Area 51 » Science

followers

Follow It!

26 Example Questions (2 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 11 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:32

up vote 11 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:32

up vote 11 down vote

added by EnergyNumbers Jun 25 '11 at 13:32

up vote 10 down vote

added by Henry May 11 '11 at 16:12

I'm curious to know why this would be off topic. If it's because of the ethical interpretation of the word responsible, then it's definitely off topic. But if it's because "there is no answer", then that would shut out many climate change questions, including non-controversial ones. Or maybe there's another reason. – Deditos Jun 1 '11 at 12:05

I'd say that a question phrased a bit different would be on topic, but this is too simplistic a question as stated. If it was 'What are the links between human activity and global warming' that might be more appropriate. – rsg Jun 1 '11 at 14:01

Yes, it's very broad, so would require a (too) long answer. – Deditos Jun 2 '11 at 12:24

How on earth can this possibly be considered "not constructive" or off topic. The question is simply about the the identity of the agent behind recent global warming, which is the subject of (very active and high quality) scientific investigation that has produced a richly documented answer. – raxacoricofallapatorius Oct 28 '11 at 15:12

Surely such a question would have more detail in a real site, and if not, clarification could be asked for? – naught101 Feb 6 at 7:16

show 4 more comments

up vote 10 down vote

added by Henry May 11 '11 at 22:23

I don't know about the license, but clearclimatecode.org might be a good place to start – naught101 Feb 6 at 12:33

up vote 10 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:35

up vote 10 down vote

added by rsg Jun 1 '11 at 13:59

up vote 9 down vote

added by rsg May 26 '11 at 16:27

Surely this is a politicial economy question, and thus outside the current (physical science-based) site definition? Perhaps "Climate Change" is a bit ambiguous? "Climate Science" would better fit the current definition, and would also fit better with the proposals to merge with other geoscience sites, however, this might contradict the proposal to merge with green energy – naught101 Feb 6 at 7:22

up vote 8 down vote

added by Deditos Jun 2 '11 at 12:36

I'm interested to ask a variety of questions related to deviations from the IPCC scenarios. The is lots in journals about potential major system shifts due to events, like large ice sheets breaking off. – AlanSE Feb 8 at 16:28

Probably a better wording for this question is something like "what's the predicted likelihood that climate sensitivity is greater than 5°C?" – naught101 Mar 7 at 1:02

up vote 7 down vote

added by rsg May 27 '11 at 11:22

up vote 7 down vote

added by Abe Oct 5 '11 at 23:10

This is my favorite question out of all that I've read. – AlanSE Feb 6 at 20:57

Good question, it is something that is often misunderstood. The answer of course is that it doesn't! – Dikran Marsupial Mar 2 at 12:47

@Dikran it does, for example a range of ~2-175 is used in note (a) under table TS2 – David Mar 3 at 1:34

No, that note refers to the adjustment time, not the residence (turnover) time, see the definition of "lifetime" in the glossary (page 948), where they give a turnover/residence time of 4 years and approx 100 years for the adjustment time. See also dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 at 18:36

up vote 6 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 6 at 12:30

Good alternative to the other one that simply asked if climate change was man-made. – AlanSE Feb 6 at 20:58

up vote 3 down vote

added by Abe Oct 5 '11 at 23:17

up vote 2 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:33

I think that's a general-reference question, which SE sites generally discourage / close / delete – EnergyNumbers Oct 11 '11 at 9:48

This is an critical and highly relevant question. Many people seem confused about this difference and about how to weigh claims of meteorologists in discussions about climate change. – raxacoricofallapatorius Oct 28 '11 at 15:09

up vote 2 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 6 at 7:32

Huh. Would be interested to know the reason for the downvote here.. – naught101 Feb 9 at 7:58

I agree. This is a very relevant question, and this has been answered for specific models but I am not aware of a general solution. – David Mar 3 at 1:38

+1 I agree this is a perfectly reasonable and potentially interesting question. As this is not the only one of naught101's reasonable questions that has been downvoted, I suspect that someone has been votong on a basis other than the scientific merits of the question. Sadly this kind of thing is rife in discussions of climate change. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 at 17:35

up vote 2 down vote

added by AlanSE Feb 16 at 18:57

up vote 1 down vote

added by Larian LeQuella Aug 26 '11 at 15:26

closed as not constructive by EnergyNumbers, Dori Oct 11 '11 at 5:40

This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

This is meant to be an example of a question that could be considered argumentative. – Larian LeQuella Oct 7 '11 at 13:11

However, real science is affected by politics, and it's a valid question (even if it's not worded in the best way). Where would a question like this belong? on a philosophy of science SE? – naught101 Feb 6 at 7:26

up vote 1 down vote

added by AlanSE Feb 8 at 16:25

up vote 1 down vote

added by Jennifer Davis Apr 25 at 4:43

Interesting question. Do you mean studying the effects of climate change on sea ice, or something like albedo feedback effects? Or are there drivers of sea ice change other than climate change? – naught101 May 17 at 9:34

up vote 0 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:34

closed as off topic by EnergyNumbers, Dori Oct 11 '11 at 5:42

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.

	Why is this off-topic? Seems like a great question. If it's because it's meteorology and not climate science, that's a bit harsh in this case, since you'd study more or less the same things (Also for the first couple of years of University!) – naught101 Feb 6 at 7:28
	Of course, it might fit better in the meteorology proposal – naught101 Feb 6 at 12:19

up vote 0 down vote

added by clupert May 29 '11 at 17:12

This would only fit if the scope were widened significantly. Can also see potential for this causing massive arguments. I think it would be better to stick to the physical sciences, and leave politics out of it. (climate/environmental politics might be a good separate site) – naught101 Feb 6 at 7:24

I agree about sticking to the science; introducing politics and motivation into the discussions is a recipe for ill tempered partisan squabbling, and there is already too much of that in the debate on climate. It is a reasonable question, but probably better suited to another venue. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 at 17:38

up vote 0 down vote

added by EnergyNumbers Oct 11 '11 at 9:45

up vote 0 down vote

added by AlanSE Feb 6 at 21:02

that is amusing! – naught101 Feb 7 at 6:27

Interesting question though. And, with the onset of space-mining, perhaps lugging water into space to balance out the total mass would be a solution to two issues =) – mkoistinen Apr 26 at 18:10

haha, energetically, I think it would be fairly easy to show that lifting sand from the bottom of the ocean and dumping it in Canada would require a lot less work. – AlanSE Apr 26 at 20:16

up vote 0 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 7 at 6:21

I don't know why this was downvoted, it is a perfectly reasonable question regarding the operation of GCMs – Dikran Marsupial Mar 2 at 12:50

Considering 5 of my questions on this proposal, and some on other proposals, all got down voted within a few minutes of each other, I think it's because I annoyed someone :D – naught101 Mar 2 at 14:12