[hamdani yusuf]

They are memes existing in people's minds. Their survival depends on their ability to help us as their media survive. Some minor mistakes may be tolerable. But if they're persistent, someday they would lead us to make wrong decisions, which in turn could cause our extinction, which is also theirs.

In short, good scientific theories will help us conscious beings to survive. But religion is useful in its own way.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/46351-religion-is-excellent-stuff-for-keeping-common-people-quiet-religion

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

Napoleon Bonaparte

It's like the use of Santa Claus story to keep children well behave out of parents' watch.

Just like any other memes, religions, political and economic ideologies, science and technology, must compete for their own survival in the memory space of conscious entities. IMO, the only way for humanity to survive global catastrophes and and thrive as multiplanetary or interstellar civilization is to improve its science and technology. Supporting political and economic ideologies are needed to direct distribution of resources for that efforts effectively and efficiently, before we run out of time. The fact that we haven't been there yet is a reminder that our current scientific and technical knowledge need to improve. There must be something that we don't know yet, and some of our current understanding may turn out to be false.

[alancalverd]

reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further

Come to think about it, isn't that the basis of scientific investigation?

Observe, hypothesise, test, repeat......

Test and repeat distinguishes science from religion. Why do we test and repeat? Because we are the awkward squad who always challenge our hypotheses and look for a different interpretation of the facts!

Except climate change, of course, where the consensus is to ignore most of the facts and solve the problem by self-flagellation and blaming the unbelievers.

[hamdani yusuf]

reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further

Come to think about it, isn't that the basis of scientific investigation?

Observe, hypothesise, test, repeat......

Test and repeat distinguishes science from religion. Why do we test and repeat? Because we are the awkward squad who always challenge our hypotheses and look for a different interpretation of the facts!

Except climate change, of course, where the consensus is to ignore most of the facts and solve the problem by self-flagellation and blaming the unbelievers.

The same fact can be interpreted differently, according to people's existing beliefs. Your opinion about climate change is an example.

Rational beings should choose the interpretations that are most compatible with observational facts, and no less importance, self consistent.

[alancalverd]

The same fact can be interpreted differently, according to people's existing beliefs. Your opinion about climate change is an example.

My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.

This could be embarrassing as it implies that science is dangerously close to religion, but instead of gluing myself to a road, chucking soup over paintings,  or flying around the world and demanding that everyone else makes sacrifices, I have proposed a 5-year  experimental test of the hypothesis and even without it, the next 200 years will begin to reveal the truth one way or another.

That's way different from religion, where unbelievers are mocked or killed, and the truth can never be established by experiment.

[hamdani yusuf]

That's way different from religion, where unbelievers are mocked or killed, and the truth can never be established by experiment.

There are religions which are radically peaceful.

[Bored chemist]

flying around the world and demanding that everyone else makes sacrifices,

Come on Alan, you understand the concept of investment.
If one plane journey to a meeting persuades a hundred people not to fly so much, it reduces net carbon emissions and is a good thing.
You don't need to sink to gutter press levels of stupidity to make a case unless you know that your case is actually invalid.

[Bored chemist]

My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.

If you search the forum for instances of the phrase "another blanket" you will see a set of threads where Alan is ignoring the science.

[hamdani yusuf]

Here's an example where incomplete information can lead to false conclusions.

[Bored chemist]

Is your refusal to accept the existence of "lies we tell to children" because you don't understand it, or because you don't like the outcomes or what?

For example, in that video the presenter (just before 3 minutes) says that argon would work just as well as CO2 because it's also denser than air.
It's not really due to density- it's due to heat conductivity- though the two are related.

Are you now going to throw away that video because of some sloppy use of language, or are you going to accept the underlying principles and agree that he's making a good point?

[alancalverd]

If one plane journey to a meeting persuades a hundred people not to fly so much,

Citation needed.

COVID certainly impacted the airline industry but there is no evidence that Rishi Sunak's COP appearance persuaded anyone not to fly thereafter. Indeed, the presence of one national delegation requires that everyone else shows off by chartering  an airliner or a private jet, because Zoom is only for peasants whose time is too valuable to spend not listening to other people at a conference.

A total of 49,704 people attended, meaning that COP27 actually surpassed COP26 status as the largest in history by more than 10,000 participants.)

AFAIK nothing was actually achieved by either conference.

Admittedly if one Tory MP were to get on a plane, I would probably choose not to, but the plane would still fly. Which is why they don't publish passenger lists any more.

[alancalverd]

My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.

If you search the forum for instances of the phrase "another blanket" you will see a set of threads where Alan is ignoring the science.

atwatereffect.com/category/carbon-dioxide-saturation
for instance.

[Bored chemist]

My opinion is based on the belief (acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of data) that the laws of physics haven't changed.

If you search the forum for instances of the phrase "another blanket" you will see a set of threads where Alan is ignoring the science.

atwatereffect.com/category/carbon-dioxide-saturation
for instance.

Yes.
That's an example of ignoring the science.
It ignores the fact that the edges of spectra are not perfectly vertical.

You may remember me pointing that out before.

[alancalverd]

Simpson's rule still works. As dies the Beer-Lambert extinction equation that underlies "more blankets".

[Bored chemist]

Simpson's rule still works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_rule
"Simpson's rules are several approximations ..."
Yes; they work as an approximation.
But they don't tell the whole story, do they?

Nobody with any understanding of the issues ever  doubted the Beer Lambert laws.
You do know they only apply to monochromatic light (and thus not sunlight) don't you?

[alancalverd]

No, they apply to all parts of any spectrum. We even use them to calculate the attenuation of continuum x-radiation, with a small correction for "beam hardening". If I_x > I₀e^-μx * we wouldn't have an energy crisis - the perpetual motion machine would work!

*cultural misappropriation of > admittedly. But we don't have a simple symbol for "significantly more than".

[Bored chemist]

No, they apply to all parts of any spectrum.

Yes, but they don't apply to the whole of the spectrum unless the spectrum is actually monochromatic.
When you have finished wittering it will remain the case that, just because some transitions are saturated, that doesn't mean that other transitions are not.

[alancalverd]

Agreed.

The fashionable consensus on climate change is that the critical part of the earth's radiative spectrum coincides with the 15 micron CO2 lines.

The problem is that they have been saturated in the earth's atmosphere at least since the earliest published measurements (1950s, maybe earlier) and probably always have been.

[Bored chemist]

Agreed.

The fashionable consensus on climate change is that the critical part of the earth's radiative spectrum coincides with the 15 micron CO2 lines.

The problem is that they have been saturated in the earth's atmosphere at least since the earliest published measurements (1950s, maybe earlier) and probably always have been.

Saying that the consensus is something impossible isn't going to make you look clever.
It isn't, and misrepresenting  the consensus is not something you should be doing on a science page (or, indeed, anywhere else).
The lie you are telling is that because it's (practically) saturated at some wavelengths, it is saturated at all wavelengths.
That's not true; never was and never will be.

[Zer0]

Previously on the Forum, I've said some Nasty & Nefarious things about Religion.
(Christianity to be Specific)

I would like to Sincerely Apologize to anyone, who's emotions & feelings i might have hurt.
(I'm still Immaturish & kinda Stoopid)

Since then I've had a change of mind & heart...
I now Believe Religion provides Hope to the Hopeless.
(Some people are so damn poor, all They own is Faith & Belief)

P.S. - when you've tried out all options & nothing worked, no matter how seemingly illogical & futile it may seem, just Pray!
(it won't save your life, but it will allow you to take your last breath with ease, & Rest in Peace)
✌️

[alancalverd]

The lie you are telling is that because it's (practically) saturated at some wavelengths, it is saturated at all wavelengths.

I never lie, and I never said that either.

Climate change is more obviously due to the lack of saturation at most of the wavelengths associated with water absorption. This explains the historic record and provides a mechanism for explaining the present and predicting the future. The problem is that it is very difficult to measure the content, distribution and effect of water in the atmosphere. It happens that pCO2 is correlated with temperature and recent human activity but the underlying physics and historic record do not support it being causative.