Jump to content
semente

The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I suppose I am simply so much in agreement with her urgency that I don't take offense at a reasonably accurate criticism that we haven't acted with sufficient urgency to this point.

So what would do to get us to zero carbon emissions by 2050?  


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the things I mentioned earlier


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, esldude said:

I started to mention the Koch Brothers, but figured it would lead to even more needless knee jerk reactions.  I think they are on the other side, and bad for the country as a whole.  And yes at least in my circle of acquaintances you would hear people complain about the Koch Brothers effect on politics.  

Any stupiditity, closed mindedness, true racism, corruption, and substantial lies are bad for the poltical system.   Minor lies and political garbage will always happen, but that isn't the problem.

 

The only reason why special interests get control is that people just don't know what/who they are really voting for.  We do have bad agents in our political system someone like Soros/Koch/etc, and liars who use 'parodies' because the transcript doesn't really say anything seriously bad,  people who claim that we can police a treaty when it was known that we could not, XXXcare when instead it is a poor catastrophic insurance policy -- NOT "care",  and numerous other substantial lies and liars -- they are BAD for the system (I mean, we had a relatively recent President waggle his personal parts at reporters -- Presidents have strong personalities.)   Someone who says that I have the 'orangest face' or the 'biggest thing to waggle' -- they aren't important things in politics.

 

We simply have too much lack of integrity -- I about cried and barfed (at the same time -- too sick for the stress, but I care about people and the USA)  when watching this sad comedy in the USA politics right now -- one side is clumsy, and the other side is an absolute liar - you pick your side, but the worst was the specific side that lies/condems activities in a transcript -- but nothing illegal is manifest in the transcript.  The integrity in our mainstream press is little better than the MQA advocacy -- mixing opinon & news, conflating both (people can easily believe opinon as fact.)    Neither side is good.  It makes me want to cry, but cannot do anything about it.

 

Dont get me wrong -- there is plenty of failed integrity to go around -- but when there isn't enough evidence and lies are being told to back accusations, that is the worst.  (Akin to claiming a person is a molester when they are not.)

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, esldude said:

Yes Soros funds lots of things that appear to me not good for America.  And not by accident.  And yes, it is a strategy to indoctrinate or draw in the women, then the children, and the might of the men is nulled out.  The men end up following.  Definitely not by accident. 

 

Let us see, just an off the top of my head example is the DA in Chicago, who "mis-handled" the Jussie Smollett Hoax crime.  Yes Kimberly Foxx.  She was largely funded by Soros to get that position.  She is on a list of a couple dozen DA's who were funded by Soros money.  They all follow a similar pattern too.  Ignore or wipe off the books petty crimes (because it is racist).  Drop prosecution of such things selectively.  The selection is obvious too.  

 

Only a matter of time before the penny drops....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

 

One of the better easily accessible articles I've seen on global cooling. 

 

Like this chart of actual temperatures too.  

 

1850-to-2015-temps-no-rss-640x465.png

 

And while it was known earlier that there was a warming trend in data it wasn't linked well to anything until Charles David Keeling began regular atmospheric CO2 measurements in 1958.  Plenty of scientists suspected fossil fuel use would be problematic.   Like this graph too. 

The inexorable rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

 

Now I'm surprised no one has posted how we get to zero emissions starting in 1970 and reaching it in 2050.  I'm all for it, but I'm not seeing the path yet.  


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd remembered seeing this video showing CO2 from 2015, but couldn't find it.  Just found it again.  Worth your 90 seconds to watch I think.  From NASA using OCO-2 satellite data. 

 

 


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

Before reading all of this -- remember that the big thing here is POLITICAL POWER, where the energy issues(CO2, warming, etc) are secondary to the ACTUAL goals.  Of course, the 'peons' in the struggle believe in their goal -- that is GOOD.

 

If you remember -- the big thing in the past was GLOBAL COOLING...  Since the scientifically incompetent environmentalists (and the more competent scientists) have learned more, now the terminology is 'warming' or 'change' to avoid terminology  problems in the future.  Frankly, some of our extremists will try to figure out how to blame the sun for the biggest change in global temperatures, and outlaw the sun!!?!?!

 

Where are the growing CO2  problems coming from?  If the US/EU stopped ALL carbon output, the problem is not solved.

