LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Human Caused Climate Change is Real?
Yes 21 72.41%
No. It's a Hoax 6 20.69%
Jury Isn't In Yet 2 6.90%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-11-2018, 03:15 PM   #151
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,973

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866

Re -
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
ChuangTzu I'm beginning to think you'd have been one of the populace that chose to ignore it when the ground began to rumble, writing it off as a "normal, natural event... nothing to be concerned about... get back to work" in Pompeii. I further think you might want to consider the deep meaning of "unprecedented" especially in regards to ice melt.
ChuangTu responded -
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Not at all, I would never advise living near a source of such potential doom/problems. It's also why I would never advise living directly on the coast, especially on "beach front/ocean front" property. It was and still is a failure of policy and integrity to allow things to be constructed on land that cannot support such things. ie: coastal land/beach/tidal areas are designed to protect the land from flooding not have homes/businesses on them. Volcano's are nice to look at (when inactive) not to live next to or near. Common sense and Wisdom are often a diminishing trait unfortunately.

PS: Why the personal attacks, is it impossible to have an intelligent discussion with differing opinions/facts/theories without turning juvenile? You can do better then that enorbet.
In reverse order - Actually I don't consider my assessment an attack of any kind and certainly not personal since I only have knowledge of what you write, not of how you act and interact in the moment and entirely absent of the body language we all look to for cues. I thought I was making the point that as thinking beings we are constantly required to make judgments regarding safety, security and risk based on our assessment of the facts. Since there is no Oracle it seems to me that we must recognize that all sources have some bias, nothing is completely independent and given that knowledge, manage to weight things in a manner that arrives at reasonable odds to be real. While the UN is dependent upon it's constituents all that is quite diverse and when a diverse coalition hires 100 scientists from also diverse situations and loyalties it is reasonably safe to consider their findings have weight on their own and not merely agenda-driven, and especially out of deference to our own personal agenda of denial.

You can travel to the Arctic, Greenland or Antarctica and view the loss of ice for yourself but if that is not possible there are both individuals and organizations who keep track over long periods of time and some of that is even on film. One example in which I personally know some of those involved in such studies is the 2012 film "Chasing Ice" and nothing about those I know leads me to believe they would ever be a part of any slant, let alone hoax. One fellow I know was barely interested in the results being filmed and went only to see how setting up automated cameras to survive and function in severe weather conditions for many years was accomplished. To systematically write all such work off as part of a hoax or "vested interest" is agenda-ridden in itself. You seem to already know the outcome before you begin to "research". That's not Science. It';s not accurate nor responsible.

I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you to examine your own biases as all of us must do in any honest quest for a sense of reality. You quoted a Taoist proverb asking the question - "What did your (or my) face look like before your grandparents (or my grandparents) were born?" and if we are talking literally about one's appearance then I would answer "That remains to be seen since the factors that shape that appearance are not yet accomplished fact, only diverse possibilities of Nature and Nurture". This is obviously so since your grandchildren wont have any faces, won't exist, should you or your children not have offspring for any of a wide variety of reasons.

I would assume that given that reality one would spend some considerable effort in actually weighing the reality of a global threat, that despite differing numbers attributed by differing news sources for almost a century now, in that century the central theme remains solid and growing stronger and more evident.

FWIW the residents of Pompeii had little to go on to assess the risk of their location since none of them had direct experience with volcanoes. Most likely had no indirect experience either. Maybe such information might have been available had not numerous libraries like that of Alexandria been burned as "blasphemy". Those residents of Pompeii even then, had libraries not been destroyed, may still have trusted far more in "the Will of the Gods" than Science. Noting similarities between you and those who chose not to leave immediately upon the first rumblings is not a personal attack any more than I am attacking those residents. They simply lacked information and frame of reference and assumed tomorrow would be just like today. Things change.

Last edited by enorbet; 10-11-2018 at 03:19 PM.
 
Old 10-11-2018, 05:25 PM   #152
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Re -

ChuangTu responded -

In reverse order - Actually I don't consider my assessment an attack of any kind and certainly not personal since I only have knowledge of what you write, not of how you act and interact in the moment and entirely absent of the body language we all look to for cues. I thought I was making the point that as thinking beings we are constantly required to make judgments regarding safety, security and risk based on our assessment of the facts. Since there is no Oracle it seems to me that we must recognize that all sources have some bias, nothing is completely independent and given that knowledge, manage to weight things in a manner that arrives at reasonable odds to be real. While the UN is dependent upon it's constituents all that is quite diverse and when a diverse coalition hires 100 scientists from also diverse situations and loyalties it is reasonably safe to consider their findings have weight on their own and not merely agenda-driven, and especially out of deference to our own personal agenda of denial.

