As you don't agree with him, why do you continue to repeat his point as if it were true? You keep saying we don't have to worry about global climate change when you agree it CAN have local consequences.
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
21 days ago
0
#31184
This notion of things not mattering when you can't experience them is about as valid as the child's idea that if they shut their eyes, no-one will see them.
Something you can't experience can have either deterministic or stochastic effects on things you CAN experience. That is entirely consistent with the cause not being possible to experience. In this case, anyone who can thing straight will understand that the cause matters even though you can't experience it.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. The global temperature doesn’t go up, the global average goes up. You can’t experience global climate, but the climate of the region you live in will probably change. That will affect the local climate.
The difference between the global temperature going up and the global average temperature going up is enormous. If the global temperature went up by 1.5C Earth would become slightly hotter. However, that isn’t all climate change does. It also makes the temperature distribution more extreme. That’s something to worry about. A place that was merely chilly earlier could end up ice cold as a result of a change in the regional climate. Or could have its temperature raised drastically. So the effects of climate change would be experienced by you. And the temperatures being more extreme means that areas could have an odd mix of extremely hot and extremely cold areas which used to be moderate.
The climate in one region can affect the climate in another (El Nino and La Niña). The ‘system’ that used to make the planet more liveable is being disrupted. The temperatures aren’t meant to be this extreme.
21 days ago
0
#31186
Elroch wrote:
This notion of things not mattering when you can't experience them is about as valid as the child's idea that if they shut their eyes, no-one will see them.
Something you can't experience can have either deterministic or stochastic effects on things you CAN experience. That is entirely consistent with the cause not being possible to experience. In this case, anyone who can thing straight will understand that the cause matters even though you can't experience it.
I agree.
But the point seems to be why was there 'resistance and infighting' on the semantics?
IPG suggested that 'f' was having a 'senior moment' ....
so perhaps it was simply about that personal exchange.
------------------
regarding the word 'worry' its usually used as a pejorative.
'concern' a little less pejorative but still connects to 'worry'.
To get more positive semantics it seems single words don't do the job.
More like phrases.
'It matters'. 'it'll continue to get worse if nothing is done about it by both governments and their constituents' 'needs to be fixed'. 'coal burning isn't just dirty and unhealthy - its also the most major cause of disastrous manmade climate change because of the carbon and CO2 factor'
21 days ago
0
#31187
AG120502 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. The global temperature doesn’t go up, the global average goes up. You can’t experience global climate, but the climate of the region you live in will probably change. That will affect the local climate.
The difference between the global temperature going up and the global average temperature going up is enormous. If the global temperature went up by 1.5C Earth would become slightly hotter. However, that isn’t all climate change does. It also makes the temperature distribution more extreme. That’s something to worry about. A place that was merely chilly earlier could end up ice cold as a result of a change in the regional climate. Or could have its temperature raised drastically. So the effects of climate change would be experienced by you. And the temperatures being more extreme means that areas could have an odd mix of extremely hot and extremely cold areas which used to be moderate.
The climate in one region can affect the climate in another (El Nino and La Niña). The ‘system’ that used to make the planet more liveable is being disrupted. The temperatures aren’t meant to be this extreme.
The global temperature statistics are misinterpreted by those rejecting climate science.
And those particular figures don't convey the nature of the problems anyway.
playerafar wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. The global temperature doesn’t go up, the global average goes up. You can’t experience global climate, but the climate of the region you live in will probably change. That will affect the local climate.
The difference between the global temperature going up and the global average temperature going up is enormous. If the global temperature went up by 1.5C Earth would become slightly hotter. However, that isn’t all climate change does. It also makes the temperature distribution more extreme. That’s something to worry about. A place that was merely chilly earlier could end up ice cold as a result of a change in the regional climate. Or could have its temperature raised drastically. So the effects of climate change would be experienced by you. And the temperatures being more extreme means that areas could have an odd mix of extremely hot and extremely cold areas which used to be moderate.
The climate in one region can affect the climate in another (El Nino and La Niña). The ‘system’ that used to make the planet more liveable is being disrupted. The temperatures aren’t meant to be this extreme.
