Climate Change - Bad News

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, it's not just your air/environment don't forget, we've all got to share it.

Nor is it your's, so what is your point?

 

[Aquitaine]

Nor is it your's, so what is your point?

My point is, just like when you visit a community park or a hotel - don't trash it, it's not yours.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My point is, just like when you visit a community park or a hotel - don't trash it, it's not yours.

You are nearing being obnoxious, why are you implying I would trash it, who do you think you are talking to?

 

[Aquitaine]

You are nearing being obnoxious, why are you implying I would trash it, who do you think you are talking to?

Didn't you imply that given the choice, you'd rather live with "cheap" dirty, far-sourced energy, than more expensive, clean and locally-sourced energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Didn't you imply that given the choice, you'd rather live with "cheap" dirty, far-sourced energy, than more expensive, clean and locally-sourced energy?

No, I said I would go for the cheapest electricity, how it is generated is not my concern, that's determined by the government, Fwiw, the government here subsidizes alternative non coal based power generation to be fed into the grid. Besides, like I pointed out, human derived CO2 is not the cause of climate change in my scientifically considered opinion and particulate pollution is not the topic of the thread, global warming is!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But one really doesn't contradict the other

They do.

Just about everything we observe when it comes to physics deal with mega-matter and not quantum

Since all matter is governed by quantum physics, necessarily all physics should be able derivable from quantum physics. It isn't. We know it isn't. Moreover, there are paradoxes in both GR and QM (e.g., CTCs) by themselves that only get worse with QFT.

I've been a subscriber to "Scientific American" for over 40 years, which is peer-reviewed btw, and there's been article after article on q.m.

Scientific American publishes articles on peer-reviewed studies published elsewhere. I'd love to know what you mean by peer-review. Science is peer-reviewed, not Scientific American. The latter simply dumbs down scientific research.

That's sort of a worm's-eye view of the research and evidence. For example, I'm a retired anthropologist, and we know a LOT more about human evolution than we did when I first started teaching it in the late 1960's

I don't see how this demonstrates your point (that is, knowing more means that saying what is taken as given in the sciences, that papers and research are written in theoretical frameworks, is a "worm's eye view").

Diversity and specialization do not create more errors intrinsically.

Sure they do. Take anthropology. It's nowhere near as bad as psychology, but there are a lot of computational studies in anthropology carried out by people without a background in mathematics because with MATLAB, SPSS, SAS, R, STATISTICA, Maple, etc., it is possible to create sophisticated computational models or mathematical analyses without knowing the basics of multivariate mathematics from courses like linear algebra and later calculus courses. Evolutionary sciences are fields unto themselves which anthropologists can't be expected to master anymore than evolutionary psychologists. The more specialization you have, the more you have people who are dealing with areas they lack adequate knowledge of. A climate "skeptic", JR Christy, has been called on for every IPCC report there is, mainly (at least for the last 2) because nobody in the world other than his fellow skeptic Spencer has the knowledge about satellite temperature data he does. When Wegman wrote his controversial review of MBH98 & MBH99, he noted how closed the paleoclimatology community is: a few people always citing each other's papers.

That's what specialization does. Decreases the amount of knowledge everyone has about things they need. Of course, it's absolutely essential. We need anthropologists who deal with evolutionary sciences and perform computational analyses, just like we need biophysicists, computational neuroscientists, social neuroscientists, astrophysicists, etc. The sciences have become so specialized and diverse because there is e.g., too much within "physics" for any physicist to deal with and far, far, too much within climate sciences for any climate scientist to deal with.

For example, I had a root canal performed on me by a "specialist" because I ran into a problem my regular dentist couldn't handle

That's not research. The research behind medical sciences is prone to the same errors from specialization that the other sciences are.

Whereas I agree that we have to be very careful in terms of what we propose and do, the Kyoto proposals had their pros and cons, so I'm not going to stereotype it as you did.

What were the pros?

Secondly, energy conservation is not necessarily expensive, although it can be depending on what's being adopted.

If it is too make a difference, it will be expensive according to any and all models we have. See Nordhaus on this one if you want someone more mainstream than Lomberg.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm quickly realizing you don't do science Riverwolf, you'd be better sticking to non science subjects.

Fyi, anthropogenic derived CO2 comprises only about 3% of all atmospheric CO2, the 97% rest is natural, and all of atmospheric CO2 comprises just 0.03% of air, while Oxygen is about 20%.

So the human derived CO2 comprises just 3% of 0.03% of the air,..ie. 0,0009% of the air.

So you have no worries about breathing CO2.

And fyi, the earth's climate is never in stasis, it's always changing, so all is normal in that regard, All adults anywhere in the world throughout all time were / are aware that the climate has changed since they were kids.