You can travel to the Arctic, Greenland or Antarctica and view the loss of ice for yourself but if that is not possible there are both individuals and organizations who keep track over long periods of time and some of that is even on film. One example in which I personally know some of those involved in such studies is the 2012 film "Chasing Ice" and nothing about those I know leads me to believe they would ever be a part of any slant, let alone hoax. One fellow I know was barely interested in the results being filmed and went only to see how setting up automated cameras to survive and function in severe weather conditions for many years was accomplished. To systematically write all such work off as part of a hoax or "vested interest" is agenda-ridden in itself. You seem to already know the outcome before you begin to "research". That's not Science. It';s not accurate nor responsible.

I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you to examine your own biases as all of us must do in any honest quest for a sense of reality. You quoted a Taoist proverb asking the question - "What did your (or my) face look like before your grandparents (or my grandparents) were born?" and if we are talking literally about one's appearance then I would answer "That remains to be seen since the factors that shape that appearance are not yet accomplished fact, only diverse possibilities of Nature and Nurture". This is obviously so since your grandchildren wont have any faces, won't exist, should you or your children not have offspring for any of a wide variety of reasons.

I would assume that given that reality one would spend some considerable effort in actually weighing the reality of a global threat, that despite differing numbers attributed by differing news sources for almost a century now, in that century the central theme remains solid and growing stronger and more evident.

FWIW the residents of Pompeii had little to go on to assess the risk of their location since none of them had direct experience with volcanoes. Most likely had no indirect experience either. Maybe such information might have been available had not numerous libraries like that of Alexandria been burned as "blasphemy". Those residents of Pompeii even then, had libraries not been destroyed, may still have trusted far more in "the Will of the Gods" than Science. Noting similarities between you and those who chose not to leave immediately upon the first rumblings is not a personal attack any more than I am attacking those residents. They simply lacked information and frame of reference and assumed tomorrow would be just like today. Things change.
There is more than one type of science and that domain does not belong to the western or modern modality. There existed in ancient China a very ingenious seismometer that could detect earthquakes from the most minute imperceptible rumble and detect the direction of the "Wave" as well. That device still works and was as accurate, sometimes more accurate, then the computerized/digital counterparts. Experiments were done using both. https://www.zmescience.com/science/g...moscope-53454/

Regarding ice:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#5642c5702892
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...s-8804911.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-FREE-now.html


“I've had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.” ― Mark Twain

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 10-11-2018 at 05:28 PM.
 
Old 10-11-2018, 05:27 PM   #153
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Because one cannot have an intelligent discussion with some-one who regards the scientific community, the UN, and who knows what else as part of a giant conspiracy. He's doing his best, which is more than I have the patience to do.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." ---F. Scott Fitzgerald
 
Old 10-11-2018, 06:07 PM   #154
orbea
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,434

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
@ChuangTzu I don't really want to get involved in this conversation, but its worth pointing out that you are not going to get a complete picture if you focus on single details such as the amount of ice. The ecological destruction has been going on a long time, affects most (All?) ecosystems and its well documented that species are vanishing faster then they can be described. To be entirely blunt, your quotes while they can be nice are not remotely relevant to this topic and are not helpful to post. If you want some pointers to gain a broader perspective, look at how much the Sahara grew after the resources were stripped during colonization (Around 4 times the previous size), check out the massive destruction in tropical zones for lumber and cattle, the pacific gyre garbage patch, the amount of damage the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have done on the ozone layer or even the massive deer overpopulation problems in the states when the native predators were largely wiped out.

Also, if you cherry pick old articles, you may not get relevant results. Environmental science moves quickly and new data is constantly being gathered and analyzed.

For example see:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...m-announcement
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...s-2018-minimum
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

However again, don't focus on individual details. An ecosystem consists of many related moving parts which rely and effect each other, the disappearance of a single component could have wide reaching consequences.
 
Old 10-11-2018, 06:20 PM   #155
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825
Go back through this thread and the other similar threads, I am not focusing on singular details. The large picture gives much more relevant and truthful information. Interesting that you felt the need to qualify the relevance of the quotes, that implied that you did not understand them.

So here's two more:

"Things are exactly as they should be."---Taoist/Zen Proverb.

"All that's left to do in this moment is laugh."---Taoist/Zen Proverb

PS: discussions like this thread are very important and unfortunately increasingly rare.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 10-11-2018 at 06:22 PM.
 
