Global Warming

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by jupiviv » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:29 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:14 am
The big head office has no intention of shutting down while a tiny regional Hindu office still could make a mega profit this year!
Yes, I've started doing alt-right, SJW-ready, philosophical couples counseling/self-esteem coaching for patreon donations in tulip bulbs, er, I mean bitcoins like our fellow sage Stefan Molyneux.
In the end it's not the science which is as much faulty but the methods of selection, the bias, which can never be solved by science itself. Higher reason is the only power able to steer that process, to "burn back the weeds"'
People use reason within science because they need to, so they perceive that reasoning as immanent to science. Since avoiding other kinds of reasoning usually doesn't result in tangible/short-term consequences, they consider those to be inferior and often even alien to the reasoning done within endeavours (offering modern conveniences, or failing that individual status and livelihood) categorised as "science".
Some big disappointments are unraveling as we speak as for some reason the modern human had started to believe in pure intentions of the masses or at least the groups elected to govern, amuse or research. Or men. The world is turning uglier but not because it was nicer before! It's only the unraveling of one belief and the increasing despair to find a new one.
In India we mimic, emulate and simulate Western culture. It's because we are afraid to think about ourselves, and thus, afraid to think. Those parts of ourselves we cannot explain by imitating/simulating western concepts and perspectives, we ignore. Those parts which scare or disgust or embarrass us, we try to excise and replace with what we think are the western alternatives and analogues - when that fails, we bicker with each other until a new western alternative/analogue to something distracts us. Spiritually, we are children trapped in a limbo between our murky past and the West's enunciated present. I think the West is reaching, or has already reached, a similar place, i.e., between the murky interpretation of modernism and the enunciation of its consequences within the context of modernist ideologies.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3770
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Global Warming

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:22 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:20 pm
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:34 am
much of humanity, certainly almost all Americans, have way too large of an ego to listen.
And yet you appear to see no problem in eating its current major fruit like its various political-scientific conclusions on climate? Perhaps you think science safeguards us all from ego?
Either I misread that, or you have no idea about the relationship between the current American political system and the scientific community. President Trump recently banned the use of the terms "science-based" and "evidence based" by the Centers for Disease Control, the governor of Florida banned the use of the term "climate change" some years ago and the current Presidential administration is discouraging use of that term and related terms, the current President and the majority of Congress are global warming deniers, and only recently have Americans in general started to believe that climate change is real, though not so many of those believe it is an actual problem.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:20 pm
Yes eventually everybody will die. And once it's understood, from a wiser perspective, what life actually is beyond organic communicating mechanisms, what makes something actually alive, it's immediately understood that rapid climate change is not the most real danger. It's perhaps more like a global distraction, like all the aiming for world peace by diplomatic means.
There are many real dangers. All should be attended to in reasonable proportions, and fortunately there are enough of us to address all of them reasonably. We do not have to finish our prayers before putting out the kitchen fire, and if we try, the whole house may burn down with us in it, still praying.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:20 pm
As for worrying about throwing trillions at making the world a more livable place, in the US, the House and the Senate each passed bills that would cost about two trillion a year to give tax breaks and other advantages to corporations and the super-wealthy, unless they cut out significant portions of our social safety net that we all paid into our entire working lives (and then it would still cost us over a trillion a year). They've already raided funds we paid into for our social safety net for their own pet projects, but now they are ready to point-blank rob us, and there doesn't seem to be a darned thing we can do about it. Our economy is already swirling down the toilet, and we are waiting for the final gurgle of the flush. It would be wiser to use the last of the old economy to prepare the world for the new economy rather than cannibalize it for the wealthy few who have been boiling us frogs for a long time now.
You sound here almost opposed to all what stands for the classical American Dreaming and desire for Freedom. You are more describing a socialist leaning economy and government, like the Scandinavian or Rhineland models. Let me wake you up from that: the large part of Americans are not willing to go in that direction at all if they knew what it would mean from a personal perspective. It would require major changes to lifestyle and social behavior. And it seems the US government, current and former ones, is just reflecting this conflict. And personally I think the peek of the Scandinavian and Rhineland socioeconomic models is long over, despite Germany doing well still mainly because the Euro zone is still benefiting them as biggest, most productive partner, a position only one can take at the time. But that's a more classical model, like how the USA got their more wealthy position after WW2 in relation to all the weaker economies resulting from the aftermath.
Capitalism is killing us. The UN was just here checking on the wellbeing of our poor, and they were appalled. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Right now, 3 men hold as much wealth as the rest of the country combined. Freedom is being unveiled as an illusion, not just by the fact that we incarcerate far more of our population than any other country (the fact that the only legal slavery in the US is of prisoners may have something to do with that, as corporations need cheap labor somehow), but also that so many people have to work multiple jobs and still may not have enough money to feed and house themselves. As for the American dream, as George Carlin put it, it's called a dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.