 

China would have to start fixing the problem NOW.  So far, the US is doing something (not so much blathering with silly treaties that aren't followed.)  Step by step from dirty Coal (like China & India) to less dirty natural gas (esp if we sell more of it to help others), then another step later on.  Flash cut isn't going to work.

 

A defective treaty that doesn't *really* cover China and India is simple nonsense.  That is the major motivation for the US not to tie itself down, but still decreasing CO2.

 

It is very reasonable and rational to state -- no matter if humanity stops producing any CO2, the global warming will continue.  There are numerous reasons, and the world will also start cooling soon (it is a cycle also.)  Too many variables, and too few/inaccurate models to understand REALLY what is going on.  Of course, there are those tryign to grab political power (the leaders of the environmentalists.)  Most likely they are just as power mad as the evil corrupt capitalists -- they are just too weak to expose themselves yet.

 

It is insane to assume that windmills can replace a quick start natural gas power plant, and I'd suspect that most people in the US won't tolerate losing most of their freedom.  Think about energy storage -- that is a major technology -- think also about exploding Lithium cells.  Do you know why they can explode? -- LOTS of energy storage.   There is the need for HUGE amounts of research...  Do we want our expensive research towards CO2 and other pollution reduction to be stolen by China?  That stuff is called IP.

 

The US/EU are doing lots of research towards CO2 goals, China is building more and more Coal plants.  Our money and resources MUST go where the good (or attempted good) is being done.

 

John

 

 

Your post is the most successful of all what I have read ...!

 

Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I want our expensive research towards CO2 and other pollution reduction to be given to China, India, and everyone else.

I see the benefit of that, but it highlights the other issues.  After all the Chinese activity to steal intellectual property of western countries how politically viable do you think that is?  Yeah we're all in this together, but............


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, esldude said:

Now I'm surprised no one has posted how we get to zero emissions starting in 1970 and reaching it in 2050.  I'm all for it, but I'm not seeing the path yet. 

 

Working on an answer, but not until tomorrow. Not that it will be any great thing, or that my very limited knowledge should give anyone the impression that my answer in any way limits the possibilities known to those actually working in the field.

 

1 hour ago, esldude said:

After all the Chinese activity to steal intellectual property of western countries how politically viable do you think that is?

 

In fact I think the Chinese may be ahead of us in many respects regarding "green" tech, so it is not as if the sharing would all be going one way. In both basic and applied scientific research the Chinese have been making great strides, while the US has de-prioritized at least basic research, so we need to get accustomed to not making our former assumption that we would be leading the world.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> eero Pro router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> eero Pro router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, esldude said:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

 

One of the better easily accessible articles I've seen on global cooling. 

 

Like this chart of actual temperatures too.  

 

1850-to-2015-temps-no-rss-640x465.png

 

And while it was known earlier that there was a warming trend in data it wasn't linked well to anything until Charles David Keeling began regular atmospheric CO2 measurements in 1958.  Plenty of scientists suspected fossil fuel use would be problematic.   Like this graph too. 

The inexorable rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

 

Now I'm surprised no one has posted how we get to zero emissions starting in 1970 and reaching it in 2050.  I'm all for it, but I'm not seeing the path yet.  

 

I read the article and it leaves me many doubts ...

 

Increase in temperatures of 0.82 Celcius from 1850 to 2015 ...

 

"It is believed" that it is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... That is, they are not sure ...

 

On the other hand, where on our planet were these measurements taken?

 

Were the measurements taken in 1850 accurate?

 

Being in the milk business for many years I remember an article published about 30 years ago in a prestigious industry magazine, Hoard's Dairyman, where they said that cows were a danger because their high breath in methane could cool the earth. ..!

 

Maybe we need more cows breathing 🤔

 

Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

I read the article and it leaves me many doubts ...

 

Increase in temperatures of 0.82 Celcius from 1850 to 2015 ...

 

"It is believed" that it is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... That is, they are not sure ...

 

On the other hand, where on our planet were these measurements taken?

 

Were the measurements taken in 1850 accurate?

 

Being in the milk business for many years I remember an article published about 30 years ago in a prestigious industry magazine, Hoard's Dairyman, where they said that cows were a danger because their high breath in methane could cool the earth. ..!

 

Maybe we need more cows breathing 🤔

 

Roch

Don't know who said methane from cow breath was going to cool things.  Doesn't sound right.  Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon.  Luckily it doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long.  I seem to recall methane remains in the atmosphere just a few years after release.  CO2 stays around far, far longer.  