Old 10-12-2018, 04:13 AM   #156
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,973

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
There is more than one type of science and that domain does not belong to the western or modern modality. There existed in ancient China a very ingenious seismometer that could detect earthquakes from the most minute imperceptible rumble and detect the direction of the "Wave" as well. That device still works and was as accurate, sometimes more accurate, then the computerized/digital counterparts. Experiments were done using both. https://www.zmescience.com/science/g...moscope-53454/
The article you linked does not say that. Firstly it is in fact a modern modality as there is no working unit built back then in existence today. Recent scientists did their best to recreate it from written descriptions. It also say the modern assumption was able to detect that earthquakes occurred at remarkably long distances but had nothing to say about any objective data that could be used for anything more than approximate direction while placing no usable quantification on it's strength. It is absolutely NOT on a par with modern instrumentation.

You can define Science however you like in your own mind but as soon as you use the terminology to communicate to others there is only one definition and while it isn't solely Western and depends considerably on Eastern work (especially Indian and Chinese) Science hasdn't been regional for almost 2 centuries. It is based on the same precepts everywhere since -Objective, Repeatable and falsifiable data collection and peer review, not Taoist or any other philosophy, though none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the validity (or hoax) of the conclusion that humans are having profound and unprecedented affects on Global Climate, especially since the Industrial Revolution and it is accelerating.

Did you read these all the way through? The first one by NASA is indeed scientific. It is precise and specific AND it mentions that if the change in climate continues within a very few years this increase will evaporate and head in the other direction because it has been a slow, longterm accumulation that cannot possibly keep up even if the rates don't change (accelerate as they have been) and merely stay the same as they currently are.

I'm extremely glad you chose to quote NASA (and first at that) since it is NASAs position that GLOBALLY climate change is powerfully affected by human activity and has resulted in increasing levels of temperature globally on average. This finding in Antarctica was not meant to contradict that Global view and demonstrates perfectly that scientists are not afraid to publish data that may be misconstrued, either by accident or agenda, as it was in the next three articles you linked, thus poking a large hole in Hoax Theory. As for the fourth link I saw no citation for the North Pole on the whole gaining ice cover which is actually what I have come to expect from dailymail.uk, agenda-ridden sensationalist lies and half-truths that do not stand up to scrutiny.

For just one reference - See https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ce-for-website

If anything those articles linked are evidence FOR the validity of the conclusion that temperatures are rising on average and humans are the cause of the deflection from the normal swing.

Last edited by enorbet; 10-12-2018 at 04:14 AM.
 
Old 10-12-2018, 06:13 PM   #157
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
The article you linked does not say that. Firstly it is in fact a modern modality as there is no working unit built back then in existence today. Recent scientists did their best to recreate it from written descriptions. It also say the modern assumption was able to detect that earthquakes occurred at remarkably long distances but had nothing to say about any objective data that could be used for anything more than approximate direction while placing no usable quantification on it's strength. It is absolutely NOT on a par with modern instrumentation.

You can define Science however you like in your own mind but as soon as you use the terminology to communicate to others there is only one definition and while it isn't solely Western and depends considerably on Eastern work (especially Indian and Chinese) Science hasdn't been regional for almost 2 centuries. It is based on the same precepts everywhere since -Objective, Repeatable and falsifiable data collection and peer review, not Taoist or any other philosophy, though none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the validity (or hoax) of the conclusion that humans are having profound and unprecedented affects on Global Climate, especially since the Industrial Revolution and it is accelerating.


Did you read these all the way through? The first one by NASA is indeed scientific. It is precise and specific AND it mentions that if the change in climate continues within a very few years this increase will evaporate and head in the other direction because it has been a slow, longterm accumulation that cannot possibly keep up even if the rates don't change (accelerate as they have been) and merely stay the same as they currently are.

I'm extremely glad you chose to quote NASA (and first at that) since it is NASAs position that GLOBALLY climate change is powerfully affected by human activity and has resulted in increasing levels of temperature globally on average. This finding in Antarctica was not meant to contradict that Global view and demonstrates perfectly that scientists are not afraid to publish data that may be misconstrued, either by accident or agenda, as it was in the next three articles you linked, thus poking a large hole in Hoax Theory. As for the fourth link I saw no citation for the North Pole on the whole gaining ice cover which is actually what I have come to expect from dailymail.uk, agenda-ridden sensationalist lies and half-truths that do not stand up to scrutiny.

For just one reference - See https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ce-for-website

If anything those articles linked are evidence FOR the validity of the conclusion that temperatures are rising on average and humans are the cause of the deflection from the normal swing.
Enorbet, Zhang Cheng's seismometer's could not be used in those experiments given the nature of being "artifacts". Hence, why it was "recreated" to the exact specifications, of more than 10,000 recordings of its use.