The global temperature statistics are misinterpreted by those rejecting climate science.
And those particular figures don't convey the nature of the problems anyway.
True, but if misinterpretations are corrected, then climate science is made more palatable. Eventually, the person in question could accept it.
Science isn't supposed to be palatable. It's supposed to be trustworthy.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Science isn't supposed to be palatable. It's supposed to be trustworthy.
That is true. One cannot contest that. But by correcting misinterpretations, the person in question will see the entire model as it is supposed to be seen. As the way science shows it to be. You cannot argue with someone who denies the first principles. Letting the person understand climate change will make them easier to convince. It is an important and necessary step in convincing people to accept it, which is quite important.
The best way to learn is to do it,” says engineer Jens Dalsgaard Nielsen.
I have a special project for the geniuses among us:
6G technology, while offering advancements in connectivity and speed, also presents potential environmental challenges related to energy consumption, e-waste, and resource usage. Addressing these concerns through sustainable design and circular economy principles is crucial for realizing a truly beneficial 6G future.
21 days ago
0
#31193
AG120502 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. The global temperature doesn’t go up, the global average goes up. You can’t experience global climate, but the climate of the region you live in will probably change. That will affect the local climate.
The difference between the global temperature going up and the global average temperature going up is enormous. If the global temperature went up by 1.5C Earth would become slightly hotter. However, that isn’t all climate change does. It also makes the temperature distribution more extreme. That’s something to worry about. A place that was merely chilly earlier could end up ice cold as a result of a change in the regional climate. Or could have its temperature raised drastically. So the effects of climate change would be experienced by you. And the temperatures being more extreme means that areas could have an odd mix of extremely hot and extremely cold areas which used to be moderate.
The climate in one region can affect the climate in another (El Nino and La Niña). The ‘system’ that used to make the planet more liveable is being disrupted. The temperatures aren’t meant to be this extreme.
The global temperature statistics are misinterpreted by those rejecting climate science.
And those particular figures don't convey the nature of the problems anyway.
True, but if misinterpretations are corrected, then climate science is made more palatable. Eventually, the person in question could accept it.
The misinterpretations can't be 'corrected' except by those misinterpreting.
And 'the people in question' (over one billion of them) don't want to 'accept it'.
That's the point. For them its not about accuracy or logic or proof or evidence - its about 'trust' and them 'not liking and not trusting'.
A few posts later somebody said that the science is 'supposed' to be trustworthy ....
----------------------
But trust is up to the truster/distruster.
When and if somebody doesn't want to trust something or somebody they won't.
Is it that simple? The results indicate that.
Including in these forums - we see that 'not wanting to trust' dynamic played out year in year out.
Why is trust so important for the one billion plus 'dissenters with climate science'?
Because of a simliar thing - that's the way they want to see it.
They choose to see it that way and have it that way.
That its 'their trust' that is key.
(The word 'trust' is printed on money. Banks often have 'trust' in their name. Yes - 'trust' is major)
21 days ago
0
#31194
power_9_the_people wrote:
I have a special project for the geniuses among us:
6G technology, while offering advancements in connectivity and speed, also presents potential environmental challenges related to energy consumption, e-waste, and resource usage. Addressing these concerns through sustainable design and circular economy principles is crucial for realizing a truly beneficial 6G future.
True, but I don't see this move as a problem. Nokia is already talking about halving energy consumption when moving to 6G because of advances in technology, and the truth is that data transmission including mobile networks is only about 1% of total energy consumption. I am all for making it efficient, but that is not being neglected!
21 days ago
0
#31195
Even 1% seems quite a high figure for computer/phone/data things.
When you look at the physics.
Tiny currents in microchips compared with the energy required to move billions of tons of vehicles and to power homes and other buildings and power factories and the like.
21 days ago
0
#31196
A relatively new storage technology is interesting, and is already commercially available for niche applications. It is a vanadium/graphene supercapacitor/battery hybrid. Its strengths include rapid charging and up to 50,000 cycles. Downsides are higher capital cost for capacity - current retail $550 per kWh, I see - and it's quite heavy compared to Li-ion.
It's the transmission of data that uses the most power not the internal circuits of devices like servers.
