The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280177 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2450 on: 15/10/2016 09:45:24 »
So what is 'real' then? Well, local measurements are as real as can be, they are also equivalent. Your observation of their representations, as the universe, is also as real as can be, even when they don't fit what I see.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2451 on: 15/10/2016 09:48:02 »
What is a 'miracle' in all of this is this global representation we see ourselves exist inside, our whole universe in where we presume ourselves to be.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2452 on: 15/10/2016 09:51:53 »
So, does the moon exist when you doesn't look? Well, you can add another now :)
Which moon are we referring to? Yours or mine?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2453 on: 15/10/2016 10:36:11 »
The question of the universe is a little like the question if there really exist different 'speeds' in 'uniform motion'. You can prove it by using three object in different uniform motions, although relatively speaking all uniform motions are indecipherable from being 'at rest', locally measured. Here you can see it again btw, the difference between a 'global description' versus a 'local' .

So, is there a 'objective universe' existing? Well, we all see a moon, doesn't we? And we can agree on stars position relative Earth etc. So yes, the universe have a 'objective existence'. There is a logic creating it, just as Lorentz transformations becomes a logic unifying different observer dependencies into a 'whole universe'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2454 on: 15/10/2016 14:35:51 »
Ok, now for some bad news. I stopped writing about global warming for a couple of reasons, one being that I was satisfied with my own, although limited :), understanding of it which was my main reason discussing it. Another my inability to understand why people, although educated, still refused to draw the conclusions needed. So that's been on my mind more than global warming for the last years. I think I got that one sorted out now though, well, as sorted out as I can get it anyway.

So here's the bad news.

http://www.universetoday.com/13935/global-warming-is-accelerating-faster-than-can-be-naturally-repaired/  as well as  https://www.wired.com/2016/08/quickly-climate-change-accelerating-167-maps/

https://arctic-news.blogspot.se/2016/08/arctic-sea-ice-getting-terribly-thin.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150313-oceans-marine-life-climate-change-acidification-oxygen-fish/   as well as   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-s-oxygen-starts-running-low/

let's end it with https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Accelerating.aspx

=

Ok for those really wondering. you could call this a 'wost scenario case' if you like, but it's one of the few youtube presentations that I've liked, unless we talk music videos that is :)

And he will refer you to a pdf where he has collected the links etc, to what he discuss.
"www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpNc2iS9A4M"

Hmm? Took away the http:/ as it made the link unreadable, as well as unplayable to me.


« Last Edit: 15/10/2016 14:53:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2455 on: 16/10/2016 08:47:48 »
He's good that guy, I like the way he has taken responsibility for himself and thought its consequences out. Doesn't necessarily mean that he will become right in a/his 'dooms day scenario', but he's uncomfortably close to my feelings about it. One of the most dispiriting things I found him lifting forward was the comment on 7/11, where all air traffic in the United States became grounded for three days. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/18/no-surprise-here-jet-contrails-affect-surface-temperatures/

I'm still not sure how large an effect that would have on the global temperature myself? But I will accept it as a local variable. That and aerosols 'cooling' the temperature we otherwise would find. The really distressing thing about it is the sheer speed of the response though, provable in three days. Even when thinking of it in terms of a major 'tipping point' setting a new climate one still expect it to draw out in time, And that's important for us adapting, not only us btw, as he say it's as much, actually more, about our 'habitat' adapting as it is about us. the things we live by, the 'food' you eat, all other stuff that make you survive.

Another thing that caught my interest was this redefinition of a Goldilocks zone. This one is beautifully written, connecting it to gaseous exhalations :) No, not cows, plankton and bacterias. http://russgeorge.net/2016/08/21/goldilocks-bears-all-about-global-warming/

As such making more sense than most of the bs* I see discussed those days, when it comes to global warming.
=

Hate to correct myself, don't we all? :) should have read this last link through before recommending it. Nothing wrong in the description though, just the conclusions he makes of the culprit must be less 'micro dust' (nutrients) in the air, due to increasing CO2 creating a 'greener Earth, starving the phytoplankton". 

First.. As I'm doing it extensively here, I'm lifting out a few texts for the main picture.

"Most of the oxygen you are breathing was made by minuscule algae and bacteria. These plants, known as phytoplankton, provide half of the food on which all the animals on this planet depend. Not just ocean creatures, but land-dwellers too.  Three billion people depend in part on seafood for protein, and the livelihoods of nearly a tenth of the world’s population are linked to fisheries....

In temperate regions, the phytoplankton tends to consist of large cells that are eaten by large zooplankton, such as copepods, and then by fish.

Phytoplankton in the tropics, in contrast, tend to be tiny cyanobacteria, which are eaten by tiny zooplankton, which are eaten by slightly larger ones and so on. There are several more links in the food chain – and 90% of the energy is lost at each link.

