Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

Questionable article.

The units of information are bits. This is different to energy. The reason for the difference is that the conversion factor is dependent on temperature, which itself can be quantified as the amount of energy per degree of freedom.

So at a given temperature one bit is a certain amount of energy. At twice the temperature it is twice as much energy.

This shows energy conservation laws don't imply information conservation, because temperatures can change.

Indeed the laws of physics say entropy increases. Entropy is a sort of measure of the information we don't know (multiplied by temperature), so the information we do know decreases over time (we get fight this by generating entropy while also generating a smaller amount of useful energy, which corresponds to increasing known information in the subsystem).

Individual efforts are commendable and have some value if enough people change aspects of their lifestyles. Could you (s23) expand on what you said about Equador and stopping drilling - how did that work out? I try to do my bit of course by not eating meat, not flying anywhere, not driving very much and not buying useless consumer goods. I would like to do more but I cannot afford a hybrid or low emission car at the moment.

But it is somewhat pointless unless governments and corporations work on big and coordinated solutions to the problems in each sector (energy, agriculture, transportation, building etc). And governments and corporations will only respond to sustained and massive public outcry/pressure. That is where my attention is focused - in making the UK government more accountable to the people and more responsible for their futures. Which is where forums like this come into play, however small they may be. The false ideas that are pedaled by science deniers have to be challenged. If enough people are mobilsed and care enough, things will change. Sometimes I am optimistic and think that as a resourceful species we will get these things sorted out and in 50 years or so will change society for the better (and will give our descendants a healthier and more profitable, more sustainable future as well). Other times I am reminded of the stupidity and short-sightedness of many politicians and the greed and criminality some will stoop to to make a buck.

Well if you state that conservation of information is equal to entropy, that certainly makes very little sense as systems will always tend towards the most probable outcome. But if you liken conservation of information to energy, that shouldn't really be a problem because energy is definitely conserved. The temperature may go up in one region, but the overall energy in the system shouldn't change.

I would just stick to the Wikipedia article which points out that the state of a quantum wave function should be perfectly describable in the future as well as in the past, and in that sense, 'information' - that being the state of the wave function, can't be lost according to quantum mechanics. I think this is the standard interpetation of the conservation of information. Its a problem when certain scientists thought information like this would be lost in a black hole. But whatever, nothing to do with climate science

Sorry s23 but one minute you say something vaguely interesting and then follow that with something very unintelligent. The above is complete and utter rubbish from start to finish. 

Science doesn't deal with guesses. The central tenets are based on facts - obviously some conclusions may be fallible but it is the best we have got in terms of guidance. And in so many ways it has provided for a increase in our success as a species. From agriculture to astronomy our lives have been transformed by scientific advances and knowledge. At it's heart, science is just the objective observation of reality and the codification of variables so that we can make predictions and draw conclusions. That knowledge has allowed us to transcend our animalistic origins and become a species that can manipulate and (up to point) control its environment. Of course we have flaws as a species but we are in a much healthier place because of science. 

Faith might be of use for some individuals (mainly as a way of comforting themselves that there is some reason to existence - like a child believing in Santa Claus ) but it is not a way of making collective decisions about society or even a process by which we can learn about external reality. Maybe, through contemplation and devotion some light can be shed on internal psychology and spirituality but without a system of logic and empirical knowledge we would just be rather violent monkeys with little ability to survive or prosper. 

The implication of this statement is that we cannot plan or make predictions over long time scales. This is just false. What guidance do we have apart from science? Are religious texts, mostly written 2000 years ago, able to address the challenges we face today and in the future. I don't think so.

Well none of the decisions I make we be inspired by religion I can assure you. Morality - maybe, but it isn't essential to be religious to be moral. If I decide to travel somewhere, eat something, post on the internet or just about anything else - I will do so because science has enabled systems that I can take advantage of. 

And as I said, you are making proclamations about the lack of nutritional content of water. Or air.

Meanwhile, LiteDave drew my attention to a fascinating and highly informed (and positive) analysis of the issues for the grid of a massive upscaling of renewable energy.

Would like to see that but the link didn't work.

Sorry about that. The link is fixed now.

 That was interesting, thanks. I don't see why water can't be pumped uphill during the middle of the day and allowed to flow in the evening when it can help meet the demand. A type of storage in effect. There would be some loss of efficiency but there is anyway if solar is being curtailed. 

It can, and it is: it is by far the biggest form of grid storage and has quite good efficiency. The problem is scale: the capacity of large reservoirs is not that large compared with electricity consumption.

Yeah, you got straight to the point: some nonsense that would surely have convinced plenty of people without scientific knowledge, but which would never convince someone who understood the subject. Generally the sorts of arguments that are presented against the well-established scientific consensus are shoddy and of low quality.

Let me present some very simple relevant facts that will have escaped some of those who would watch this video.

Firstly, the warming after the last ice age ended 90 centuries before 1900. Think about that length of time a little: NINETY centuries, rather than  the ONE century over which anthropogenic global warming has occurred. In those 9000 years, temperatures varied by about 1 degree Centigrade without any trend.

In the last century temperatures have sharply risen 1 degree Centigrade. At this point those who are numerate will understand that the rise is not in any sense just the gradual rising in temperature after the last ice age.

Note that a large fraction of that rise has occurred in the tiny amount of time (a decade or so) since that video misinformed gullible viewers: indeed the rise in those few years has been the sort of change (in both directions) in a typical 1000 years in those 9000 years without a trend!

Just the slightest grasp of the relevance of the size of different quantities should suffice to grasp this point.

Secondly, the video is based on the idea that changes in the solar output drive climate change. Without any knowledge, this sounds a reasonable idea, but the fatal problem with this long-discarded hypothesis is very simple: the solar output changes only a tiny amount and has not gone up. It does not explain 0.1 degrees of temperature rise, never mind over 1.0 degrees (so far).

Do you understand how science correctly rejects failed hypotheses such as the one behind the video? If not, this is a good time to learn.

 psyopolis - your film is full of lies. So many they are too numerous to mention but a couple of examples - at one point there is a claim that volcanoes emit more co2 than humans. False. There is also the claim that solar is more expensive than fossil fuels and will prevent Africa from developing. Also false. The so called experts are in a tiny minority - almost all scientists agree that co2 is driving temperature change. The film is clearly made to put the case for Big Oil and is therefore not in any way an impartial look at the issues involved. You have been lied to. 

Ah so, grasshopper.

Couldn't agree more. To believe in AGW one has to be a shill or a clever fool. To expend so much energy on the subject suggests 'employment'. Great film BTW.

It's not a question of 'employment' Ziggy - just that others have a different view to yours. In fact the majority have a different view to yours and the overwhelming majority of scientists have a different view to yours. But hey - don't take any notice of them because it's all a giant conspiracy. The film was a pack of lies and the facts are easily verifiable but you are not interested in facts are you. 

In order to think that you need not to be able to understand the points I made in the very next post after the video about the fatal flaws in the unscientific position presented in the video. Don't think that your failure to understand is any sort of evidence of anything.

Note carefully what temperatures have done since that unscientific video misled poorly informed people (blue box).