According to a study at Stanford the cost in energy to transmit a single bit of data on copper wire is four magnitudes higher than in optic cable. However, the cost of receiving that bit requires converting photons back to electrons which nearly negates the benefit of savings of energy.
The cost of wireless transmission is significantly higher than by either type of wire.
Elroch wrote:
power_9_the_people wrote:
I have a special project for the geniuses among us:
6G technology, while offering advancements in connectivity and speed, also presents potential environmental challenges related to energy consumption, e-waste, and resource usage. Addressing these concerns through sustainable design and circular economy principles is crucial for realizing a truly beneficial 6G future.
True, but I don't see this move as a problem. Nokia is already talking about halving energy consumption when moving to 6G because of advances in technology, and the truth is that data transmission including mobile networks is only about 1% of total energy consumption. I am all for making it efficient, but that is not being neglected!
According to my searches the internet in total is 2.5% of total electrical consumption.
AG120502 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
AG120502 wrote:
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
The effects of climate change are wide-ranging. The global temperature doesn’t go up, the global average goes up. You can’t experience global climate, but the climate of the region you live in will probably change. That will affect the local climate.
The difference between the global temperature going up and the global average temperature going up is enormous. If the global temperature went up by 1.5C Earth would become slightly hotter. However, that isn’t all climate change does. It also makes the temperature distribution more extreme. That’s something to worry about. A place that was merely chilly earlier could end up ice cold as a result of a change in the regional climate. Or could have its temperature raised drastically. So the effects of climate change would be experienced by you. And the temperatures being more extreme means that areas could have an odd mix of extremely hot and extremely cold areas which used to be moderate.
The climate in one region can affect the climate in another (El Nino and La Niña). The ‘system’ that used to make the planet more liveable is being disrupted. The temperatures aren’t meant to be this extreme.
Yeah. But if you can't experience it then it doesn't really matter does it? We agree local climate only exists because of global climate, right? So like the internet says, wouldn't the ONLY way to experience global climate be locally?
I think of it like the sun. Someone like Fester might insist that we cannot experience the sun locally. Only the local effects of the sun. I would understand what he's thinking, that the sun is so far away and it's so big and it's influence is so large that we can't have a small "personal" experience with the sun. So I would ask the same question, if you can't experience it locally, can it be experienced at all?
Anyway, IFP, why exactly do you believe climate change isn’t something to worry about?
Honestly, I thought there might be a little more comment about what Elroch said, the story presented.
The reason there isn't anything to worry about is because of what Fester said, it cannot be experienced. (presumably locally or otherwise)
And just like anything other physical thing, if it can't be experienced it wouldn't make sense to worry about it. Airline flights, rain, snow, sunburn, deep sea fishing, hiking, pretty much anything we can think of. If we can't experience them, it wouldn't make any sense to worry about them.
IPG - do you really believe that or is that some kind of gambit?
Are you saying that the Vietnam war couldn't be experienced in Oregon and that therefore it shouldn't have been worried about?
On this one - I think you're 'having us on'.
This isn't the 'common ground' you were talking about earlier.
Maybe your way of talking back to 'f'? (since he appears to insist that rejection of climate science is about education and intelligence)
-----------------
I think its about trust.
First - about rejection of climate news to set up rejection of climate science.
That's a great question. Things like war are experienced locally (since everywhere is local to someone). So in your example if nobody I know was there, there are no economic damages, no participation, etc. there is no way I could experience it. I guess I don't understand how climate, climate change, or really anything else can't be experienced locally. I certainly could not experience global climate (or war) globally. I can't be everywhere on the planet all at the same time.
So to answer your question, yes, I think he was probably having a senior moment or something like that. But as long as he insists there cannot be any sort of local experience with global climate I don't see why that shouldn't be called out. Since the internet says global climate and global climate change are experienced locally he should probably correct the internet. So that mistake doesn't happen again.
I guess the good news is that today isn't quite as cold as the last few days. It's currently 1:40 in the afternoon and it's 64 degrees outside and we still have remnants of a woodstove fire going to keep the chill off. The high today is predicted to be about 68, over 10 degrees warmer than yesterday.