Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Global population is about to decline by 2050, so each individual will have a lower impact in terms of ecological footprint, we'll have advanced in technology by then, use more solar and hydro power, drive and fly cleaner, live in smarter, more energy-efficient houses and eat more wholesomely.

And maybe the fuel cell has made a breakthrough also.

 

There, saved you the hassle.

 

If you want to combat Climate Change, I suggest you read up on Don Quixote.

 

Well, yes...that's the optimistic outlook and one I sincerely hope is correct. I'm definitely hoping for more Star Trek (without the nuclear war) than The Expanse in terms of human future, but I think it never hurts to be wary of the human condition and what it is capable of. A "solution" may well be developed that is good news for some people and bad news for many more.

 

47 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Why is the population set to decline in 2050?

 

Given how fast it grows I've often thought that developed countries should try and limit family sizes by restricting benefits once a certain size is reached (e.g no more money after  two kids. You want more then pay for them yourselves). Of course I may be coming across as stupendously ignorant there, but it seems a logical way of doing things rather than the "you're not allowed kids" method in say, China. 

Some projections have global population levelling out between 2050 and 2100 (not declining barring unforeseen circumstances), but really we're not going to know until we get there.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

Why is the population set to decline in 2050?

 

Given how fast it grows I've often thought that developed countries should try and limit family sizes by restricting benefits once a certain size is reached (e.g no more money after  two kids. You want more then pay for them yourselves). Of course I may be coming across as stupendously ignorant there, but it seems a logical way of doing things rather than the "you're not allowed kids" method in say, China. 

Based on current predictions, the growth rate is about to decline rapidly by 2050. Which could see a decrease in population in the following decades.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf

(Page 5)

[ozleicester]

 

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

 

https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368

 

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

 

https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368

 

To expand on this a little:

 

- ice core data is truly amazing for the amount of information it can give us about past conditions when utilised properly.

- to repeat a point stated on here before, the current rise in CO2 levels and commensurate rise in temperature is alarming, but there have been numerous other times in Earths history where both were considerably higher than now and there was still an abundance of life. Maintaining the status quo - or adapting to a new environment - is a good idea for humanity for the purposes of self-preservation, not much more.

[MC Prussian]

10 hours ago, ozleicester said:

 

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

 

https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368

 

Surely anyone with a decent, healthy amount of common sense looks at that chart and detects that something's not quite right about it.

 

What you've re-published here is an 800'000-year x-axis which is very compressed, what we see here are merely averages. And herein lies the problem: If the creators were honest and open, they'd have to stretch the axis all the way, year by year. I bet the difference in CO2 levels today compared to earlier decades, millennia and whatnot wouldn't be that evident or "eye-catching", because you'd see much more spikes going way past the 400 PPM range.

 

Shame few people see past such a simplified and misleading graph, opting to believe what they see instead.

This is what I'd call propaganda to serve a particular cause.

Edited 3 March 2020 by MC Prussian

[ozleicester]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Surely anyone with a decent, healthy sense of common sense looks at that chart and detects that something's not quite right about it.

 

What you've re-published here is an 800'000-year x-axis which is very compressed, what we see here are merely averages. And herein lies the problem: If the creators were honest and open, they'd have to stretch the axis all the way, year by year. I bet the difference in CO2 levels today compared to earlier decades, millennia and whatnot wouldn't be that evident or "eye-catching", because you'd see much more spikes going way past the 400 PPM range.

 

Shame few people see past such a simplified and misleading graph, opting to believe what they see instead.

This is what I'd call propaganda to serve a particular cause.

What you have said is 100% completely wrong... the figures/facts wont change they will just be spread wider. Im not sure you understand how facts and graphs work.

Your accusation of propaganda is completely false and misleading.

The graph is clear, fact based and scientifically proven. your denial is exposed as either foolish or deliberate ignorance.

Edited 3 March 2020 by ozleicester

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

What you have said is 100% completely wrong... the figures/facts wont change they will just be spread wider.

Your accusation of propaganda is completely false and misleading.

The graph is clear, fact based and scientifically proven. your denial is exposed as either foolish or deliberate ignorance.

It may be fact-based, but it's definitely not clear.

So it does remain propaganda.

 

Let me ask you: There are no other spikes in the past 800'000 years that go past the 400 PPM range?

Just curious.

[ozleicester]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Let me ask you: There are no other spikes in the past 800'000 years that go past the 400 PPM range?

Just curious.

Thats what the facts and graph show

 

Edit...
On May 9, 2013, an instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there had exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/climate-milestone-earths-co2-level-passes-400-ppm/

Edited 3 March 2020 by ozleicester

[MC Prussian]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Thats what the facts and graph show

 

Edit...
On May 9, 2013, an instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there had exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/climate-milestone-earths-co2-level-passes-400-ppm/

The graph doesn't show that, so try again.

 

"for the first time in 55 years" - so what? It's fine and dandy to issue data from years past, what matters is the future development - and none of us can foresee the the years, decades, centennials to come or influence mega trends in climate, in particular the Sun's activity.

"probably..." Wow, science is so precise nowadays.

 

 

Edited 3 March 2020 by MC Prussian

[ozleicester]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

The graph doesn't show that, so try again.

 

"for the first time in 55 years" - so what? It's fine and dandy to issue data from years past, what matters is the future development - and none of us can foresee the the years, decades, centennials to come or influence mega trends in climate, in particular the Sun's activity.

"probably..." Wow, science is so precise nowadays.

 

 

you really dont understand.. thats ok.

 

As the graph and accompanying information explains....  its called science

 

We have known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century. About 150 years ago, a physicist called John Tyndall used laboratory experiments to demonstrate the greenhouse properties of CO₂ gas. Then, in the late 1800s, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first calculated the greenhouse effect of CO₂ in our atmosphere and linked it to past ice ages on our planet.

 

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

 

Scientists use the chemistry of the water molecules in the ice layers to see how the temperature has varied through the millennia. These ice layers also trap tiny bubbles from the ancient atmosphere, allowing us to measure prehistoric CO₂ levels directly.

[MC Prussian]

Just now, ozleicester said:

you really dont understand.. thats ok.

 

As the graph and accompanying information explains....  its called science

 

We have known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century. About 150 years ago, a physicist called John Tyndall used laboratory experiments to demonstrate the greenhouse properties of CO₂ gas. Then, in the late 1800s, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first calculated the greenhouse effect of CO₂ in our atmosphere and linked it to past ice ages on our planet.

 

Modern scientists and engineers have explored these links in intricate detail in recent decades, by drilling into the ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of years of snow have compressed into thick slabs of ice. The resulting ice cores can be more than 3km long and extend back a staggering 800,000 years.

 

Scientists use the chemistry of the water molecules in the ice layers to see how the temperature has varied through the millennia. These ice layers also trap tiny bubbles from the ancient atmosphere, allowing us to measure prehistoric CO₂ levels directly.

I think it's you that doesn't understand. Using an incomplete (compressed) graph isn't science, it's abusing scientific research for a particular purpose, which is propaganda.

If you'd open the graph and show each single year for the past 800'000 years, you'd notice much more spikes like the one highlighted at the very end, the one from the present day.

 

We do know from the Earth's lower layer samples that there have been times much more CO2-heavy than today, and fauna and flora blossomed.

 

What you do here is deploy half-baked knowledge and incomplete science, mixed with another, partially related topic (research of our ice sheets).

 

What we're experiencing is a unique situation in mankind's history, what we don't know is whether we can or can't cope with an increase in CO2 concentration, where the lethal limit lies.

[ozleicester]

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I think it's you that doesn't understand. Using an incomplete (compressed) graph isn't science, it's abusing scientific research for a particular purpose, which is propaganda.

If you'd open the graph and show each single year for the past 800'000 years, you'd notice much more spikes like the one highlighted at the very end, the one from the present day.

 

We do know from the Earth's lower layer samples that there have been times much more CO2-heavy than today, and fauna and flora blossomed.

 

What you do here is deploy half-baked knowledge and incomplete science, mixed with another, partially related topic (research of our ice sheets).

 

What we're experiencing is a unique situation in mankind's history, what we don't know is whether we can or can't cope with an increase in CO2 concentration, where the lethal limit lies.

Everything youve written here is wrong.

The information supplied has proven that. 

 

edit

Good luck

Edited 3 March 2020 by ozleicester

[MC Prussian]

Just now, ozleicester said:

Everything youve written here is wrong.

The information supplied has proven that. 

Continue believing your information.

 

Again: There haven't been any spikes like the present-day one in the past 800'000 years? Because the graph doesn't (can't) show that.

[The Bear]

21 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Continue believing your information. 

 

You could stick that on a t-shirt and make a fortune off all the conspiracy theorists on the planet. 

[Jon the Hat]

21 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Everything youve written here is wrong.

The information supplied has proven that. 

 

edit

Good luck

Your chart does seem to be comparing a single measure on a mountain to ice cores from other places, and also a relatively short period vs much longer averages - is this in years, decades, centuries?  Not a like for like comparison.  Climate science risks clouding the message with poor statistical comparison like this.

