Total nonsense. As noted by the late mathematician Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov, you simply can't have science without "theory". First you have an idea and then you go about performing "experiments" (sensu latu) to test these ideas. Science is merely a logical approach for gathering evidence to rule out illogical and inappropriate ideas for which there is no empirical support in favor of those which seem to best "explain the data [observations]". Science is the process whereby ideas progress from being hypotheses to becoming theories, no more, no less. Theories in science are merely ideas that have withstood much testing and consequently are accepted as in all probability as being true (ie a reflection of reality). Ideas that are unable to progress to the level of theory are either discarded or ignored as useless until demonstrated through experiment to be otherwise.
Sophism, on the other hand, such as your assertion, have no such restriction. All you have to do is get people to believe them, no proof or fact is necessary. Our legal system, our economy, the bulk of human culture, and our politics are based on sophism rather than science, even though science is the predominant driver of technological change. This is the reason humanity will soon become extinct.
In 2010, the GDP per capita of Abu Dhabi reached $49,600, which ranks ninth in the world after Qatar, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. That's higher than in the United States, which is around $41,000. The reality is that since Reagan and the shrink the US at all costs except for the military philosophy has taken over standards of living in "developing" nations are now a lot better than in many parts of the US.
No pollution in LA is entirely an artifact of what comes out of exhaust pipes, just because it can blow somewhere else doesn't mean it's no longer pollution.
Its really not a question, as the gentleman said, that can be addressed by turning to sophism. Carbon dioxide molecules because of their orbital asymmetry absorb and radiate energy in the IR segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. This leads to heat being trapped in the atmosphere rather than being radiated into outer space. The more carbon dioxide the greater the effect. Not only can it be mathematically modeled but the effect can be manipulated experimentally to demonstrate without a doubt that carbon dioxide has this property. Given this property it has very specific effects on the atmosphere and consequently numerous, although not always direct effects on the biosphere. For humans it is the effects on the biosphere by carbon dioxide that are most significant because it strongly influences how and where we can get our food (primary and secondary productivity) and the water cycle. This all really has nothing to do with "wrapping mantles" but simply understanding the cause and effect and the magnitude and relationships among these various components.
This approach will be too slow. There are simply too many ignorant people or people who are willfully ignorant. Consequently, things will change too slowly by this approach to forestall ecological catastrophe, the really hidden danger of climate change.
Solutions need to be immediate and economic in nature. We simply have to develop cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels and do so as quickly as possible. I think solar to hydrogen and solar to electrical conversion coupled with increased investment in wind power will do the trick. We just need to achieve enough critical mass so that the fossil fuels industry can no longer afford to block the economic shift.
Lets get on with it. Once we get the costs down, there is nothing the fossil fuels industries will be able to do to stop it.
Well we know given the magnitude of the temperature rise relative to the changes in solar radiation and solar incidence that it is not the sun. We know a tremendous amount about the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its "heat trapping" ability, and we know that what should be expected from the physics and chemistry of the situation closely fits all observations. All that we don't know is about how the earth given its tremendous diversity and variability will react at a very fine level of granularity and even this in many situations is already pointing to human generated carbon dioxide as the "culprit". In the meantime, those with alternate theories have non, other than vague notions that somehow, something yet unknown is responsible for the obvious heating (you do know that in the past 3 months the US broke more than 15,000+ world records for warmest temperatures recorded this time of the year, and virtually all record highs have been in the past 15 years), so either come up with some real scientific evidence, other than letters to the Wall Street journal, or prepared to get really very, very warm and your food supply to begin to be threatened.
If there really is a "dispute" those on the other side of the coin had better start coming up with real scientific evidence. Otherwise, they are merely advocating for the extermination of hundreds of millions of people as political gridlock produces no solution to a well known and understood problem.
Personally, I don't think the problem will be political. Its really economic and those first to recognize it are going to be fabulously wealthy and in a position to change world politics dramatically.
I think that we simply need to spend more time focusing on solutions, particular economic ones and less diddling about the ravings of the ignorant and the malevolent. Once we obtain solutions that are economic alternatives to fossil fuels, we will control the purse string and dinosaurs like the Koch brothers will soon be extinct as will their capacity to fund the lunatics for the own ends. If we want to solve this, we had better get cracking.
I'd like to hear more discussion of promising alternative technologies so that suitable investments can be made. I can assure you, if I am as wealthy as the Koch's my politics will be a lot different. We need alternative sources of energy to be economically successful so that there will be voices with increasing firepower to lobby effectively to tilt our future away from the combustion of fossil fuels before they are all effectively turned into carbon dioxide. Its really that simple and this really is the bottom line. Its sort of the climatological equivalent of the Alamo. Either we hold out before it gets to hot or we disappear as a species. The physics, the chemistry, and the biology are pretty clear on this.