You should reference Zhang Cheng, he lived during one of China's golden ages (Han Dynasty) was an astronomer, mathematician, engineer, geographer and inventor (and as most of the scientists were he was also a Taoist, which is the worlds oldest science). He is only one of many thousands of scientists from ancient China. Ref: http://people.chinesecio.com/en/arti...tent_81237.htm

Don't forget I am not disagreeing that the climate is changing, this is a fact that is constantly in motion, and happens in predictable cycles. The disagreement is that this change is man made.

Here is a question: What is the difference between the doomsday cults/radical Christians who believe that the world will end on a specific day, month or year (then have to pick another day, month, year when it doesn't) and the doomsday scientists who say the world will end by a certain year/decade etc... and then have to revise and postpone those dates?

The planet is remarkably self correcting/self healing as are humans. Look at Chernobyl, after approx. three decades life is returning to that area, animals are being born (normally), trees regrowing, plants growing etc..., radiation levels are still too high for safe human habitation, but in time that will correct itself as well. The earth can heal itself, just takes time.

Another thought, there is an assumption with the current climate change agenda that the CO2 levels are currently too high, and getting higher. This is based on a further assumption/hypothesis that there is an optimal level of CO2. What is the optimal level, how do we know what is optimal, who can say that we are not returning to an optimal level and the current and prior levels were sub optimal? How is man to determine if ice ages are bad or a warm tropical planet is bad? We have had both many times in the past, in fact, the earth constantly fluctuates between the two with many divisions and gradations in between. Ice age, mini ice age, tropical earth, sub tropical earth, massive amounts of hazardous chemicals in the air, to lower levels etc...

Someone mentioned the Sahara desert as an example of climate change in this thread, however, this is flawed because approx. 6,000 years ago the Sahara desert was wet and tropical in nature, long before man invented the apparent machinery to destroy the climate. The Gobi desert in China has been growing steadily for thousands of years as well. These are examples of why mankind should pray for and be happy whenever it rains, rain is a blessing for mankind and all life, we are after all on a wet living planet.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 10-12-2018 at 06:26 PM. Reason: added link
 
Old 10-13-2018, 05:52 PM   #158
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,973

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866
Hello again Chuang. I just woke up and began my daily ritual of checking email and logging in to the many forums to which I subscribe when I came across this response from you that if not the first time, then at least a standout for a long time that feels like an actual, forthright conversation instead of what seems to me a litany of status quo agenda driven spin doctoring. So first I want to thank you for that. It is appreciated and gives me a sense of who you are, a real person who can't be defined by any one pigeon hole spouting party line like some clone, a person I could easily befriend and enjoy long conversations on a wide variety of subjects.

The second thing I want to do is get myself a potent cup of coffee, wake up and give your thoughtful response the consideration it deserves. It may get long so it might only serve this thread for a very few, possibly just you and I but I'll let those chips fall where they may. Be right back...

OK I'm back, enjoying my coffee and want to begin with just a wee bit of background as I imagine my posts engender a view of my perspective as almost totally one of Science and Math, cold and logical as that is a very large part of where I came from and who I am BUT I should point out that I am also 72 years old and therefore "a Child of The Sixties" when an explosion of Eastern influence took place and I was exposed to a great deal of Eastern Philosophy and looked deeper despite the untold number of girls who threw the I Ching for me with about as much effect as Astrology (also rather big for many back then, but not me).

I did come away with respect for many parts and especially those closest to The Tao, not so much in it's religious application, but in it's metaphysical applications. I have had some success with acupuncture but it doesn't convince me Chi exists. I do see Yin/Yang around me a lot and at many levels but I am also aware that at the most fundamental level had such a balance been perfect, matter and anti-matter would have had a zero-sum ending and our Universe would never have materialized. I was enthralled by Carl Sagan's take on The Brahman Dream, where a day to Lord Brahma is roughly 9 Billion Years and his dream will last 100 of his years then dissolve while others dream their own Cosmic Dreams, an early take on the so-called Multi-Verse. A Muslim girlfriend of mine was fond of calling me "her zen atheist". Maybe that explains something but the point is I am not completely ignorant of, nor derisive of what is referred to as "Eastern Philosophy". For me problems arise when there is conflict between the Empirical and the Intuitive which I think is why Science is no longer equivalent to Philosophy and in fact, superior as a methodology at arriving at results consistent with reality. So, without further preface, let's begin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Enorbet, Zhang Cheng's seismometer's could not be used in those experiments given the nature of being "artifacts". Hence, why it was "recreated" to the exact specifications, of more than 10,000 recordings of its use.

You should reference Zhang Cheng, he lived during one of China's golden ages (Han Dynasty) was an astronomer, mathematician, engineer, geographer and inventor (and as most of the scientists were he was also a Taoist, which is the worlds oldest science). He is only one of many thousands of scientists from ancient China. Ref: http://people.chinesecio.com/en/arti...tent_81237.htm
While not discounting or discrediting their many and profound contributions, The Path they took seems inefficient and flawed. They were not scientists by today's evolved standards. Methods that don't work tend to get replaced over time. They were scientists of their times before the scientific method was formalized and refined. They were philosophers. The fact remains that his seismometer cannot be an exact recreation. Much is not described, like nearly all complex ancient artifacts, probably because life didn't change much for many generations so the basics were assumed to be known because of context, just like the Art of Stone Masonry absent concrete and mortar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Don't forget I am not disagreeing that the climate is changing, this is a fact that is constantly in motion, and happens in predictable cycles. The disagreement is that this change is man made.
You do understand the concept of "vector" and "deflection", right? An arrow loosed in a vacuum far enough away from large objects will travel in a perfectly straight line. As soon as gravity, air motion, or any other applied force occurs that path becomes an arc and the arrow will land in an entirely different location absent that force. One only has to gather the numbers of the sheer tonnage of gasses and particulate matter loosed into the atmosphere, whether by volcano, comet and meteorite impact, nuclear explosions, factories, automobiles and even campfires and animal farts on some level, to determine how large a deflection they represent. Campfires were never large or numerous enough to be anything more than "spitting in the ocean" but the numbers say the burning of fossil fuels is an exceptionally powerful force ie have deflected the range of cyclical climate change compared to any condition in which such force would be absent.

Therefore it is provable that there is considerable difference between the end point of "the arrow of climate" given those two scenarios. To continue to deny that is simply illogical and wrong... at the very least inadvisable considering the consequences. Frankly I don't care to argue whether New York will suffer 3 feet or 3 meters of rising ocean levels whether by 2030 or 2042. Either condition is catastrophic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Here is a question: What is the difference between the doomsday cults/radical Christians who believe that the world will end on a specific day, month or year (then have to pick another day, month, year when it doesn't) and the doomsday scientists who say the world will end by a certain year/decade etc... and then have to revise and postpone those dates?
The difference is like Night and day. Firstly no scientist is saying "the world will end". They are saying living conditions for humans and much of current lifeforms will change drastically and large proportions won't survive. The Earth will be just fine. No scientist adheres to Prophesy which is very different from Prediction. Prediction is a generality a "best guesstimate" and never expected to be firm as it is expected that new data will refine that prediction, since it is based on observed data rather than some interpretation of some ancient fever dream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
The planet is remarkably self correcting/self healing as are humans. Look at Chernobyl, after approx. three decades life is returning to that area, animals are being born (normally), trees regrowing, plants growing etc..., radiation levels are still too high for safe human habitation, but in time that will correct itself as well. The earth can heal itself, just takes time.
Yup and the Earth healed itself after the Chicxulub Event ~65 Million years ago. It's just that 75% of all plant and animal life on Earth was no longer in existence to enjoy it. Maybe let that sink in a minute and consider that was a single localized event having substantially reduced effect 12,000 miles away in any direction whereas the effect of fossil fuel emissions is long, slow, and nearly exactly the same degree of effect everywhere. Again and FTR I really don't care much if that event took place at Noon on Friday, in the Fall of 65,000,000 BCE or 2 AM, Saturday in the Spring of 64,498,003 BCE... local time of course


