Human beliefs sure are weird. Why is it so difficult to get audiophiles to accept the existence of perceptual bias?

[Ron Texas]

Would you be surprised to know that for much of the earth history that CO2 levels were almost a order of magnitude greater than current levels?
so if there is a positive feedback that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, why didn't it happen when CO2 levels were 2000-4000 ppm over hundreds of millions of years? Did the laws of physics change?

The laws of physics didn't change, but the application of politics has.

 

[RayDunzl]

Enough of this climate change debate. How about something related to audio gear or music?

Avert your gaze...

 

[Ron Texas]

Avert your gaze...

View attachment 31193

Thanks, you mean well.

 

[Wombat]

To no one in particular. The weather forecasters say your area will be inundated by 10 foot high floods. I bet one's response isn't "Hahaha, that's just a prediction".

 

[Ron Texas]

 

[Ron Texas]

To no one in particular. The weather forecasters say your area will be inundated by 10 foot high floods. I bet one's response isn't "Hahaha, that's just a prediction".

That would depend on whether they said the flood would happen in a few days or in 100 years. You left that important part out. I lost a house to flooding 2 years ago. It wasn't fun and I am not completely over it yet.

 

[Xulonn]

there is an enormous debate as to how the problem should be approached.

If there was a bucket of gold stars to give out for good posts here, you would deserve the biggest one for that comment, which is an extraordinarily succinct point the the thread with it many bloviations.

Most of those who propose solutions - especially people involved in finance, investing, and other business-related are looking for way to profit from those solutions. I'm not sure we as a species with our cultures and governments are even capabile of selecting the most effective and beneficial solution. The global current trend towards electing far-right nationalists and saparatists. The haves want to keep what they've got, and the have nots want s big slice of the pie. I am not optimistic regarding the long term. (He says as ominous thunder from an approaching storm accentuates the dark afternoon sky.)

Science and logic will not determine the path forward - politics and big egos will lead the way.

 

[Ron Texas]

Science and logic will not determine the path forward - politics and big egos will lead the way.

I love to be brief, thank you. If I were in charge billions of trees would get planted.

 

[Blumlein 88]

So let's start with some FACTS. The Atmosphere is Composed of Currently ~400 Parts per million of CO2, IOW .004 of the atmosphere is CO2.
Of that CO2 Human activity is responsible for about 3% of Global CO2 levels IOW, .004x.03. 0.00012 of the atmosphere is CO2 generated by humans.
IF humans were to reduce their CO2 foot prints to zero they would remove 0.00012 of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

So speaking of Risk what would happen to humans if we did away with all CO2 emissions, mass poverty, starvation and death.
Try to live without electricity, transportation, and food grown without multicultural machinery or fertilizers for a month and get back top us.

The Global Greenhouse effect is caused primarily by water vapor ~95%. Now selling H2O as a pollutant is a rather tough sell. So the theory was ( not sure if the goalpost have been moved on the basic premise), that CO2 led to a positive feedback loop with water vapor to induce accelerated warming.

See CO2 by itself is logarithmic in effect, past a certain point it takes a doubling to produce a small change. The next doubling produces a much smaller change and so on. Well that doesn't help with crisis mongering so a positive feedback was proposed. It was said that the warming in the lower troposphere caused by this feedback effect would be 3x the effects with ground temperatures. The problem is that this 'fingerprint' has never been observed in the real world.

Those of you familiar with cricuit design realize what happens when a circuit has a positive feed back rather than negative feedback.

Would you be surprised to know that for much of the earth history that CO2 levels were almost a order of magnitude greater than current levels?
so if there is a positive feedback that would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, why didn't it happen when CO2 levels were 2000-4000 ppm over hundreds of millions of years? Did the laws of physics change?