This is part of the reason why tropical waters tend to support fewer fish, and thus less vigorous fisheries, than cold waters...."
=

Now there are several things creating food for them  "Phytoplankton need light and nutrients, so their growth is fueled when nutrient-rich deep water mixes with shallow water in areas where there is enough light. But as surface water warms, it becomes more buoyant and mixes less with deeper water, limiting the phytoplankton’s nutrient supply." Those 'deep water streams' that possibly carry it might come from 'anywhere', as far as I can see.

"The tiny plants live in the top layer of the ocean, but rely on nutrients that are brought up from deeper in the ocean. This mixing relies on convective currents being able to break through the “stratification” of water. This layering arise because layers of water at different temperatures have different densities and therefore do not mix."

What this say is that when you heat the water from above (CO2, Sun) the upper layer will become even less dense, and so become a even greater obstacle for the denser layers under to 'penetrate/mix with' as they not yet are 'heated up'. That may change but it will take a very long period of time, If I now remember right, millenniums that one. And as it does acidity and CO2 grows, and oxygen disappear.

Also "In 2010, another study that used images of the ocean and took chlorophyll levels to be synonymous with phytoplankton abundance concluded that the oceans had lost 40 per cent of their phytoplankton since the 1950s...It now seems that this method exaggerated the impact of warming on phytoplankton by as much as seven times in some regions. Reduced mixing caused by warming means that plankton near the surface become exposed to light for longer, whereas deeper plankton are less exposed to it. Studies have shown that phytoplankton acclimatise to changes in light, producing less chlorophyll when more exposed to it and vice versa.

But nobody had built those changes into models used to interpret the satellite measurements of chlorophyll – until now"  And "phytoplankton are still in trouble, with a combination of things that will affect them. These include ... fertilising effect ... of extra carbon, changes in light conditions, increased acidity and variations in ocean currents."  We should probably also add oxygen levels defining where this plankton blooming can happen

This ... fertilising effect ..... is indeed due to “CO2 fertilisation effect” 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28391-demise-of-the-worlds-plankton-has-been-greatly-exaggerated/


And :) The dog chasing its tail

"The research team found that particles that usually sink to the sea-bed are eaten by krill. Within their acidic guts, iron is freed from these particles and can be released in dissolved form into the ocean either directly by krill, by the microorganisms that decompose krill faecal pellets or by whales, seals and penguins that eat them. Krill also produce iron-binding chemicals (called ligands) that prevent the iron from re-attaching onto particles and therefore release it back into the ocean.

This natural iron fertilisation stimulates the growth of phytoplankton – the tiny plants that bloom in the ice-free surface waters during the Antarctic summer and form the base of the Southern Ocean food web. This process also enhances the Southern Ocean’s capacity for natural storage of carbon dioxide... 

(do notice this)

Land-derived particles such as fine grains of rock from glacial erosion, windblown dust and river discharges are a potential source of iron for the ocean, but the vast majority is insoluble and sinks to the ocean bed."   


http://phys.org/news/2016-09-nature-ocean-fertiliser.html

Renewable's, isn't it? Well, sort of, the principle is there.
=

then again https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean

Also Krill, the next step in the food chain "Over the past 40 years, populations of adult Antarctic krill have declined by 70 to 80 percent in those areas, though researchers debate whether that drop is due to the effects of climate change, a rebound in whale populations after the end of commercial whaling or some combination of those pressures....

While warmer ocean temperatures help the krill hatch faster, declines in sea ice area, delayed sea ice formation, and a drop in phytoplankton populations meant that overall, the habitat suitable for young krill could decline by up to 80 percent, they found."   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/krill-are-disappearing-from-antarctic-waters/


Now, without wanting to predict any 'dooms day' I can draw some conclusions from this, as I'm sure you can too. It's not particularly good for us if the krill population disappear, especially if it takes plankton with it.

==

Shows you that you always need to check the conclusions, not just fall for the text. I actually try to avoid texts that thinks they have the 'answer' to life, the world, and universe. But I'm in no way perfect.

« Last Edit: 17/10/2016 13:48:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2456 on: 16/10/2016 09:02:09 »
Don't think I can go for 'seize the day' myself though :)
Too slow for that.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2457 on: 16/10/2016 09:11:46 »
So what can we do?

Not much. We can change our core beliefs though, regarding distribution of wealth, regarding what you think is important for you as a human being, love, acceptance. That each one of us can do, at a terrible price naturally, but it's worthwhile and it doesn't involve any fanatic stands on what can solve global warming. It only involves yourself, just the same as you deciding one kid is enough.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2458 on: 16/10/2016 09:20:53 »
The 'terrible price' of it is you fighting yourself, your core beliefs, what he called 'enlightenment'. Actually I think of it as a return to values that always has existed, but been deemed out as not being 'productive'. Seems most will tell you that you must cherish yourself and your own needs before you cherish others.