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Another thought, there is an assumption with the current climate change agenda that the CO2 levels are currently too high, and getting higher. This is based on a further assumption/hypothesis that there is an optimal level of CO2. What is the optimal level, how do we know what is optimal, who can say that we are not returning to an optimal level and the current and prior levels were sub optimal? How is man to determine if ice ages are bad or a warm tropical planet is bad? We have had both many times in the past, in fact, the earth constantly fluctuates between the two with many divisions and gradations in between. Ice age, mini ice age, tropical earth, sub tropical earth, massive amounts of hazardous chemicals in the air, to lower levels etc...
Maybe in the year 9595 History books will note that the Climatic Catastrophe from 2030-2130 that wiped out say 50% of all plant and animal life was responsible for the slow adaptation that resulted in a far more enlightened and stable society. I care a little about that although I would also kind of prefer such History be written by Homo Sapiens but whatever. What I am rather urgently concerned about is closer to home, namely what will the world be like for my Son and Granddaughters? We do know what CO2 level ranges are conducive to that maintaining a comfortable existence, so I'm gonna go with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Someone mentioned the Sahara desert as an example of climate change in this thread, however, this is flawed because approx. 6,000 years ago the Sahara desert was wet and tropical in nature, long before man invented the apparent machinery to destroy the climate. The Gobi desert in China has been growing steadily for thousands of years as well. These are examples of why mankind should pray for and be happy whenever it rains, rain is a blessing for mankind and all life, we are after all on a wet living planet.
None of that Desert Data matters much. Those at best are local details that neither confirm nor deny the much larger scale of Global Effect which is far easier to predict than specific for localities. That remains true and I don't want to toss the dice on that score and I'm certainly not going to resort to prayer since it is common knowledge that both sides of any football game pray to win and only one does. To quote The Doors and probably many other philosophers "You cannot petition the Lord with prayer" and that's as close to any religious remark I'm going to make in this thread since Religion and Philosophy are widely varying speculation, and only the Scientific Method of actual evidence on objectively observed phenomenon ultimately rules in the vast majority everywhere.... at least I fervently hope so.
 
Old 10-13-2018, 07:01 PM   #159
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Hello again Chuang. I just woke up and began my daily ritual of checking email and logging in to the many forums to which I subscribe when I came across this response from you that if not the first time, then at least a standout for a long time that feels like an actual, forthright conversation instead of what seems to me a litany of status quo agenda driven spin doctoring. So first I want to thank you for that. It is appreciated and gives me a sense of who you are, a real person who can't be defined by any one pigeon hole spouting party line like some clone, a person I could easily befriend and enjoy long conversations on a wide variety of subjects.
Thank you...not a member of any party or agenda, other then a searcher of truth in all the directions that flows. A wise mentor of mine once said, a true friend is someone who can tell you the "truth" whether you want to hear it or not and is not afraid to offer honest criticism and have honest conversations, and while doing so they have a sincere interest in your well being.


Quote:
OK I'm back, enjoying my coffee and want to begin with just a wee bit of background as I imagine my posts engender a view of my perspective as almost totally one of Science and Math, cold and logical as that is a very large part of where I came from and who I am BUT I should point out that I am also 72 years old and therefore "a Child of The Sixties" when an explosion of Eastern influence took place and I was exposed to a great deal of Eastern Philosophy and looked deeper despite the untold number of girls who threw the I Ching for me with about as much effect as Astrology (also rather big for many back then, but not me).

I did come away with respect for many parts and especially those closest to The Tao, not so much in it's religious application, but in it's metaphysical applications. I have had some success with acupuncture but it doesn't convince me Chi exists. I do see Yin/Yang around me a lot and at many levels but I am also aware that at the most fundamental level had such a balance been perfect, matter and anti-matter would have had a zero-sum ending and our Universe would never have materialized. I was enthralled by Carl Sagan's take on The Brahman Dream, where a day to Lord Brahma is roughly 9 Billion Years and his dream will last 100 of his years then dissolve while others dream their own Cosmic Dreams, an early take on the so-called Multi-Verse. A Muslim girlfriend of mine was fond of calling me "her zen atheist". Maybe that explains something but the point is I am not completely ignorant of, nor derisive of what is referred to as "Eastern Philosophy". For me problems arise when there is conflict between the Empirical and the Intuitive which I think is why Science is no longer equivalent to Philosophy and in fact, superior as a methodology at arriving at results consistent with reality. So, without further preface, let's begin...
Unfortunately most of the books on Taoism and people who proclaimed to "practice" it, were/are frauds. The religious aspect is not real Taoism, real Taoism is both a philosophy and a science. Modernity is even based on it, as Hegel and Kant both studied Taoist texts and used their interpretations to create their philosophy/science etc... Joseph Needham accumulated a massive amount of data for the English Royal family and archives. There is an excellent many volume series called "The Science and Civilization in China". Or a lesser quality condensed version called "The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention", however, the historical years should be 8-10,000 years and the author did not go back far enough unfortunately. Please note, modern day China does not compare to the time periods I am referring to. The founding of the USA is closer relative to ancient China then modern China is to ancient China.


Quote:
You do understand the concept of "vector" and "deflection", right? An arrow loosed in a vacuum far enough away from large objects will travel in a perfectly straight line. As soon as gravity, air motion, or any other applied force occurs that path becomes an arc and the arrow will land in an entirely different location absent that force. One only has to gather the numbers of the sheer tonnage of gasses and particulate matter loosed into the atmosphere, whether by volcano, comet and meteorite impact, nuclear explosions, factories, automobiles and even campfires and animal farts on some level, to determine how large a deflection they represent. Campfires were never large or numerous enough to be anything more than "spitting in the ocean" but the numbers say the burning of fossil fuels is an exceptionally powerful force ie have deflected the range of cyclical climate change compared to any condition in which such force would be absent.