Water is the most abundant greenhouse gas. But it has an atmospheric lifetime of a few days. CO2 is a few decades. So if we put huge sprays of water in the air for a time, they'd go away in a couple weeks. Put a little extra CO2 in the air and it sticks around for a generation or two. So even though the annual emissions are maybe 3 percent of the carbon cycle if a portion of it is beyond what gets absorbed then the levels slowly rise.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Climate change is an important topic which has little relationship to what this site is about. As for science denial, the debate spills over into whether climate science is sound or not. Even if the science is 100% good and CO2 emissions are the principle cause of warming there is an enormous debate as to how the problem should be approached.

So to say there are other threads is giving my point of view the short shrift.

Next time I am in Panama, I will buy the first round.

Maybe a climate thread on proposed solutions (with participants at least for purposes of discussion agreeing a solution is needed and the problem is real).

FWIW I do think the problem is real. I don't think there is a global community cohesive enough currently to come together for a solution. I'm not so sure some draconian proposals aren't worse than just letting things take their natural course. If it's bad it isn't the end of the world, though it might be very bad. Some folks will make it, some species will, and if it doesn't well did we really think all this would last forever?

 

[kevinh]

Why don't tell us! You seem to know better than the climate science research.

Who or what specifically is "the climate science research"?

Nobel Laureate Freeman Dyson?

Or perhaps the Founder of Greenpeace?

Ivar Giaever

 

[Blumlein 88]

I love to be brief, thank you. If I were in charge billions of trees would get planted.

Just don't plant them close to my house. I love forests. But these thunderstorms come along, and the winds (occasional lightning strikes to the trees) cause them to crash down and ruin a house.

 

[Zerimas]

Science and logic will not determine the path forward - politics and big egos will lead the way.

This isn't even something that unique to the issue of climate change. From what I can see governments don't seem employ evidence-based reasoning on basically any issue. I don't even think it is a trend that is even unique to the political sphere.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This isn't even something that unique to the issue of climate change. From what I can see governments don't seem employ evidence-based reasoning on basically any issue. I don't even think it is a trend that is even unique to the political sphere.

Oh it is the most evidence based endeavor. They just have a different idea of evidence than you do.

 

[Zerimas]

g how many BS tricks you can see through with a basic knowledge of measurement and instrumentation principles

I have basically no knowledge on the the subject. Even just the basics regarding research methods that they taught to us in Psych 101 are enough to, if not find outright flaws, in purportedly academic studies at least ask some reasonably intelligent questions.

 

[Ron Texas]

Just don't plant them close to my house. I love forests. But these thunderstorms come along, and the winds (occasional lightning strikes to the trees) cause them to crash down and ruin a house.

I would hate to see your house get damaged by a falling tree.

 

[Zerimas]

Oh it is the most evidence based endeavor. They just have a different idea of evidence than you do.

That would make sense. Much like how many "audiophiles" seem to have a different idea of what constitutes evidence. Apparently the sort of stuff that is done on these forums doesn't meet their standards.

 

[Ron Texas]

This isn't even something that unique to the issue of climate change. From what I can see governments don't seem employ evidence-based reasoning on basically any issue. I don't even think it is a trend that is even unique to the political sphere.

There is a tendency for governments to pass legislation based on a hypothesis. It sounds good, so let's do it. Maybe it works or it doesn't. Sometimes they admit defeat and reverse course.

 

[Cosmik]

There is a tendency for governments to pass legislation based on a hypothesis. It sounds good, so let's do it. Maybe it works or it doesn't. Sometimes they admit defeat and reverse course.

Governments can find any evidence they need to push through whatever policy they want to. Just employ the right experts to write a report, and if you don't like it, employ some more until they see the light and get it right.

 

[Xulonn]

Oh it is the most evidence based endeavor. They just have a different idea of evidence than you do.

I think the recent acceptance and promotion of "alternative facts" by the current U.S. federal government is related to that. When that term entered the American lexicon, I began to feel that all hope was lost for even a small amount of reason and logic from those currently governing the U.S.