Lets get on with it. There ought to be at least one thing slashdot might do to reduce its carbon footprint.
It may be a mistake to think the solution will be political. It may well be economic. Scientists need to put their money where their mouth is and develop alternate technologies. I see solar conversion of hydrogen as an intermediate fuel rather than directly into electricity via battery storage as a promising technology. All we need is to perfect it and profit. If this can work, even on a small scale, it would be quickly possible to underprice gasoline for powering vehicles on a dollar/kg*km basis or the use of coal on a dollar/kwhr basis. It could be as simple as that. No costs to drill or mine, less cost to transport, since generation facilities could likely be built much closer to ultimate distribution and useage points, and less costs associated with cleaning up spills and mitigating environmental damage.
I'm prepared to invest. I just need to learn more about the science of exactly where and how. I like the idea of getting in on the ground floor and ultimately being able to set up my own National Science Foundation as a hobby with the spare change I'm probably likely to accumulate if my investment strategy is successful. As for OPEC and the big oil, gas and coal companies, they look like tempting prey to me. Anyone out there with a similar inclination?
Its not as if conservatives or liberals will heat up at different rates. We are all going to fry, if we don't get a handle on this quickly. Assuming that politics will somehow mediate the effect is like living in a fools paradise.
Yes, the problem with Dyson's approach is that it doesn't take into account the biological consequences to ecosystems, which will be at least as disruptive as global warming.
Perhaps that is the solution. Those focusing on the reality of global warming need to concentrate virtually all of their efforts at developing a fuel technology that can inexpensively replace fossil fuels. I heard that one scientist had developed a means of using solar radiation to produce virtually limitless amounts of hydrogen from water, using molten zinc as a catalylst, which would then essentially eliminate a major problem with solar power, no storage capacity. Since vehicles propelled by hydrogen fuel cells are an already available technology, it only needs to be more efficient and cost effectively delivered. One way to do this would be to set up thousands of such fuel generation facilities, much like super gas stations, that would fill, store, and distribute hydrogen fuel cells that could be made modular and easy to swap in and out, in essence to refill. The cost for such refitting/refilling stations could be partially borne in partnership with firms like McDonalds, Starbucks, Subway, Barnes and Nobel, Victoria's Secrets, and other retailers, who could set up shop immediately on site so customers waiting for a fill up could have something to do while waiting. Lots of possibilities for funding here.
If independent scientist get behind such technology and simply improve it to the point it is cost effective, there will be very little the fossil fuels industry could do to prevent it. Given the rate at which global warming is proceeding, we had better get cracking.
Anyone know more about these techniques and breakthroughs in solar to hydrogen conversion? Anyone know what major issues remain for hydrogen fuel cell development, assuming readily abundant sources of inexpensive non-polluting hydrogen production? I would like to do a bit of investing on the ground floor.
So your argument is that if scientists discover that we are about to fry ourselves as a species, then scientist can report this but should have no reason to assume that they should be able to translate this into policy that prevents us from frying ourselves a species and since "most people have an inherent distrust of people that want to control over them", even if they are totally ignorant of the reality of the situation, we should oppose scientists from doing something that is certain to happen.
You do recognize the inherent problem with your argument and its adverse consequences don't you?
The fact really is that the first three months of 2012 were the hottest in recorded history and nearly all the top 10 record years have been in the past decade. Perhaps that might just carry a little more weight than the opinions of any scientists.
If you think those who lived in West Texas didn't get hot and dry enough last year, just think how they are going to be feeling this year. They are already beginning to experience summer time temperatures and its only spring.
Its primarily a function of who manages the remote sensing equipment that monitors the atmosphere. NASA puts it up their and keeps it in orbit. NOAA is a primary user of the instrumenttion along with the US military. Why should this bother you? Should you chop off one arm because you have a leg or walk on your hands because you have feet?
"CO2 kinda just sits there until plants can extract it from the air."
Until the plants die and they are either burned or decay, then releasing their carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A major problem is that humans are continuing to reduce forests and plant cover at ever increasing rates each year IN ADDITION to burning fossil fuels.
Mars is not warming up from any data that I have seen except locally near the poles on a seasonal basis. Solar incidence varies over a solar cycle and the total variation over the entire cycle is only about 1-2%, far too small to account for warming on the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Total nonsense. As noted by the late mathematician Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov, you simply can't have science without "theory". First you have an idea and then you go about performing "experiments" (sensu latu) to test these ideas. Science is merely a logical approach for gathering evidence to rule out illogical and inappropriate ideas for which there is no empirical support in favor of those which seem to best "explain the data [observations]". Science is the process whereby ideas progress from being hypotheses to becoming theories, no more, no less. Theories in science are merely ideas that have withstood much testing and consequently are accepted as in all probability as being true (ie a reflection of reality). Ideas that are unable to progress to the level of theory are either discarded or ignored as useless until demonstrated through experiment to be otherwise.
Sophism, on the other hand, such as your assertion, have no such restriction. All you have to do is get people to believe them, no proof or fact is necessary. Our legal system, our economy, the bulk of human culture, and our politics are based on sophism rather than science, even though science is the predominant driver of technological change. This is the reason humanity will soon become extinct.
In 2010, the GDP per capita of Abu Dhabi reached $49,600, which ranks ninth in the world after Qatar, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. That's higher than in the United States, which is around $41,000. The reality is that since Reagan and the shrink the US at all costs except for the military philosophy has taken over standards of living in "developing" nations are now a lot better than in many parts of the US.
Sounds like a great investment for the gas lobby, after they frack your water and make it undrinkable they will sell you one of these.
No pollution in LA is entirely an artifact of what comes out of exhaust pipes, just because it can blow somewhere else doesn't mean it's no longer pollution.
Its really not a question, as the gentleman said, that can be addressed by turning to sophism. Carbon dioxide molecules because of their orbital asymmetry absorb and radiate energy in the IR segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. This leads to heat being trapped in the atmosphere rather than being radiated into outer space. The more carbon dioxide the greater the effect. Not only can it be mathematically modeled but the effect can be manipulated experimentally to demonstrate without a doubt that carbon dioxide has this property. Given this property it has very specific effects on the atmosphere and consequently numerous, although not always direct effects on the biosphere. For humans it is the effects on the biosphere by carbon dioxide that are most significant because it strongly influences how and where we can get our food (primary and secondary productivity) and the water cycle. This all really has nothing to do with "wrapping mantles" but simply understanding the cause and effect and the magnitude and relationships among these various components.
Judging from how fast the Gobi desert is expanding, its more likely that the Chinese will starve themselves to death first.
This approach will be too slow. There are simply too many ignorant people or people who are willfully ignorant. Consequently, things will change too slowly by this approach to forestall ecological catastrophe, the really hidden danger of climate change.
Solutions need to be immediate and economic in nature. We simply have to develop cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels and do so as quickly as possible. I think solar to hydrogen and solar to electrical conversion coupled with increased investment in wind power will do the trick. We just need to achieve enough critical mass so that the fossil fuels industry can no longer afford to block the economic shift.
Lets get on with it. Once we get the costs down, there is nothing the fossil fuels industries will be able to do to stop it.
Well we know given the magnitude of the temperature rise relative to the changes in solar radiation and solar incidence that it is not the sun. We know a tremendous amount about the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its "heat trapping" ability, and we know that what should be expected from the physics and chemistry of the situation closely fits all observations. All that we don't know is about how the earth given its tremendous diversity and variability will react at a very fine level of granularity and even this in many situations is already pointing to human generated carbon dioxide as the "culprit". In the meantime, those with alternate theories have non, other than vague notions that somehow, something yet unknown is responsible for the obvious heating (you do know that in the past 3 months the US broke more than 15,000+ world records for warmest temperatures recorded this time of the year, and virtually all record highs have been in the past 15 years), so either come up with some real scientific evidence, other than letters to the Wall Street journal, or prepared to get really very, very warm and your food supply to begin to be threatened.
If there really is a "dispute" those on the other side of the coin had better start coming up with real scientific evidence. Otherwise, they are merely advocating for the extermination of hundreds of millions of people as political gridlock produces no solution to a well known and understood problem.
Personally, I don't think the problem will be political. Its really economic and those first to recognize it are going to be fabulously wealthy and in a position to change world politics dramatically.
I think that we simply need to spend more time focusing on solutions, particular economic ones and less diddling about the ravings of the ignorant and the malevolent. Once we obtain solutions that are economic alternatives to fossil fuels, we will control the purse string and dinosaurs like the Koch brothers will soon be extinct as will their capacity to fund the lunatics for the own ends. If we want to solve this, we had better get cracking.
I'd like to hear more discussion of promising alternative technologies so that suitable investments can be made. I can assure you, if I am as wealthy as the Koch's my politics will be a lot different. We need alternative sources of energy to be economically successful so that there will be voices with increasing firepower to lobby effectively to tilt our future away from the combustion of fossil fuels before they are all effectively turned into carbon dioxide. Its really that simple and this really is the bottom line. Its sort of the climatological equivalent of the Alamo. Either we hold out before it gets to hot or we disappear as a species. The physics, the chemistry, and the biology are pretty clear on this.
Lets get on with it. There ought to be at least one thing slashdot might do to reduce its carbon footprint.
If things keep heating up as all observations now project, we will all be receiving our prize soon.
I would agree. Creating false narratives is like a cottage industry in politics, except that the cottages are like McMansions now.
It may be a mistake to think the solution will be political. It may well be economic. Scientists need to put their money where their mouth is and develop alternate technologies. I see solar conversion of hydrogen as an intermediate fuel rather than directly into electricity via battery storage as a promising technology. All we need is to perfect it and profit. If this can work, even on a small scale, it would be quickly possible to underprice gasoline for powering vehicles on a dollar/kg*km basis or the use of coal on a dollar/kwhr basis. It could be as simple as that. No costs to drill or mine, less cost to transport, since generation facilities could likely be built much closer to ultimate distribution and useage points, and less costs associated with cleaning up spills and mitigating environmental damage.
I'm prepared to invest. I just need to learn more about the science of exactly where and how. I like the idea of getting in on the ground floor and ultimately being able to set up my own National Science Foundation as a hobby with the spare change I'm probably likely to accumulate if my investment strategy is successful. As for OPEC and the big oil, gas and coal companies, they look like tempting prey to me. Anyone out there with a similar inclination?
Its not as if conservatives or liberals will heat up at different rates. We are all going to fry, if we don't get a handle on this quickly. Assuming that politics will somehow mediate the effect is like living in a fools paradise.
Yes, the problem with Dyson's approach is that it doesn't take into account the biological consequences to ecosystems, which will be at least as disruptive as global warming.
Perhaps that is the solution. Those focusing on the reality of global warming need to concentrate virtually all of their efforts at developing a fuel technology that can inexpensively replace fossil fuels. I heard that one scientist had developed a means of using solar radiation to produce virtually limitless amounts of hydrogen from water, using molten zinc as a catalylst, which would then essentially eliminate a major problem with solar power, no storage capacity. Since vehicles propelled by hydrogen fuel cells are an already available technology, it only needs to be more efficient and cost effectively delivered. One way to do this would be to set up thousands of such fuel generation facilities, much like super gas stations, that would fill, store, and distribute hydrogen fuel cells that could be made modular and easy to swap in and out, in essence to refill. The cost for such refitting/refilling stations could be partially borne in partnership with firms like McDonalds, Starbucks, Subway, Barnes and Nobel, Victoria's Secrets, and other retailers, who could set up shop immediately on site so customers waiting for a fill up could have something to do while waiting. Lots of possibilities for funding here.
If independent scientist get behind such technology and simply improve it to the point it is cost effective, there will be very little the fossil fuels industry could do to prevent it. Given the rate at which global warming is proceeding, we had better get cracking.
Anyone know more about these techniques and breakthroughs in solar to hydrogen conversion? Anyone know what major issues remain for hydrogen fuel cell development, assuming readily abundant sources of inexpensive non-polluting hydrogen production? I would like to do a bit of investing on the ground floor.
Darth Vader's heart. He wasn't using it any more.
So your argument is that if scientists discover that we are about to fry ourselves as a species, then scientist can report this but should have no reason to assume that they should be able to translate this into policy that prevents us from frying ourselves a species and since "most people have an inherent distrust of people that want to control over them", even if they are totally ignorant of the reality of the situation, we should oppose scientists from doing something that is certain to happen.
You do recognize the inherent problem with your argument and its adverse consequences don't you?
Its never quite so clear cut. There are those who think murder is wrong, but then kill with premeditation in the name of national defense.
Yeah, especially in West Texas.
Sounds as if you sneezed out your brain cells.
The fact really is that the first three months of 2012 were the hottest in recorded history and nearly all the top 10 record years have been in the past decade. Perhaps that might just carry a little more weight than the opinions of any scientists.
If you think those who lived in West Texas didn't get hot and dry enough last year, just think how they are going to be feeling this year. They are already beginning to experience summer time temperatures and its only spring.
Its primarily a function of who manages the remote sensing equipment that monitors the atmosphere. NASA puts it up their and keeps it in orbit. NOAA is a primary user of the instrumenttion along with the US military. Why should this bother you? Should you chop off one arm because you have a leg or walk on your hands because you have feet?
"CO2 kinda just sits there until plants can extract it from the air."
Until the plants die and they are either burned or decay, then releasing their carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A major problem is that humans are continuing to reduce forests and plant cover at ever increasing rates each year IN ADDITION to burning fossil fuels.
Mars is not warming up from any data that I have seen except locally near the poles on a seasonal basis. Solar incidence varies over a solar cycle and the total variation over the entire cycle is only about 1-2%, far too small to account for warming on the earth.
The effect is about 37 times not 200 times.