User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Eric Schiedler » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:17 am

jupiviv wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:29 am
I think the Age of Schism/s is due in large part to the increasing disparity between the actual "outside" and the now-venerable ideas and perceptions of both the "outside" and the "inside". People are simply doubling down on what has hitherto seemed to work, or failing that pretending that at least it works better than something else (that others are doubling down on). This behaviour is also not, as Kevin thinks, currently most characteristic of or most prevalent in the authoritarian left. Trump's tax cut, and elimination of medical care for the non-rich, is really just a way of going back on promises made in happier times while assuring everyone that doing so is all part of the plan to return to those times.
The idea of Progress can be useful if it is descriptive, but people use it dialectically to mean that reason itself must progress, because they incorrectly ignore their use of absolutes. Thus, they conflate their understanding of the "outside" with the "inside." Ironically, they agree that science must progress to achieve anything of value yet at the same time insist that science has solved problems absolutely and doesn't require any further application of doubt for the purposes of refinement.

Other things I've noticed is the idea of constant "expansion" of Northern European culture and political control into areas where there are already human civilizations. This has happened continually at least since the French Normans, a highly "civilized" bunch, broke the shield wall at Hastings in 1066 and conquered the barbarian Saxons. Yet at the same time, "immigration" is required to support the hegemony. Expansion provides access to "cost-free" land, fresh water and minerals, allowing men to have resources to acquire a wife and children, and also provides the upper-classes with subsidized assets to pursue happiness and leisure. The immigration is then used to "grow" the local economy, subsidizing cheap labor and forcing desperate consumers to pay inflated prices in order to make it easier to get a return on land and capital (i.e. subsidizing the problem of rents) for those who control those rights. Men participate in this cycle because of what Thorstein Veblen pointed out is a desire to display their status among the Leisure Class. Little to nothing is done in the name of planning responsible civilization systems.

Once expansion and immigration appear to end, through the global stabilization of labor prices and housing rents, a transfer of "new" resources is not available so it is no surprise that men will complain they can't be happy because they are denied the ability to "have" a wife and some children. Inevitably, cue the lament of men online discussing their wage-slavery.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by jupiviv » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:55 pm

Eric Schiedler wrote:The idea of Progress can be useful if it is descriptive, but people use it dialectically to mean that reason itself must progress, because they incorrectly ignore their use of absolutes.
You're right about people thinking that reason itself progresses, but Progress as an idea is based on the false assumption that the world will forever harmoniously accommodate the changes we make or want to make to it or our place in it. Once that is held to be true, it's possible to believe that any idea of progress (including ethical ideas) can be granted validity ad hoc by altering the world accordingly, rather than through the honest and consistent application of logic.

Take bull markets for example. They are both psalms and proverbs of the progress narrative - driven by ruthless Randian ‘innovators’ and risk-taking ‘entrepreneurs’ who become rich by dint of their genius, producing gadgets heretofore only imagined, items revealed in the fullness of time to be indispensable. Thus, money flows into assets, driving up prices and thereby (presumably) changing the nature of the assets themselves.

Finally, the belief in changing reality to make ideas and concepts realistic eventually extends to feelings, desires, etc. as well (SJW-ism). Reality, of course, disagrees with that belief in its entirety (not just the parts we disagree with each other about).

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6045
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:09 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: President Trump recently banned the use of the terms "science-based" and "evidence based" by the Centers for Disease Control
This was showed to be about a decrease of those terms in the budget request for 2019 where for example "evidence-based" for the 2018 request already went reportedly from 125 to 38. In any case HHS and CDC leadership completely dismissed the idea of a current ban but of course "they would say that". Don't you think this rumor might have been warped out of proportions?
the governor of Florida banned the use of the term "climate change" some years ago and the current Presidential administration is discouraging use of that term and related terms, the current President and the majority of Congress are global warming deniers, and only recently have Americans in general started to believe that climate change is real, though not so many of those believe it is an actual problem.
[note: the following section has been rewritten later as my first reply did not seem to address the wording issue at all]

Although I'd denounce any attempt to ban words at that level, at the same time I could imagine that from a political view the terms simply had become too overloaded with meanings not being really scientific but more policy and activist related. Considering the weight of the electorate demanding a more "fair" or neutral handling of the issue, a change in wording does not have to mean anti-science automatically. Anyone who thinks this is about pure scientific conclusions which should be translated directly into law is heading into a way more dangerous direction: the naive idea that science can translate directly into real life policies. A deeply flawed position and a source of grave nightmares, especially when looking at it historically.

It's therefore also interesting that for example a liberal newspaper like the Huffington Post sees the ban as a realpolitik view which "understands that language is a weapon, a political weapon of social control -- those who dictate the rhetoric influence how people think" while naively or perhaps hypocritically implying that this principle can work in one direction only. Thereby forgetting that by invoking words as "climate change" again and again in the context of warming, CO2, industry and disaster, a certain control word is introduced with at least to my ears many religious overtones to it. The phrase has simply become too inclusive of any set of extremes and changes, at least in its popular usage, to remain very meaningful. Also logically: all climate changes by definition. So by itself not really a word that covers the intent very well either.
There are many real dangers. All should be attended to in reasonable proportions, and fortunately there are enough of us to address all of them reasonably. We do not have to finish our prayers before putting out the kitchen fire, and if we try, the whole house may burn down with us in it, still praying.
The illusive house is always burning down in the eyes of the ones participating in right prayer. It cannot be a particular fear.
Capitalism is killing us (...) so many people have to work multiple jobs and still may not have enough money to feed and house themselves.
Historically one could make the claim that the very thing feeding us always ends up killing us just the same. In my view that realization is dawning. As for the multiple job situation, I know of many in the situation but in every case it's linked to them desiring to have a part of that dream in terms of property, vehicles, amenities, location and so on. The credit game does not work as well as before and prices are becoming more realistic, not simply higher.

Serendipper
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Serendipper » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:02 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:22 am
the term "climate change"
Operation "phrase sterilization" ;)

Watch George Carlin's presentation on euphemisms for an in-depth and exhaustive illustration of what Trump is combating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
and only recently have Americans in general started to believe that climate change is real
Well, yeah, because they only recently changed the name to 'climate change' and yes, the climate does change so it's reasonable to expect people to believe it.

Whether the globe is warming is entirely beside the point because correlation doesn't = causation. What's at issue is whether manmade (or otherwise) co2 has a demonstrable causal mechanism for warming a planet and since it's only .04% of the atmosphere and since it absorbs in the IR band which contains 40x less energy than UV, it would seem to me absolutely negligible any effects co2 could possibly have. Water vapor and ozone should be of far, far more importance than co2.

Moreover, heat comes from the sun and human accomplishment coincides with solar cycles that ultimately determine our climate. A very sensible theory put forth says the sun warms the earth which causes more animal activity which then raises the level of co2. Co2 is the evidence of warming and not the cause (explains why we see a substantial lag of co2 when compared to temps). Solar cycles are determined by the positioning of the solar system within the galactic arms and variations in cosmic ray bombardment.

The war against co2 production has caused the suffering and deaths of untold millions over the years due to mandating green power generation that puts the cost of having electricity out of the reach of the people who need it most. Although green energy will inevitably be more efficient to the point that energy is free for all, the urge of governments to hurry it along through legislation has not gone without its moral consequences.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6045
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:13 pm

Came upon the interesting view of Mike Hulme and it's hard to find a more qualified "mainstream" person to speak on the topic. And yet he still got attacked for speaking out against the use of exaggerated language in the description of climate change risks.

It's a reasonable voice while firmly embedded in the disaster/warming camp nevertheless.

The following points are taken from Five lessons of Climate Change (pdf)
  • Climate change is a relative risk (or actual: resource), not an absolute one. Biodiversity loss or ozone depletion would be examples of absolute risks.
  • Climate risks tend to victimize the most vulnerable: the poor, the elderly, the lonely, the uneducated, the foolish.
  • Ethical demands for global development and equality with existing technologies will cause a significant increase in energy and, for now, carbon consumption.
  • Massive and deliberate geo-engineering of the planet even for "trying to save the climate" is a dubious practice
The article ends with:
The idea of climate change – and hence one might say the purpose of climate change – is to make sure we learn these lessons
and act on them. Climate change is not the problem to be solved; climate change is the idea we must use if we are to learn our lessons properly. It is not clear to me that we need an overall global climate governance regime for this to happen; indeed, seeking such a governance regime might be a distraction from taking purposeful action on these five lessons.
It's great to read a relatively clear voice on the matter who tries to separate hype from actual dangers of accelerated climate change and the science, not to mention politics and emotion behind it.

Serendipper
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Serendipper » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:57 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:13 pm
It's great to read a relatively clear voice on the matter who tries to separate hype from actual dangers of accelerated climate change and the science, not to mention politics and emotion behind it.
Check out this one: https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/prima ... th-GG.html

Electromagnetic radiation in space is an electromagnetic field where energy is equal to frequency times a constant as postulated by Max Planck in 1900. From this perspective, infrared energy absorbed by carbon dioxide is in the range of 0.08 electron volts (green circle) while ultraviolet-B radiation has energy around 4 electron volts (red circle), 48 times larger.

E=hν is the energy that must be added to a physical/chemical system, typically through radiation, in order to cause a chemical reaction. In photochemistry, hν is used in chemical equations to signify the energy absorbed that causes photoionization or photodissociation. For example, frequency must be greater than 3000 terahertz to ionize nitrogen (N2) or greater than 1237 terahertz to dissociate oxygen (O2). Infrared radiation, frequency less than 430 terahertz, does not have enough energy to penetrate glass. Visible light, frequencies between 430 and 790 terahertz, has enough energy to cause photosynthesis. Ultraviolet radiation, frequencies greater than 790 terahertz, begins to damage DNA, causing sunburn and skin cancer. X-rays with frequencies greater than 30,000 terahertz have enough energy to penetrate your body but will also destroy your body unless the amount, the dosage, is minimal.


Even if we doubled our co2 to .08%, the warming effects would still seem negligible.

Mars is 95% co2 and compared to the moon (which has no atmosphere), the co2 blanket doesn't seem to help.

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface ... ature.html

Mean Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 59 519 15 288
Moon -9 451 -23 250
Mars -76 384 -60 213

Minimum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth -128 332 -89 184
Moon -233 227 -147 126
Mars -170 290 -112 161

Maximum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 136 596 58 331
Moon 212 672 100 373
Mars 17 477 -8 265

Post Reply