 

As for where they get temps and the accuracy of measurements there are plenty of articles.  CO2 levels mostly come from ice core samples as far as I know.  


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jud said:

Some curious conclusions in that report the article is about.  Over the time period covered China increased emissions of carbon 137%.  China is predicted to slow that to 8% per year.  They currently produce more than twice the USA amount.  China is promoting and actively financing the building of coal power plants in other countries around the world, and still building some in China.  The USA emissions declined during this time period.  It is expected emissions will be level in the near future (though other credible sources expect a gradual decline).  Even with Trump rolling back some regulations the price advantage of natural gas means coal power plants are going to continue being phased out.  Yet China gets a better rating on how they have done than the USA????? Yes China's per capita emissions are lower, but the climate cares not for per capita values only total amounts that get released.  Somehow the conclusion is the USA must get in line and lead or this problem can't be solved.  India has increased emissions greatly too.  And continue to go forward with coal while promising not to do so.  Yet seem to be better rated than USA efforts. 

 

Has always been interesting to me that the goal was 50% reduction worldwide by 2030-2035.  And that beyond that point emissions needed to be a net zero to avoid more than 1.5 degrees warming.  Did anyone really think if we met that 50% reductions target we could in a handful of years drop that right to zero?  We aren't going to meet 50% and definitely aren't going to be at zero by 2035.  All worthy goals, but motivated or not someone needs a new viable timetable.  The one being touted is broken.  Everything that can be done gets us closer and buys at least a little time, but that is a wickedly strict timetable of events.  

 

By one estimate I've seen, if you plant 4 trees per year for each car, and each family home plants 5 trees per year it might come close to balancing out.  Someone better get busy planting those trees.  Lots and lots of trees.  


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five demands for climate change justice

In the run-up to the second anniversary of the Paris Agreement and in parallel to the UN Climate Convention in Bonn, climate justice campaigners and lawyers from six continents met to co-ordinate five clear legal demands for local, regional and national governments. The five demands are that legislators:

 

  1. Acknowledge the climate emergency in national constitutions
  2. Recognise that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions knowing the contribution these gases make to climate change is an act of ecocide
  3. Provide all citizens with the legal tools they need to obtain climate justice
  4. Introduce a legal requirement that greenhouse gas emissions associated with imports also be included in national and regional reduction targets
  5. Better regulate the activities of multinationals in particular by ending subsidies for fossil fuels.

https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/five-demands-climate-change-justice/


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

I read the article and it leaves me many doubts ...

 

Increase in temperatures of 0.82 Celcius from 1850 to 2015 ...

 

"It is believed" that it is due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... That is, they are not sure ...

 

On the other hand, where on our planet were these measurements taken?

 

Were the measurements taken in 1850 accurate?

 

Being in the milk business for many years I remember an article published about 30 years ago in a prestigious industry magazine, Hoard's Dairyman, where they said that cows were a danger because their high breath in methane could cool the earth. ..!

 

Maybe we need more cows breathing 🤔

 

Roch

 

The measurements wasn’t taken in 1850. The measures from that time is from ice cores.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#how-do-we-measure-or-estimate-co2-emissions

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-human-history-180972181/

 

You have got it upside down 🙃, cow’s breathe out and farts methane gas which is a strong greenhouse gas. More methane gas in the atmosphere has a warming effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2019 at 5:17 AM, John Dyson said:

 

Before reading all of this -- remember that the big thing here is POLITICAL POWER, where the energy issues(CO2, warming, etc) are secondary to the ACTUAL goals.  Of course, the 'peons' in the struggle believe in their goal -- that is GOOD.

 

If you remember -- the big thing in the past was GLOBAL COOLING...  Since the scientifically incompetent environmentalists (and the more competent scientists) have learned more, now the terminology is 'warming' or 'change' to avoid terminology  problems in the future.  Frankly, some of our extremists will try to figure out how to blame the sun for the biggest change in global temperatures, and outlaw the sun!!?!?!

 

Where are the growing CO2  problems coming from?  If the US/EU stopped ALL carbon output, the problem is not solved.

 

China would have to start fixing the problem NOW.  So far, the US is doing something (not so much blathering with silly treaties that aren't followed.)  Step by step from dirty Coal (like China & India) to less dirty natural gas (esp if we sell more of it to help others), then another step later on.  Flash cut isn't going to work.

 

A defective treaty that doesn't *really* cover China and India is simple nonsense.  That is the major motivation for the US not to tie itself down, but still decreasing CO2.

 

It is very reasonable and rational to state -- no matter if humanity stops producing any CO2, the global warming will continue.  There are numerous reasons, and the world will also start cooling soon (it is a cycle also.)  Too many variables, and too few/inaccurate models to understand REALLY what is going on.  Of course, there are those tryign to grab political power (the leaders of the environmentalists.)  Most likely they are just as power mad as the evil corrupt capitalists -- they are just too weak to expose themselves yet.

 

It is insane to assume that windmills can replace a quick start natural gas power plant, and I'd suspect that most people in the US won't tolerate losing most of their freedom.  Think about energy storage -- that is a major technology -- think also about exploding Lithium cells.  Do you know why they can explode? -- LOTS of energy storage.   There is the need for HUGE amounts of research...  Do we want our expensive research towards CO2 and other pollution reduction to be stolen by China?  That stuff is called IP.

 

The US/EU are doing lots of research towards CO2 goals, China is building more and more Coal plants.  Our money and resources MUST go where the good (or attempted good) is being done.

 

John

 

 

Incompetent environmentalists, too many variables, and too few/inaccurate models to understand REALLY what is going on etc etc, you say. To me it’s evident that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Summit said:

 

The measurements wasn’t taken in 1850. The measures from that time is from ice cores.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#how-do-we-measure-or-estimate-co2-emissions

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-human-history-180972181/

 

You have got it upside down 🙃, cow’s breathe out and farts methane gas which is a strong greenhouse gas. More methane gas in the atmosphere has a warming effect.

 

That was what they said 30 years ago.  I can not found the article, no internet subscription by that time...

 

But here is a more recent one, with a different explanation:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/cows-beef-farming-reverse-climate-change-global-warming-a8202121.html

 

But maybe you need happy cows.

 

 

 

Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

That was what they said 30 years ago.  I can not found the article, no internet subscription by that time...

 

But here is a more recent one, with a different explanation:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/cows-beef-farming-reverse-climate-change-global-warming-a8202121.html

 

But maybe you need happy cows.

 

 

 

 

Roch

Seen such a farm and it works. I doubt it is positive in removing carbon. But goes in the right direction vs current practice.


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Mass extinction?

 

Unless we artificially induce this even faster than it's happening, it won't reduce carbon until 100 years or so too late.


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, esldude said:

Unless we artificially induce this even faster than it's happening, it won't reduce carbon until 100 years or so too late.

 

It will reduce human carbon emissions very quickly, but will not do much about the carbon already in the atmosphere. The Earth eco-system is self-regulating, and when pushed too far, it will most certainly push back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It will reduce human carbon emissions very quickly, but will not do much about the carbon already in the atmosphere. The Earth eco-system is self-regulating, and when pushed too far, it will most certainly push back.

 

Which is why I said it is 100 years too late at least for humans and other animals.


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

1. It will reduce human carbon emissions very quickly, but will not do much about the carbon already in the atmosphere.

 

2. The Earth eco-system is self-regulating, and when pushed too far, it will most certainly push back.

 

 

1. for human extinction, yes

 

2. This is a blandishment.  There is little to support that the biosphere is self-regulating (which is no doubt what you mean by Earth ecosystem; and ecosystem is a biological community in a certain area plus all the abiotic components involved).

 

Indeed, there are usually multiple stable points and limit cycles in even simple dynamical systems, such as competition or predator-prey interactions.  Within a single population there do appear to be some factors that are self-regulating, but often popns. are regulated by extrinsic factors.

 

Want math?

 

The global carbon and methane 'system' (climate change) is known to not be self-regulating, but is KNOWN to contain some very rapid transition effects: 

 

One is interruption of the Atlantic ocean conveyor system by large flows of fresh water from Greenland ice melts.  You will not want to (try and) live in Europe after that happens.

 

Another is the large stores of methane in permafrost in Siberia, Alaska, N. Canada which seem to be becoming uncovered and released into the atmosphere right now due to warming in those areas

 

These phenomena of very rapid state transitions are usually called tipping points in the popular literature.

 

In mathematics, they fall under the term catastrophe theory.


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...