Therefore it is provable that there is considerable difference between the end point of "the arrow of climate" given those two scenarios. To continue to deny that is simply illogical and wrong... at the very least inadvisable considering the consequences. Frankly I don't care to argue whether New York will suffer 3 feet or 3 meters of rising ocean levels whether by 2030 or 2042. Either condition is catastrophic.
Interesting points. Yes, aware of the concept.



Quote:
The difference is like Night and day. Firstly no scientist is saying "the world will end". They are saying living conditions for humans and much of current lifeforms will change drastically and large proportions won't survive. The Earth will be just fine. No scientist adheres to Prophesy which is very different from Prediction. Prediction is a generality a "best guesstimate" and never expected to be firm as it is expected that new data will refine that prediction, since it is based on observed data rather than some interpretation of some ancient fever dream.
https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement/
https://www.asiasentinel.com/society...2040-doomsday/
grain of salt source https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/wei...Date-2200-Life

Does this hysteria not harm the intention of causing change?

Quote:
Yup and the Earth healed itself after the Chicxulub Event ~65 Million years ago. It's just that 75% of all plant and animal life on Earth was no longer in existence to enjoy it. Maybe let that sink in a minute and consider that was a single localized event having substantially reduced effect 12,000 miles away in any direction whereas the effect of fossil fuel emissions is long, slow, and nearly exactly the same degree of effect everywhere. Again and FTR I really don't care much if that event took place at Noon on Friday, in the Fall of 65,000,000 BCE or 2 AM, Saturday in the Spring of 64,498,003 BCE... local time of course
The only constant in the Universe is change, all life (all matter) is constantly in some state of change. Without change, there is no growth, no evolution, stagnation is a type of change leading towards death, which is another change.


Quote:
Maybe in the year 9595 History books will note that the Climatic Catastrophe from 2030-2130 that wiped out say 50% of all plant and animal life was responsible for the slow adaptation that resulted in a far more enlightened and stable society. I care a little about that although I would also kind of prefer such History be written by Homo Sapiens but whatever. What I am rather urgently concerned about is closer to home, namely what will the world be like for my Son and Granddaughters? We do know what CO2 level ranges are conducive to that maintaining a comfortable existence, so I'm gonna go with that.
Or they may say...Remember when people believed....


Quote:
None of that Desert Data matters much. Those at best are local details that neither confirm nor deny the much larger scale of Global Effect which is far easier to predict than specific for localities. That remains true and I don't want to toss the dice on that score and I'm certainly not going to resort to prayer since it is common knowledge that both sides of any football game pray to win and only one does. To quote The Doors and probably many other philosophers "You cannot petition the Lord with prayer" and that's as close to any religious remark I'm going to make in this thread since Religion and Philosophy are widely varying speculation, and only the Scientific Method of actual evidence on objectively observed phenomenon ultimately rules in the vast majority everywhere.... at least I fervently hope so.
All data matters (ok, perhaps not all data), not just the data that confirms our beliefs, often times, the counter data is just as important, perhaps even more important. If nothing else, it allows us to reevaluate our premise and strengthen a new theory.
 
Old 10-16-2018, 08:27 AM   #160
//////
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Land of Linux :: Finland
Distribution: VirtualBox win 10 guest | OpenBSD 6.4 -current | OpenBSD 6.3 bridge | Fedora 29
Posts: 359

Rep: Reputation: 139Reputation: 139
hello dudes/dudettes.

temperatures here at finland have been at their highest point ever. (from the beginning of temperature measurements.)
couple of days ago temperature were 21 celsius (that is 69.8 fahrenheit) when it should have been close to freezing, 0 celcius (that is 32.0 fahrenheit)

i dont know if it is bcus global warming, but it is odd. winters here at finland are getting shorter imo.
 
Old 10-17-2018, 02:43 PM   #161
Myk267
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: California
Posts: 395
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Bill Gates wrote recently wrote an interesting blog post*. He has some numbers relating to various industries and their impacts on climate change.

I don't know why, but I'm surprised by the methane produced by cattle. I guess my vegan friends totally told me so.

* https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My...climate-change
 
Old 10-17-2018, 02:50 PM   #162
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX
Posts: 2,357
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040
Cattle and rice paddies are both huge sources of methane. Landfill sites too, but there is a solution for those, which is to put piping in and bleed off the gas for fuel. The resultant CO2 is less of a greenhouse gas than the methane was.
 