[twoleftfeet]

is the study of climate change really science or just the study of past data and running numbers in computer programs to try and guess the future. Because if it truly is science then the football league prediction computer could save us turning up every week to the ground 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Your chart does seem to be comparing a single measure on a mountain to ice cores from other places, and also a relatively short period vs much longer averages - is this in years, decades, centuries?  Not a like for like comparison.  Climate science risks clouding the message with poor statistical comparison like this.

If I'm honest Jon, I'm not sure it matters - this issue has become so politicised and polarised that the data and conclusions from it could be framed in the simplest possible fashion and it still wouldn't be believed (or believed but ignored) by some parties for a variety of reasons. The clarity of the message isn't really the problem - it is the short-term self-interested habits of a large part of humanity which means such information is often simply passed over.

 

6 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

is the study of climate change really science or just the study of past data and running numbers in computer programs to try and guess the future. Because if it truly is science then the football league prediction computer could save us turning up every week to the ground 

Science is the study of past data and predicting the future from it - that's practically a textbook definition of the scientific method. You look at past behaviour and craft a hypothesis about the future based on it (simple example: an object will fall when you let go of it in Earths gravitational field and it will do so at a fixed rate of acceleration).

 

Of course, the more complex the system - whether it is a football match or climate science - the more random elements come into play and the more difficult it is to form solid hypotheses, which is why such things are often given as probabilities rather than certainties (which the bookies have made a very good business out of in football). The data shows that global average temperatures are rising and have done so more dramatically in the last three decades; and the working hypothesis is that this will likely lead to more extreme weather events of all kinds and disruption as a result. No, it's not a certainty, but even the reasonable likelihood of things going horrible should really be enough for the powers that be to take action to guard against it, that's reasonably simple risk reduction.

 

But not everyone is inclined to think that far ahead.

[ozleicester]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Your chart does seem to be comparing a single measure on a mountain to ice cores from other places, and also a relatively short period vs much longer averages - is this in years, decades, centuries?  Not a like for like comparison.  Climate science risks clouding the message with poor statistical comparison like this.

yes i can see some cloudiness, but its a big ask to get an ice core from last Friday

[Jon the Hat]

21 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

yes i can see some cloudiness, but its a big ask to get an ice core from last Friday

Indeed. Consequently though you have a bit of a nonsense comparison.

 

I have often wondered with Ice cores how you take into account periods of low snowfall - so if there was a period of high CO2 levels which coincided with warmer temperatures, presumably we wouldn't have the ice cores, and possibly ice cores would melt from previous times.  Fascinating data set though.

Edited 4 March 2020 by Jon the Hat

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Indeed.  I have often wondered with Ice cores how you take into account periods of low snowfall - so if there was a period of high CO2 levels which coincided with warmer temperatures, presumably we wouldn't have the ice cores, and possibly ice cores would melt from previous times.  Fascinating data set though.

At no time in the last 5 million years has Antarctica been above freezing for any length of time (as far as we know) and so the buildup of frozen material and thus the timeline tends to be pretty consistent. There's a wealth of methods used to give accurate ideas of dating within an ice core, though.

[twoleftfeet]

On 04/03/2020 at 14:16, leicsmac said:

 

Science is the study of past data and predicting the future from it - that's practically a textbook definition of the scientific method. You look at past behaviour and craft a hypothesis about the future based on it (simple example: an object will fall when you let go of it in Earths gravitational field and it will do so at a fixed rate of acceleration).

Science is about testing hypothesis and about getting repeatable results. The study of histirical data is really analytics and apply that data going forward is forcasting. Science is tact on to the end of many jobs and courses i have a degree in computer science does it make me a scientist NAH it means i can code and do a bit of maths. I personally prefer Karl Poppers view on science and falsification.

[SpacedX]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

Science is about testing hypothesis and about getting repeatable results. The study of histirical data is really analytics and apply that data going forward is forcasting. Science is tact on to the end of many jobs and courses i have a degree in computer science does it make me a scientist NAH it means i can code and do a bit of maths. I personally prefer Karl Poppers view on science and falsification.

Don't sell yourself short, man - computer science is a science nonetheless IMO.

 

Of course Popper had a point when he said that a hypothesis has to be disprovable to mean much (that's what his view of falsification is, for anyone who wants to know) but I don't think that means the predictive data being gathered regarding climate science has any less worth because of that.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51846468

 

,,,like we needed more good news right now, huh?

[Tommo220]

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51846468

 

,,,like we needed more good news right now, huh?

To be fair, as far as the environment is concerned, Corona Virus is probably the best news it's had in years.

 

It'd be interesting to see just how many tonnes of CO2 have not been emitted as a result of China's 2 months shut down alone.