As they say "lies, damn lies, and statistics." True 3% seems small, but 3% of something in something is "more" of something than you realize. You want to ridicule someone who "doesn't do science," and yet you yourself do not do alot of things (such as chemistry or even cooking where a pinch makes all the difference), where you can see and know that three percent can make a very big difference. Even the concentration of hydrogen chloride in the Works and in generic toilet cleaners is not even a difference of 3%, and the Works will remove rust better than generic. And most of that three percent was put there, as far as the earth is concerned, very recently. So even though only a few drops of red dye was added to a bucket of water, the water is looking mostly red.
And your chart doesn't even explain what humans have put there, doesn't cite anything credible, and proves or demonstrates nothing other than you will call a splinter in someone's eye when you have a mote in yours.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=Shadow Wolf;3520758]As they say "lies, damn lies, and statistics." True 3% seems small, but 3% of something in something is "more" of something than you realize. You want to ridicule someone who "doesn't do science," and yet you yourself do not do alot of things (such as chemistry or even cooking where a pinch makes all the difference), where you can see and know that three percent can make a very big difference. Even the concentration of hydrogen chloride in the Works and in generic toilet cleaners is not even a difference of 3%, and the Works will remove rust better than generic. And most of that three percent was put there, as far as the earth is concerned, very recently. So even though only a few drops of red dye was added to a bucket of water, the water is looking mostly red.
And your chart doesn't even explain what humans have put there, doesn't cite anything credible, and proves or demonstrates nothing other than you will call a splinter in someone's eye when you have a mote in yours.

[/QUOTE]

But a few drops of red dye placed in an ocean would not even be discernible. Further, if you scream that these few drops are destroying said ocean (especially without reputable data) then you have lost your objectivity.

 

[YmirGF]

But a few drops of red dye placed in an ocean would not even be discernible. Further, if you scream that these few drops are destroying said ocean (especially without reputable data) then you have lost your objectivity.

It's almost like the principle of Homepathic dilution of a material becoming more potent with each dilution, which is, of course, contradictory.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, I said I would go for the cheapest electricity, how it is generated is not my concern, that's determined by the government, Fwiw, the government here subsidizes alternative non coal based power generation to be fed into the grid. Besides, like I pointed out, human derived CO2 is not the cause of climate change in my scientifically considered opinion and particulate pollution is not the topic of the thread, global warming is!

I'm not talking about Global Warming though, I came into this thread literally stating that even if MMGW is a hoax, then it would still make sense to move society towards cleaner, more sustainable and locally-sourced energy (even if it's more expensive in the short-term), as opposed to "cheap" dirty, far-sourced fossil fuels.

That's all I'm saying. We don't agree - that's fine. :yes:

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As they say "lies, damn lies, and statistics." True 3% seems small, but 3% of something in something is "more" of something than you realize. You want to ridicule someone who "doesn't do science," and yet you yourself do not do alot of things (such as chemistry or even cooking where a pinch makes all the difference), where you can see and know that three percent can make a very big difference. Even the concentration of hydrogen chloride in the Works and in generic toilet cleaners is not even a difference of 3%, and the Works will remove rust better than generic. And most of that three percent was put there, as far as the earth is concerned, very recently. So even though only a few drops of red dye was added to a bucket of water, the water is looking mostly red.
And your chart doesn't even explain what humans have put there, doesn't cite anything credible, and proves or demonstrates nothing other than you will call a splinter in someone's eye when you have a mote in yours.

You can't be serious, how old are you? Red dye in water, salt in cooking, apples and oranges, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with the example of apples and other apples, 3 parts of CO2 mixed with 97 parts of CO2.

So to clarify, 100% of the atmospheric trace element CO2, is a mere 0.038% or 387 parts per million of the air. Of which about 11 parts per million can be attributed to humans. If you doubt it, provide your scientific facts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm quickly realizing you don't do science Riverwolf, you'd be better sticking to non science subjects.

Fyi, anthropogenic derived CO2 comprises only about 3% of all atmospheric CO2, the 97% rest is natural, and all of atmospheric CO2 comprises just 0.03% of air, while Oxygen is about 20%.

So the human derived CO2 comprises just 3% of 0.03% of the air,..ie. 0,0009% of the air.

So you have no worries about breathing CO2.

And fyi, the earth's climate is never in stasis, it's always changing, so all is normal in that regard, All adults anywhere in the world throughout all time were / are aware that the climate has changed since they were kids.

[

But a few drops of red dye placed in an ocean would not even be discernible. Further, if you scream that these few drops are destroying said ocean (especially without reputable data) then you have lost your objectivity.[/quote]
It was a simple metaphor to demonstrate how much "just 3%...." can actually add up to. You place a few red drops of food coloring in a bucket of water, it's only a very small amount but it will diffuse across all of the water and give all of the water a slight reddish-tint to it. Simple metaphors are nice like that, in that they are general enough for anyone to understand, but specific enough to demonstrate a point.
Now of course I can give examples of some substances in which even a very small amount can have very powerful differences, such as if total makeup had even just a few drips of black widow venom can be fatal. Add just a drop of a number of chemicals and bleach, and you will have a violent chemical reaction. Genetically there is only about a .3% difference between us and chimpanzees.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But a few drops of red dye placed in an ocean would not even be discernible. Further, if you scream that these few drops are destroying said ocean (especially without reputable data) then you have lost your objectivity.

It was a simple metaphor to demonstrate how much "just 3%...." can actually add up to. You place a few red drops of food coloring in a bucket of water, it's only a very small amount but it will diffuse across all of the water and give all of the water a slight reddish-tint to it. Simple metaphors are nice like that, in that they are general enough for anyone to understand, but specific enough to demonstrate a point.
Now of course I can give examples of some substances in which even a very small amount can have very powerful differences, such as if total makeup had even just a few drips of black widow venom can be fatal. Add just a drop of a number of chemicals and bleach, and you will have a violent chemical reaction. Genetically there is only about a .3% difference between us and chimpanzees.
[/quote]

Sorry, you still don't get it, to compare the 3% of human derived CO2 to the natural derived CO2, using your bucket metaphor, then you must compare a few red drops in a bucket full of the same red liquid! As you now realize, it would not make a discernable difference.

Logic requires you to play by the rules, if you insist on using an analogy that bears no meaningful relevance to the facts put forward, then you would be trolling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just for fun, here is the prognostication of a renowned climate scientist (on par with Al Gore)....
Sir Bob Geldof: 'All humans will die before 2030' | Latest News | News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week

 

[BSM1]

Just for fun, here is the prognostication of a renowned climate scientist (on par with Al Gore)....
Sir Bob Geldof: 'All humans will die before 2030' | Latest News | News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week

Ironically that's steam not smoke coming from those cooling towers in the picture shown.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ironically that's steam not smoke coming from those cooling towers in the picture shown.

Don't cloud the issue with sciencey talk.

 

[BSM1]

Don't cloud the issue with sciencey talk.

Yes, I agree. The point was starting to get a bit nebulous.

 

[Falvlun]

You can't be serious, how old are you? Red dye in water, salt in cooking, apples and oranges, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with the example of apples and other apples, 3 parts of CO2 mixed with 97 parts of CO2.

So to clarify, 100% of the atmospheric trace element CO2, is a mere 0.038% or 387 parts per million of the air. Of which about 11 parts per million can be attributed to humans. If you doubt it, provide your scientific facts.

"Though she be but little, she is fierce."

These numbers mean nothing without context.

A small number doesn't inherently mean small effect no more than a large number inherently means large effect. A small number could produce a large effect.

Despite the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere-- human caused or not-- it has a big role. It is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases soak up rays from the sun and emit them as thermal (infrared) radiation-- back towards the earth. This isn't bad in and of itself-- it's what helps keep us at a nice comfortable temperature (without greenhouse gases, it is estimated that the earth would be ~33 C colder on average than we currently are.) CO2 is the second largest greenhouse gas, after water vapor.



It is interesting to note that the rate of change in the amount of C02 is highly accelerated:

The concentration has increased markedly in the 21st century, at a rate of 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then.[1][2] It was 280 ppm in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 400 ppm (parts per million) as of May 2013,[3] with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.

from WIKI

That's a 40% increase. According to the same Wiki, the ocean has absorbed 57% of that, with the rest going into the atmosphere. This has caused the acidification of the ocean.

 

[metis]

Since all matter is governed by quantum physics, necessarily all physics should be able derivable from quantum physics. It isn't.

Q.P. is in its relative infancy, so the rubrics dealing with q.m. and mega-matter are also in their infancy. Therefore, I doubt one will contradict the other in the final analysis even if they do operate on different planes. A very large part of science is determining how things mesh.

Scientific American publishes articles on peer-reviewed studies published elsewhere. I'd love to know what you mean by peer-review. Science is peer-reviewed, not Scientific American. The latter simply dumbs down scientific research.

Not only does it post peer-reviewed articles, the following issue after an article is published allows other scientists to throw in their two cents, and that's what "peer-review" means.

Sure they do. Take anthropology. It's nowhere near as bad as psychology, but there are a lot of computational studies in anthropology carried out by people without a background in mathematics because with MATLAB, SPSS, SAS, R, STATISTICA, Maple, etc., it is possible to create sophisticated computational models or mathematical analyses without knowing the basics of multivariate mathematics from courses like linear algebra and later calculus courses...

But we farm that out! For example, we as anthropologists do not do dating techniques but merely supply the materials for experts in that field to deal with them and then inform us. I would have thought you would know that.

That's what specialization does. Decreases the amount of knowledge everyone has about things they need...

That only is that way if they don't "farm out" to others that which they may not know.

What were the pros?

Making people aware. It's like dealing with an alcoholic: the first thing that has to occur is for the alcoholic to recognize (s)he's an alcoholic.

If it is too make a difference, it will be expensive according to any and all models we have.

So, spending a bit more money is more of a problem than actually dealing with something that could devastating for millions or even billions of people over the following decades and centuries?

 

[YmirGF]

So, spending a bit more money is more of a problem than actually dealing with something that could devastating for millions or even billions of people over the following decades and centuries?

A bit more money? Do you mean that in a "get a bit pregnant" sense?