Old 10-20-2018, 06:45 PM   #163
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,973

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866
If you have any serious interest in the subject of what an individual can do about Global Climate Change, after a short quote, I'll post a link tyo a reasonable proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by from below linked article
In the face of enormous, apparently intractable social problems, individual action can seem puny and inconsequential. (And indeed, just 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which can make your rinsing out your tuna cans seem like an absurd bit of private theater.) But collectively we actually can slow climate change:
--- What Can I Do ---
 
Old 10-22-2018, 03:10 PM   #164
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,065

Rep: Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825Reputation: 825
Have fun with these charts...USA has some great air quality, some of the best in the world!

World Economic Forum
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...-cleanest-air/

World Health Organization Ambient air pollution
http://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/en/

World Health Organization Concentrations of fine particulate matter
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.sdg.11-6-viz?lang=en
 
Old 10-22-2018, 08:43 PM   #165
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,973

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866Reputation: 1866
Thanks ChuangTzu, that's great news and one that can be seen with one's own eyes if you've lived long enough to travel around the country in the 60s and 70s. It is really easy to view everyone as being pretty much like ourselves and everywhere/everytime being like it is near our homes, but then that'd exactly what "provincial" implies.

For a few years I lived in the country in the Rocky Mountains on 140 acres my brother and I bought in 1972. In 1970 he moved out there and I drove cross-country to visit. I could always tell when I was approaching a larger city but I wasn't prepared for the shock that was St. Louis at the time. The air was ORANGE! and the few people that I saw walking around all wore surgical masks or some kind of breathing or filtering apparatus. Later thinking of that would remind me of the dystopia pictured in HalfLife 2 but far worse. It made me wonder why anyone would...COULD live there and why they'd want to.

In 1973 I took a job ranching for my good neighbor and friend, Jerry and he had a hilarious caricature poster of what the EPA's idea of a proper Cowboy should be. He wore a helmet with all manner of gadgets on it instead of a cowboy hat and the horse was covered in gear especially a wrap-around bumper. I laughed really loudly when I saw it (which was greeted with an appreciative smile by Jerry) which prompted a mild tirade about how silly and out-of-touch the EPA was. I agreed that they were but that it was an "illness of perspective" that we all must rise above if we can manage. He asked what I meant and was absolutely astounded and disbelieving when I told him that he had no clue how bad some situations were outside the realm of clean air and water we enjoyed (and often took for granted) in our little part of Western Colorado. There were towns near mining operations that were literally uninhabitable and further away, like in Cleveland, Ohio, there were rivers that had caught fire many times from being so polluted by industrial waste.

I'm sure the inhabitants along those rivers were worried that tight regulations on dumping industrial waste in the river would cause them to cut back if not close down and that tghe area would be decimated economically and in what would feel like a single day the plants would close down, thousands would be out of work and the community would evaporate leaving only a derelict few while the pollution of the rivers was slow and incremental as well as seeming at worst, a lesser of evils.

Those rivers haven't caught fire in decades and St Louis all but sparkles. The EPA did that and thankfully cowboys still get to wear cloth or straw hats. Checks and Balances is hugely important and these days it is far out of whack in ways that would shock the Founding Fathers. The stuffing of the Supreme Court and the vast powers of Corporations that can often exceed entire Nations was impossible to imagine in 1776 but we must live in it and deal with it since it appears focus on The Bottom Line is often so strong that it ignores growing threats. Before even the changes of the Industrial Age there was similar occurrence just because cities grew and nobody realized the lack of Community Hygeine including waste disposal and clean air and water would be a breeding ground for The Black Death and later Influenza.

It wasn't apparently enough that it was unimaginably noxious. Millions had to die first. Hopefully enough of us have learned from that to not repeat that mistake of just looking around what's close and thinking "Hey. It's not so bad here." It's all connected.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Human-Caused Global Climate Change enorbet General 29 05-12-2016 05:14 PM
The truth about the falsified pseudo-science and kleptocracy of "man-made climate change" Steven_G General 36 02-05-2016 12:52 PM
systemd responsible for climate change, bad coffee, and athlete's foot mrclisdue Slackware 23 11-15-2013 07:57 PM
LXer: The World’s Most Powerful Climate Change Supercomputer Powers Up LXer Syndicated Linux News 6 10-18-2012 11:38 AM
Data transfer online is slow "at times" or "stops at times" Balarabay1 SUSE / openSUSE 14 04-30-2006 11:00 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration