over into whether climate science is sound or not. Even if the science is 100% good and CO2 emissions are the principle cause of warming there is an enormous debate as to how the problem should be approached.
It may be out of the norm for the site as a whole, but I was mostly pointing out that the main complaint that could be made here is that this thread is in the wrong place, and could instead be moved into one of the off-topic forums. It just seems odd to me that we would respect science in one domain, and get on our high horses when calling out the totaldac apologists (for example) in that other thread, but over here some people are suddenly comfortable with being skeptical regarding the consensus of the scientific community (not you, I mean others).

By the way, about your "even if" thought experiment, I'm not sure if you intentionally or unintentionally left out the "human-caused" part, but that's a key part, which is precisely the one that has consensus. As for the debate regarding solutions, I mean the most serious proposals so far have been fairly moderate; more or less just fund R&D into greener technology. There may be some debate as to what else can be done, but I don't think there is much debate when it comes down to doing the bare minimum, but right now we're not even doing that.

@Azeia

Sorry! I figured this was cool for the "general" chat since it is a pretty generalized topic about audio. I didn't predict this sort of debate would break out.

I apologize. This seems like one of the few places on the internet were it is actually possible to have an intelligent and (at least reasonably) civil discussion. Browsing reddit makes my insides feel sad.
I didn't mean to hang you out to dry, it's not like you could've known how it'd turn out. I'm mostly directing my criticism at people wanting to stop the discussion, because there appears to almost be an implication that we are somehow out of line for discussing this here, despite the fact that it fits in perfectly with the topic of this thread.

People could have just responded "good analogy" and moved on, but instead decided to embrace scientific denial.
 

kevinh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
339
Likes
275
So let's start with some FACTS. The Atmosphere is Composed of Currently ~400 Parts per million of CO2, IOW .004 of the atmosphere is CO2.
Of that CO2 Human activity is responsible for about 3% of Global CO2 levels IOW, .004x.03. 0.00012 of the atmosphere is CO2 generated by humans.
IF humans were to reduce their CO2 foot prints to zero they would remove 0.00012 of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

So speaking of Risk what would happen to humans if we did away with all CO2 emissions, mass poverty, starvation and death.
Try to live without electricity, transportation, and food grown without multicultural machinery or fertilizers for a month and get back top us.

The Global Greenhouse effect is caused primarily by water vapor ~95%. Now selling H2O as a pollutant is a rather tough sell. So the theory was ( not sure if the goalpost have been moved on the basic premise), that CO2 led to a positive feedback loop with water vapor to induce accelerated warming.

See CO2 by itself is logarithmic in effect, past a certain point it takes a doubling to produce a small change. The next doubling produces a much smaller change and so on. Well that doesn't help with crisis mongering so a positive feedback was proposed. It was said that the warming in the lower troposphere caused by this feedback effect would be 3x the effects with ground temperatures. The problem is that this 'fingerprint' has never been observed in the real world.

Those of you familiar with cricuit design realize what happens when a circuit has a positive feed back rather than negative feedback.

Would you be surprised to know that for much of the earth history that CO2 levels were almost a order of magnitude greater than current levels?
so if there is a positive feedback that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, why didn't it happen when CO2 levels were 2000-4000 ppm over hundreds of millions of years? Did the laws of physics change?
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,466
Location
Australia
So let's start with some FACTS. The Atmosphere is Composed of Currently ~400 Parts per million of CO2, IOW .004 of the atmosphere is CO2.
Of that CO2 Human activity is responsible for about 3% of Global CO2 levels IOW, .004x.03. 0.00012 of the atmosphere is CO2 generated by humans.
IF humans were to reduce their CO2 foot prints to zero they would remove 0.00012 of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

So speaking of Risk what would happen to humans if we did away with all CO2 emissions, mass poverty, starvation and death.
Try to live without electricity, transportation, and food grown without multicultural machinery or fertilizers for a month and get back top us.

The Global Greenhouse effect is caused primarily by water vapor ~95%. Now selling H2O as a pollutant is a rather tough sell. So the theory was ( not sure if the goalpost have been moved on the basic premise), that CO2 led to a positive feedback loop with water vapor to induce accelerated warming.

See CO2 by itself is logarithmic in effect, past a certain point it takes a doubling to produce a small change. The next doubling produces a much smaller change and so on. Well that doesn't help with crisis mongering so a positive feedback was proposed. It was said that the warming in the lower troposphere caused by this feedback effect would be 3x the effects with ground temperatures. The problem is that this 'fingerprint' has never been observed in the real world.

Those of you familiar with cricuit design realize what happens when a circuit has a positive feed back rather than negative feedback.

Would you be surprised to know that for much of the earth history that CO2 levels were almost a order of magnitude greater than current levels?
so if there is a positive feedback that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, why didn't it happen when CO2 levels were 2000-4000 ppm over hundreds of millions of years? Did the laws of physics change?

Why don't tell us! You seem to know better than the climate science research.
 

Azeia

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
123
Likes
297
So let's start with some FACTS. The Atmosphere is Composed of Currently ~400 Parts per million of CO2, IOW .004 of the atmosphere is CO2.
Of that CO2 Human activity is responsible for about 3% of Global CO2 levels IOW, .004x.03. 0.00012 of the atmosphere is CO2 generated by humans.
IF humans were to reduce their CO2 foot prints to zero they would remove 0.00012 of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

So speaking of Risk what would happen to humans if we did away with all CO2 emissions, mass poverty, starvation and death.
Try to live without electricity, transportation, and food grown without multicultural machinery or fertilizers for a month and get back top us.

The Global Greenhouse effect is caused primarily by water vapor ~95%. Now selling H2O as a pollutant is a rather tough sell. So the theory was ( not sure if the goalpost have been moved on the basic premise), that CO2 led to a positive feedback loop with water vapor to induce accelerated warming.

See CO2 by itself is logarithmic in effect, past a certain point it takes a doubling to produce a small change. The next doubling produces a much smaller change and so on. Well that doesn't help with crisis mongering so a positive feedback was proposed. It was said that the warming in the lower troposphere caused by this feedback effect would be 3x the effects with ground temperatures. The problem is that this 'fingerprint' has never been observed in the real world.

Those of you familiar with cricuit design realize what happens when a circuit has a positive feed back rather than negative feedback.

Would you be surprised to know that for much of the earth history that CO2 levels were almost a order of magnitude greater than current levels?
so if there is a positive feedback that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, why didn't it happen when CO2 levels were 2000-4000 ppm over hundreds of millions of years? Did the laws of physics change?
Out of curiosity, do you own a Totaldac d1-six? :)
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,318
Likes
9,462
It may be out of the norm for the site as a whole, but I was mostly pointing out that the main complaint that could be made here is that this thread is in the wrong place, and could instead be moved into one of the off-topic forums.

Yes, it should be moved to an off topic forum. That would be enough for me.
 
Top Bottom