|
Post by hunterson on Oct 6, 2010 21:05:36 GMT
I have a friend on facebook that not only believes wind power is viable but that CO2 is a major pollutant. I know people who believe in UFOs.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Oct 7, 2010 1:25:32 GMT
I have a friend on facebook that not only believes wind power is viable but that CO2 is a major pollutant. I know people who believe in UFOs. You mean like this guy? www.bjreview.com.cn/science/txt/2010-09/28/content_301319.htm Recently, reports of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) have been occurring frequently in China. On July 7 this year, more than 20 flights were postponed at Xiaoshan International Airport in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, because of a sighting. Whenever such reported sightings occur, Wang Sichao, a research fellow at the Purple Mountain Observatory (PMO) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, is much busier than usual. In addition to studying the sightings, Wang, who started work on UFOs nearly 40 years ago, has to check and reply to mail about UFOs from all across China. Lately, Wang predicted "great events" concerning UFOs were going to come out in China in the next two years. In an interview with Beijing Review, he shared his views and stories with reporter Tang Yuankai
Btw, I've seen precisely 2 objects in the air in the past 45 years that I was unable to identify as either aircraft or natural objects (birds, clouds, etc.) by their configuration or behavior. Both were daylight sightings. Hence, they were to me "un"identified flying objects. No "belief" was involved, as I did not leap to the conclusion that they constituted an "extraterrestrial " craft of some sort as many tend to do. They were, and remain, simply an unidentified curiosity and I have no expectation that I will ever know what they were. Nor do I expect to shake tentacles with ET someday. That said, I am not averse to exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life. As has been said; if we are all there is, what an extraordinary waste of real estate.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 7, 2010 18:01:57 GMT
I know people who believe in UFOs. You mean like this guy? www.bjreview.com.cn/science/txt/2010-09/28/content_301319.htm Recently, reports of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) have been occurring frequently in China. On July 7 this year, more than 20 flights were postponed at Xiaoshan International Airport in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, because of a sighting. Whenever such reported sightings occur, Wang Sichao, a research fellow at the Purple Mountain Observatory (PMO) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, is much busier than usual. In addition to studying the sightings, Wang, who started work on UFOs nearly 40 years ago, has to check and reply to mail about UFOs from all across China. Lately, Wang predicted "great events" concerning UFOs were going to come out in China in the next two years. In an interview with Beijing Review, he shared his views and stories with reporter Tang Yuankai
Btw, I've seen precisely 2 objects in the air in the past 45 years that I was unable to identify as either aircraft or natural objects (birds, clouds, etc.) by their configuration or behavior. Both were daylight sightings. Hence, they were to me "un"identified flying objects. No "belief" was involved, as I did not leap to the conclusion that they constituted an "extraterrestrial " craft of some sort as many tend to do. They were, and remain, simply an unidentified curiosity and I have no expectation that I will ever know what they were. Nor do I expect to shake tentacles with ET someday. That said, I am not averse to exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life. As has been said; if we are all there is, what an extraordinary waste of real estate. The development of the UFO myth- which was heavily promoted on TV in the 1960's, and was the topic of high level academic support, is strikingly similar to AGW, except AGW was able to reach a critical mass of public belief. The fundamental confusion UFOolgists used- to equate UFO's and ET- is similar to the AGW promoter's efforts to tie CO2 to 'climate catastrophe'.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 7, 2010 22:18:27 GMT
The difference is one of plausibility. UFO's there's little reasoning to conclude they are extraterrestrials rather than say secret military vehicles or non-understood optical illusions.
Four things underlie the threat of catastrophe from co2:
1) Precedent. Climate and the environment have changed significantly over time. There are rapid changes and large changes. A catastrophic rapid change is therefore not at odds with the past.
2) Targets. Lots of interconnected systems in climate and the environment. Changing one has knock on effects on others, as has happened in the past (see #1). Increases the odds of something going wrong.
3) Trigger. Rising co2 leads to a change in radiation flow through the atmosphere and also a drop in ocean pH. That's two triggers, what might those fire (see #2).
4) Breach. co2 has risen beyond that which has been tested by nature during holocene-like climates and continues to increase.
The only way of being able to conclude "rising co2, that's not an issue", is to know information that alleviates the four points above. I don't think such information exists.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 8, 2010 1:08:43 GMT
The difference is one of plausibility. UFO's there's little reasoning to conclude they are extraterrestrials rather than say secret military vehicles or non-understood optical illusions.
Four things underlie the threat of catastrophe from co2:
1) Precedent. Climate and the environment have changed significantly over time. There are rapid changes and large changes. A catastrophic rapid change is therefore not at odds with the past.
2) Targets. Lots of interconnected systems in climate and the environment. Changing one has knock on effects on others, as has happened in the past (see #1). Increases the odds of something going wrong.
3) Trigger. Rising co2 leads to a change in radiation flow through the atmosphere and also a drop in ocean pH. That's two triggers, what might those fire (see #2).
4) Breach. co2 has risen beyond that which has been tested by nature during holocene-like climates and continues to increase.
The only way of being able to conclude "rising co2, that's not an issue", is to know information that alleviates the four points above. I don't think such information exists. You are right information doesn't exist. Information does exist to each of the risks you name by you climbing in your automobile and driving yet we still do it. The reason is that until the risks are quantifiable we cannot estimate the cost to avoid the risk. The cost of choosing safety by not driving your automobile is huge and thus the risk is justified even though it is quantified. CAGW does not have a quantifiable risk and thus is not a candidate for regulation, though you personally can eliminate your own carbon footprint if you choose to do so.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 8, 2010 4:13:54 GMT
Four things underlie the threat of catastrophe from co2: 1) Precedent. Climate and the environment have changed significantly over time. There are rapid changes and large changes. A catastrophic rapid change is therefore not at odds with the past. 2) Targets. Lots of interconnected systems in climate and the environment. Changing one has knock on effects on others, as has happened in the past (see #1). Increases the odds of something going wrong. 3) Trigger. Rising co2 leads to a change in radiation flow through the atmosphere and also a drop in ocean pH. That's two triggers, what might those fire (see #2). 4) Breach. co2 has risen beyond that which has been tested by nature during holocene-like climates and continues to increase. The only way of being able to conclude "rising co2, that's not an issue", is to know information that alleviates the four points above. I don't think such information exists. Alleviates the four? Wow, how pathetic. The first is overplaying the correlation (which is not causation) and then makes wild assumptions. The second is nothing but baseless speculation. The third mentions something that might have an impact in passing...before it moves on to baseless speculation. The fourth simply assumes the CO2/temperature correlation. The only reason to believe your four points...is a leap of faith. Its utter garbage if you apply ANY critical thinking to them.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2010 19:16:17 GMT
You are right information doesn't exist. Information does exist to each of the risks you name by you climbing in your automobile and driving yet we still do it. The reason is that until the risks are quantifiable we cannot estimate the cost to avoid the risk. The cost of choosing safety by not driving your automobile is huge and thus the risk is justified even though it is quantified. CAGW does not have a quantifiable risk and thus is not a candidate for regulation, though you personally can eliminate your own carbon footprint if you choose to do so. Unquantified risk means that worst case scenarios cannot be ruled out. The prospect of those worse case scenarios can be enough reason to not take the risk. Regulations prevent pharmaceutical companies from releasing drugs without quantifying the risk, as the worse case scenario from a non-tested drug would be death. I wouldn't get into an untested prototype aircraft even though the risk was unquantified. In terms of climate the four points I mention establish the cause for concern. With no futher information, eg if the science, models, etc amount to zero, we still have an unquantified risk with worse case scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2010 19:37:25 GMT
Alleviates the four? Wow, how pathetic. The first is overplaying the correlation (which is not causation) and then makes wild assumptions. Could you be more specific? Which part mentions anything about correlation: Precedent. Climate and the environment have changed significantly over time. There are rapid changes and large changes. A catastrophic rapid change is therefore not at odds with the past.Could you be more specific here too? Which part is baseless speculation: Targets. Lots of interconnected systems in climate and the environment. Changing one has knock on effects on others, as has happened in the past (see #1). Increases the odds of something going wrong.The third points out that the rise in co2 is known to be affecting two components of the system. As per the second point these systems could have knock on effects on many others (and in turn those could have knock on effects on others). 3) Trigger. Rising co2 leads to a change in radiation flow through the atmosphere and also a drop in ocean pH. That's two triggers, what might those fire (see #2).You claim the last sentence is "baseless speculation". Are you claiming dropping pH and rising co2 in the atmosphere has no impact on anything else in the environment or climate? Could you be more specific again as to why you think it makes any such assumption. The fourth doesn't make any reference to temperature: Breach. co2 has risen beyond that which has been tested by nature during holocene-like climates and continues to increase.Should be easy for you to answer my challenges to your response then.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 8, 2010 21:11:03 GMT
Unquantified risk means that worst case scenarios cannot be ruled out. The prospect of those worse case scenarios can be enough reason to not take the risk. Unquantified risk is infinite Socold. Risk is everywhere. You can choose to buy insurance on quantified risk and the amount of risk that is quantified is finite leaving everything else unquantified. And by being quantified you don't know if its a risk to invest in avoiding or a risk to ignore. The reason new generations are having so many problems with unquantified fears probably is due to an overly sheltered childhood. Psychologists are zeroing in on this problem. What you are suffering from is the runaway imagination of a child of the monster under the bed. Getting out and investigating the world will teach you what is important to worry about and what is not. Regulations prevent pharmaceutical companies from releasing drugs without quantifying the risk, as the worse case scenario from a non-tested drug would be death. The risk of allowing people to sell poison was quantified via many deaths from a lack of oversight of quack cures. That is why it is now illegal. . . .the risk of not regulating pharmaceuticals was quantified. I wouldn't get into an untested prototype aircraft even though the risk was unquantified. Thats because you lack the right stuff.In terms of climate the four points I mention establish the cause for concern. With no futher information, eg if the science, models, etc amount to zero, we still have an unquantified risk with worse case scenarios. Everybody faces unquantified risk everyday. Does it prevent you from getting out of bed? Obviously it didn't you were smarter as a baby than you are now.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2010 22:15:39 GMT
It doesn't have to compel me to action, but I'd rather be one of the ones who accepts the risk rather than be one of the ones who denies it. The risk is so clear, it's hard to imagine which dimension claims like "there is no co2 problem" or "AGW is just a myth" come from. The four points I mention that establish clear risk are solid knowledge. No climate models or statistical analyses of tree-rings required.
What we face is a risk beyond the scope of a single human. It's not simply the risk of a plane crashing or the risk of a house burning down, but the risk of the worst the climate can throw at us.
What happens when atmospheric co2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm in the space of 200 years starting from a holocene-like climate? What happens when H+ ions in the ocean double? Noone knows. We'd love to have reassuring examples of such changes from the past where nothing significantly changed, but despite all the paleo-records out there, Nature doesn't provide any examples of such things happening.
What we have is a very simple matter of human activity pushing the climate into an area it hasn't been tested. Pulling levers that cause changes, without understanding what the magnitude or effects of those changes will be.
That's a significant threat and a significant problem in anyone's book.
Perhaps so significant that many people try to bury their heads in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 8, 2010 22:47:40 GMT
It doesn't have to compel me to action, but I'd rather be one of the ones who accepts the risk rather than be one of the ones who denies it. The risk is so clear, it's hard to imagine which dimension claims like "there is no co2 problem" or "AGW is just a myth" come from. The four points I mention that establish clear risk are solid knowledge. No climate models or statistical analyses of tree-rings required. What we face is a risk beyond the scope of a single human. It's not simply the risk of a plane crashing or the risk of a house burning down, but the risk of the worst the climate can throw at us. What happens when atmospheric co2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm in the space of 200 years starting from a holocene-like climate? What happens when H+ ions in the ocean double? Noone knows. We'd love to have reassuring examples of such changes from the past where nothing significantly changed, but despite all the paleo-records out there, Nature doesn't provide any examples of such things happening. What we have is a very simple matter of human activity pushing the climate into an area it hasn't been tested. Pulling levers that cause changes, without understanding what the magnitude or effects of those changes will be. That's a significant threat and a significant problem in anyone's book. Perhaps so significant that many people try to bury their heads in the sand. Fear of loss is a greater motivator than opportunity to gain. Used car salesmen use the tactic all the time. So do politicians. I'm surprised at how well it still works with so many.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2010 23:27:52 GMT
Perhaps fear of loss is why people are so reluctant to accept the threat of mans tinkering with the carbon cycle
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Oct 8, 2010 23:30:49 GMT
Perhaps the current iteration of hairless apes is not the last. Or perhaps it is. We've made great strides in cybernetics and genetics. Just something to think about in connection with all this CO2 fear/AGW, etc.. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 8, 2010 23:49:11 GMT
Perhaps fear of loss is why people are so reluctant to accept the threat of mans tinkering with the carbon cycle That's almost exactly opposite of the use of "fear of loss." Fear of loss is used specifically to motivate people to action. It's taught to sales people ranging from real estate agents to car sales people. Listen to politics, and you'll hear it. I don't think you can fit your thought into what I'm talking about with "fear of loss."
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 14, 2010 13:15:39 GMT
|
|