That's bs*

Stop thinking of yourself as infallible. Your beliefs are not set in stone, learn and never stop.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2459 on: 16/10/2016 09:25:49 »
Let's all learn how to give game theory a bad time :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2460 on: 16/10/2016 11:05:23 »
Eh, the last was about the way you see 'game theory' treated today. It's presumptions as it be, not its validity as a weighted mathematical game. There's a lot of 'restricted' truths in mathematics, valid under some predispositions, as 'parallel lines never meeting each other' for example. It all depends on how you define it. "In the Euclidean plane, parallel lines don't intersect.... Parallel lines are by definition lines which are translates of one another. .. but if it is the Non-Euclidean geometry , then these lines do meet at infinity. As for example geodesics on the surface of the Earth intersecting each other.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2461 on: 16/10/2016 15:20:25 »
Maybe that's the reason why it looks like it does for us those days. Not about mathematics at all, just about what we expect, then us trying to validate the same by defining mathematics, and logics, fitting our concepts. And you don't see too many people carrying the fight to themselves, questioning their own core, do you?

« Last Edit: 16/10/2016 15:23:05 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2462 on: 16/10/2016 15:27:08 »
To love yourself you actually need to see yourself. If you miss that one? Who can tell what you love, you don't even know it yourself.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2463 on: 16/10/2016 15:30:26 »
that is if you want to go the route that's offered by our current sages, psychologists, etc. It's valid as long as you really took the fight to yourself first.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2464 on: 17/10/2016 12:57:55 »
Then again, can't guarantee how correct this is, but not everything is gloom.

"In a 4-year study at the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville (Maryland) Agricultural Research Center, Sara F Wright found that glomalin levels rose each year after no-till was started. No-till refers to a modern conservation practice that uses equipment to plant seeds with no prior plowing. This practice was developed to protect soil from erosion by keeping fields covered with crop residue.
Glomalin went from 1.3 milligrams per gram of soil (mg/g) after the first year to 1.7 mg/g after the third. A nearby field that was plowed and planted each year had only 0.7 mg/g. In comparison, the soil under a 15-year-old buffer strip of grass had 2.7 mg/g."

So what?

"in 1996 a soil scientist from the USDA discovered a molecule very common in soils that bypasses the Roth C labile carbon pathways. Glomalin is both stable itself, and when it finally does decay most of that carbon binds tightly to the soil mineral substrate. Further investigation found it is produced by symbiotic fungi in the root zone called arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), not the saprophytic fungi involved with decay. It is a different molecular pathway than the labile carbon described by the Roth C model. We now call this the Liquid carbon pathway, because it starts with plant liquid saps being fed directly to AMF. I never becomes part of the plant’s measured biomass. Even further investigation found that under the right conditions 30% – 40% or more of the total products of photosynthesis of certain plants colonized by AMF are sent on the liquid carbon pathway. This opens up the possibility that agricultural systems can be managed to optimize this effect and rapidly store large quantities of carbon long term in the soil"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/07/unforced-variations-july-2016/comment-page-2/

all depending on 'tipping points', rate of species extinction, and ours. We need some time, we need to change our core beliefs.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2465 on: 17/10/2016 13:29:06 »
This is not about 'Terra forming'. Neither about creating 'mono cultures', solely adapted to our growing human population. This should possibly be work able, preferably combined with 'one kid per person'. It's not planting an excess of 'genetically' adapted ecologic growth, trees etc especially adapted to take out CO2 from the atmosphere, It's just maximizing what's already in the soil. There's a difference there to me. We should stop thinking in terms of us being smarter than Earth, we're not. Most of the ideas we come up with, or all, are already used by our Earth.
=

And if they're not?
How workable do you think will they be?


« Last Edit: 17/10/2016 13:32:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2466 on: 18/10/2016 08:18:43 »
A question.

The guys (guys and gals, that should be read as) creating Quantum mechanics, Relativity, Classical Science. Would you say they were a result of greed? So without greed they wouldn't exist? I think they would, I also think the 'time table' might have been slower in some cases, then again, that would have been true not only for them but for us all. I like being slow, it gives me time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2467 on: 22/10/2016 16:56:42 »
Heh, don't know what I want to write about this time?
You maybe, yeah, I'm looking at you.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2468 on: 22/10/2016 16:57:14 »
You ok?
better be.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2469 on: 22/10/2016 16:57:42 »
You're born, and then you die.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2470 on: 22/10/2016 16:58:34 »
What the f* was it all about?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2471 on: 22/10/2016 17:00:39 »
you and me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2472 on: 22/10/2016 17:01:16 »
Consciousness?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2473 on: 22/10/2016 17:10:13 »
Without it, what is good, and what is bad?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2474 on: 22/10/2016 17:11:37 »
Thats not about collapsing any 'wave functions'
It's about what is right, and what is wrong.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2474 on: 22/10/2016 17:11:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums