....It Doesn't Matter if Global Warming is a Fact or Not!

On Dec 6, 1:51 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

On Dec 5, 6:14 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably
by regulating Co2 content.

This is by no means certain. Right now, there
are some very powerful special interests against
it: fossil fuel, automobile, and electric power
interests to name a just a few.

I think the last straw for even these powerful
hold outs will come during the Beijing Olympics
next August. When the world gets to see first
hand what it's like to live in the most polluted
city in the world. Pollution caused mostly
by burning coal.

Thats all fine and well but climate change and pollution aren't the
same thing. You can pollute your environment with all kinds of nasty
stuff without climate change and you can emit all kinds of greenhouse
gases without doing anything filthy locally (just using natural gas
often enough does this)

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 2:29 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


This is, and was, a debate that cannot be won by scientific
methods...facts. It's just too complex. From my perspective
of complexity science, I would say the system being
studied has near infinite uncertainty. No amount of
facts is going to change that, or bring certainty where
there's none to be found.

Nothing is too complicated for honestly replicated scientific facts.
Those laws of physics are simply not as faith-based skewed or as
nearly hocus-pocus as you claim, and sufficient supercomputers do
exist that can put it all together in one do-everything interactive
format.


In the global warming debate, where were the 'equations' showing
the election results, policy changes and changing public opinion
for countries like the US, China, India and Europe for the next
few decades? Where did the climate projections take into account
new technologies, or new political movements? Or the next Katrina?
Such things are key variables to our future climate, perhaps
the most important, after all, many of these kinds of variables
are responsible for the problem to begin with.

Your studies and models have the audacity to call themselves
'science' when it ignors, or cannot know, many of the most
important variables of all.

How much has the world changed as a result of a
few choice words or ideas? Say the Bible or the
Communist Manifesto?
Where's are your equations of state for that?

What results from your science is, of course, a mere shadow
of the truth. A hint only at best, at worst total fantasy due to
the grossly simplified models that seem to act as if
the /defining variable/ of our biosphere, humanity
....didn't...even...exist.

Only a science that uses the output, not the initial conditions, as
the first source of information ...can... and necessarily
must take into account all the variables, including
all the real world messy variables classical science
can't deal with.

A holistic frame can deal with all of the 'missing' data.



But then why have you folks continually excluded the horrific gravity/
tidal force of our moon, or even that of its IR albedo?

Don't bother giving me any of that crapolla that it has always been
with Earth, because there is no such replicated science that's
objective enough to support that notion for other than having been
with us since the last ice-age.

Humanity may be at least 10% responsible for AGW, but it's highly
unlikely that we're worth 25% or much less entirely because, there's
simply too much global energy involved, of which our nearby and
unusually massive moon is simply a very big part of our global
environment that's still in the process of going AWG postal ever since
the very last ice-age this world is ever going to see, or at least as
long as Earth holds so tightly onto that physically dark and so
unusually massive moon of ours.


I think we have seen the last of the ice ages too.
I think the question should be how much ...can...
humanity manage the biosphere. It's the future
that matters, and it's our ability to effect reality
that defines the future.

We shouldn't be trying to unravel the past in order
to understand reality. We should be...imagining
the ideal future first, as a means of understanding
reality today. Because how can we hope of judging
reality unless we know it in its ideal form?

So that we have a second independent data point
with which to compare. That's what's been missing.

Knowing the ideal system structure allows us to look
around and easily see what's wrong today, it allows
us to see how reality ...should...be.

Then, and only then, can we draw a path from the
actual to the ideal. Science should be about finding
that path. Right now we use the foggy and
mostly unknowable past as one reference
point, and the constantly changing complex
present reality as the other.

Two foggy sets, how can you draw any meaningful
path with that? It's no wonder 'modern' science
leaves us feeling empty and without meaning.

But with the inverse view, starting with deriving the ideal
future or ideal system structure first, we can immediately
know the present reality NOT in terms of what it is.
But in terms of what it is NOT, what is missing.

And the path from here to there becomes instantly
seeable, and absolutely obvious. We must seek
to understand and mimic natural processes
in all that we do. The complex adaptive system, as
an abstract model of the idealized evolutionary
system, serves as the integral or template for
the future. And a reference point for current
reality.

The moment this concept sank in, I knew for a fact
I'd enjoy every single minute for the rest of my life.

As wrapping myself in the chase of that path to Utopia
.....is Utopia.

It's found in the...chase. Not in the accomplishment.
It's found in becoming part of an evolutionary system.
Wrapping yourself in a process of relentless change
and improvement immediately brings a sense
of endless possibilities and wonder.

Seeing the world returned to nature....seeing democracy
sweep the globe...seeing humanity swim in beauty again
becomes the obvious and /only/ rational goal.

All this can and will happen once humanity... the people
are free and connected enough to collectively decide
our future path. The internet and world-wide democracy
is the 'answer', and that reality is just around the corner.
It's there to be grabbed. Next August in Beijing.

The last Great Wall holding back a fifth of the world
must fall for nature/democracy/freedom to rule the earth
once again. Once and for all.

This planet is so close to finding the path to Utopia
....I can smell it. Smells like coal fired pollution
hanging over Beijing.

If the wind is calm during those Olympics, the world
is going to get a shock of a lifetime. A glimpse into
an alternate future. The one we all fear.

If only the wind is calm those few days...

Which side Nature choses to select for and against then?
I wouldn't put too much money on the hosts, the
Chinese Communist Party.


Jonathan



- Brad Guth

On Dec 6, 2:29 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

Shouldn't there ever be a truthful history or basis for anything?

NO! And I keep trying to get this point across about nature.
Evolution is the result of a system that displays the total
uncertainty as I've tried to describe in the Mona Lisa.
When all the primary system variables are complex
at the same time, complex meaning uncertain or
unpredictable. Then, and only then, does the system
evolve. Creation, and nature itself, is driven by
the level of complexity of the system.

What can anyone have to say if you believe that there should not "ever
be a truthful history or basis for anything".

Silly me, whereas I'd thought the future always had a little something
to do with the past.


If we can precisely define something, it's not life.
If it cannot objectively be defined, it tends to
self organize and evolve. You have to get
that relationship to understand why using
objective methods to understand nature is
futile.

Besides not making hardly any sense, that sounds a bit too Third Reich
for my likings, or perhaps it's more or less semitic like your GW Bush
born again analogy that seriously sucks and blows, especially if
you're Muslim.


Which means any naturally evolving system cannot be
defined objectively..by the facts. In the ...real world..
there is no such thing as objective reality. Only
on the blackboard. Nature moves too fast and
behaves too critically to be precisely defined.

In that case, you'd have to argue on behalf of the other intelligent
life that's existing/coexisting on Venus, because by rights it should
be highly complex and obviously a whole lot more survival evolved as
biologically smarter than most of us humans.


As for the long term prediction of the most complex
system on earth, that truth holds with
...absolute certainty.

Than you'd have to include our moon within that kind of "absolute
certainty".


The only truth in the universe is that there is no truth.
Everything evolves, even the universal constants.

But terrestrial truths have to exist for everything which we interact
with, or else.

Are you suggesting there's no past, present or future of any
intelligent design?


But since objective methods define the exact opposite
way in which we should define nature. Inversing
classical methods, rigorously, should allow
another way.

Which is what complexity science is doing.
Using...subjective...methods based on the
outputs, not inputs. Based on effects, not
cause. And so on.

Complexity science has figured out how to
mathematically define ....uncertainty.
Or complexity.

And voila! Nature becomes knowable...
for the first time. As does the future.

I happen to totally agree with the deductive sorts of applications as
extracted from subjective science that's much like my
observationology, and not that some honest mistakes are ever going to
be avoided, especially unavoidable whenever the truth of such mistakes
are continually getting excluded from the official record, or as so
often faith-based reinterpreted as skewed media infowar/infomercials
in order to suit a given ulterior motive or hidden agenda that can
make damn near any lie into God's truth.


That we should stop trying to predict
the future, and instead start /creating/
the one we desire. That's the only way
to bring predictability to the future.

Now that part of your argument I can flat out 100% agree with.


And that's what the debate is really about.
Should we plan/control our future biosphere or not?
Or just hope for the best?

The world just answered that question, we should
take control of our own destiny and create
the future we need.

Once again, I'd have to fully support that kind of argument, because
it has to involve our moon and possibly even Venus within that plan of
our taking constructive/positive actions that'll improve our future
odds of surviving in spite of our often faith-based greedy, arrogant
and highly bigoted selves.


Self Organizing System Faqs http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html

s

Are you suggesting that perhaps a few supercomputers should take over
primary control?

Isn't it entirely possible that ETs had a little something to do with
our past, present and thereby affecting the future survival of our
species?
- Brad Guth

That's at least a 100X worth of silly extra words.

Why don't you simply do exactly as you say others should do?
- Brad Guth


Jonathan wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 2:29 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


This is, and was, a debate that cannot be won by scientific
methods...facts. It's just too complex. From my perspective
of complexity science, I would say the system being
studied has near infinite uncertainty. No amount of
facts is going to change that, or bring certainty where
there's none to be found.

Nothing is too complicated for honestly replicated scientific facts.
Those laws of physics are simply not as faith-based skewed or as
nearly hocus-pocus as you claim, and sufficient supercomputers do
exist that can put it all together in one do-everything interactive
format.


In the global warming debate, where were the 'equations' showing
the election results, policy changes and changing public opinion
for countries like the US, China, India and Europe for the next
few decades? Where did the climate projections take into account
new technologies, or new political movements? Or the next Katrina?
Such things are key variables to our future climate, perhaps
the most important, after all, many of these kinds of variables
are responsible for the problem to begin with.

Your studies and models have the audacity to call themselves
'science' when it ignors, or cannot know, many of the most
important variables of all.

How much has the world changed as a result of a
few choice words or ideas? Say the Bible or the
Communist Manifesto?
Where's are your equations of state for that?

What results from your science is, of course, a mere shadow
of the truth. A hint only at best, at worst total fantasy due to
the grossly simplified models that seem to act as if
the /defining variable/ of our biosphere, humanity
...didn't...even...exist.

Only a science that uses the output, not the initial conditions, as
the first source of information ...can... and necessarily
must take into account all the variables, including
all the real world messy variables classical science
can't deal with.

A holistic frame can deal with all of the 'missing' data.



But then why have you folks continually excluded the horrific gravity/
tidal force of our moon, or even that of its IR albedo?

Don't bother giving me any of that crapolla that it has always been
with Earth, because there is no such replicated science that's
objective enough to support that notion for other than having been
with us since the last ice-age.

Humanity may be at least 10% responsible for AGW, but it's highly
unlikely that we're worth 25% or much less entirely because, there's
simply too much global energy involved, of which our nearby and
unusually massive moon is simply a very big part of our global
environment that's still in the process of going AWG postal ever since
the very last ice-age this world is ever going to see, or at least as
long as Earth holds so tightly onto that physically dark and so
unusually massive moon of ours.


I think we have seen the last of the ice ages too.
I think the question should be how much ...can...
humanity manage the biosphere. It's the future
that matters, and it's our ability to effect reality
that defines the future.

We shouldn't be trying to unravel the past in order
to understand reality. We should be...imagining
the ideal future first, as a means of understanding
reality today. Because how can we hope of judging
reality unless we know it in its ideal form?

So that we have a second independent data point
with which to compare. That's what's been missing.

Knowing the ideal system structure allows us to look
around and easily see what's wrong today, it allows
us to see how reality ...should...be.

Then, and only then, can we draw a path from the
actual to the ideal. Science should be about finding
that path. Right now we use the foggy and
mostly unknowable past as one reference
point, and the constantly changing complex
present reality as the other.

Two foggy sets, how can you draw any meaningful
path with that? It's no wonder 'modern' science
leaves us feeling empty and without meaning.

But with the inverse view, starting with deriving the ideal
future or ideal system structure first, we can immediately
know the present reality NOT in terms of what it is.
But in terms of what it is NOT, what is missing.

And the path from here to there becomes instantly
seeable, and absolutely obvious. We must seek
to understand and mimic natural processes
in all that we do. The complex adaptive system, as
an abstract model of the idealized evolutionary
system, serves as the integral or template for
the future. And a reference point for current
reality.

The moment this concept sank in, I knew for a fact
I'd enjoy every single minute for the rest of my life.

As wrapping myself in the chase of that path to Utopia
....is Utopia.

It's found in the...chase. Not in the accomplishment.
It's found in becoming part of an evolutionary system.
Wrapping yourself in a process of relentless change
and improvement immediately brings a sense
of endless possibilities and wonder.

Seeing the world returned to nature....seeing democracy
sweep the globe...seeing humanity swim in beauty again
becomes the obvious and /only/ rational goal.

All this can and will happen once humanity... the people
are free and connected enough to collectively decide
our future path. The internet and world-wide democracy
is the 'answer', and that reality is just around the corner.
It's there to be grabbed. Next August in Beijing.

The last Great Wall holding back a fifth of the world
must fall for nature/democracy/freedom to rule the earth
once again. Once and for all.

This planet is so close to finding the path to Utopia
...I can smell it. Smells like coal fired pollution
hanging over Beijing.

If the wind is calm during those Olympics, the world
is going to get a shock of a lifetime. A glimpse into
an alternate future. The one we all fear.

If only the wind is calm those few days...

Which side Nature choses to select for and against then?
I wouldn't put too much money on the hosts, the
Chinese Communist Party.


Jonathan



- Brad Guth

Jonathan wrote:
Quite simple really. Since Katrina and the 2005 hurricane
season the world now...believes...global warming is a fact.
As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably
by regulating Co2 content.

This means the predicted futures by either side of the
debate will ....NO LONGER HAPPEN.

And we'll never know which side was correct. Who cares?

Given that the Arctic oscillation now means we'll be having a cold
winter for 2008-9, the world will probably change its mind about
global warming, to the extent that it has formed this opinion on a
superficial impression based on the most recent weather.

But managing our biosphere by regulating carbon dioxide emissions in
advance of absolute proof of global warming in action is *not* a bad
thing, as you seem to be implying.

The atmosphere is pretty big. It would be hard to pump a significant
fraction of the carbon dioxide out of it at short notice. So we can
hardly wait for unmistakable proof - i.e., disasters - of global
warming before we take action.

And we know that carbon dioxide blocks long-wave infrared radiation.
The mechanism by which higher levels of carbon dioxide lead to a rise
in global temperatures is well understood. Sure, things like the ocean
absorbing some of the carbon dioxide do make things a bit more
complicated, but the basic danger is still there.

If cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions meant economic disaster,
we would want to be more certain before acting. But it doesn't have
to. We have other ways to produce energy.

If wind and tidal power can't produce enough energy, when added to
hydroelectricity, for our needs - there's something called nuclear
power. Not as "warm and fuzzy" to the ecology crowd, but it *is* in
fact clean and doesn't produce greenhouse gases - and we can build
pretty much as many nuclear power plants as we like, the same way we
were able to build as many fossil-fuel burning power plants as we
liked.

We can, in fact, particularly if we go with thorium breeder reactors,
use just as much energy as we do now, and let our energy use increase
as expected, without putting any greenhouse gases at all into the
atmosphere - of course, that means converting all the cars to
hydrogen, which _would_ be a bit expensive. So the only real problem
is not having fusion power (or solar power satellites) right now this
minute - and the irrational opposition to nuclear power.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
Quite simple really. Since Katrina and the 2005 hurricane
season the world now...believes...global warming is a fact.
As a result our biosphere will become managed, probably
by regulating Co2 content.

This means the predicted futures by either side of the
debate will ....NO LONGER HAPPEN.

And we'll never know which side was correct. Who cares?

Given that the Arctic oscillation now means we'll be having a cold
winter for 2008-9, the world will probably change its mind about
global warming, to the extent that it has formed this opinion on a
superficial impression based on the most recent weather.

The general public is consistently transitioning through
a cycle of becoming aware, accepting, becoming bored, laughing
at all the silly predictions, and ignoring the hype with contempt.
If the Northern Hemisphere has a much colder winter,
then that must mean there is something wrong with the concept
of CO2 concentrations causing warming (unless concentrations
have gone down).

But managing our biosphere by regulating carbon dioxide emissions in
advance of absolute proof of global warming in action is *not* a bad
thing, as you seem to be implying.

I haven't seen where anybody believes it would be a bad thing,
it just seems to be a question of what can be done, what can be
afforded, and who is going to pay for the infrastructure.
This is separate from the possibly illegal carbon trading
schemes and fees and fines.

The atmosphere is pretty big. It would be hard to pump a significant
fraction of the carbon dioxide out of it at short notice. So we can
hardly wait for unmistakable proof - i.e., disasters - of global
warming before we take action.

Can you be specific about what those would be, and how
could they be differentiated from just ordinary bad weather events.

And we know that carbon dioxide blocks long-wave infrared radiation.

Can you be more specific? Does it absorb or reflect IR?

Can you provide a quantitative effect for specific
concentrations
at the various altitudes and humidities?

The mechanism by which higher levels of carbon dioxide lead to a rise
in global temperatures is well understood. Sure, things like the ocean
absorbing some of the carbon dioxide do make things a bit more
complicated, but the basic danger is still there.

Danger defined as what? Hotter temperatures than ever
before? No, there have not been many all time high temperature
records broken recently.
Melting ice? Maybe in some areas, maybe it is permanent,
and maybe not.

If cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions meant economic disaster,
we would want to be more certain before acting. But it doesn't have
to. We have other ways to produce energy.

Not without spending a lot of money, and not with the devices
and equipment readily available, not even those that could save a
lot of energy.

If wind and tidal power can't produce enough energy, when added to
hydroelectricity, for our needs - there's something called nuclear
power. Not as "warm and fuzzy" to the ecology crowd, but it *is* in
fact clean and doesn't produce greenhouse gases - and we can build
pretty much as many nuclear power plants as we like, the same way we
were able to build as many fossil-fuel burning power plants as we
liked.

If you could get the green nuts to go along with it, great,
because I want and need cheap electrical power to keep warm
without burning fossil fuel.

We can, in fact, particularly if we go with thorium breeder reactors,
use just as much energy as we do now, and let our energy use increase
as expected, without putting any greenhouse gases at all into the
atmosphere - of course, that means converting all the cars to
hydrogen, which _would_ be a bit expensive. So the only real problem
is not having fusion power (or solar power satellites) right now this
minute - and the irrational opposition to nuclear power.
John Savard

Face the fact that fusion power may never be possible.

And not all cars would have to run on hydrogen, 75 percent
of personal transport is trips of less than 30 miles one way, and
that can easily be done with batteries now, and done easier with
batteries that will be available in the next couple of years.

In fact, more nuclear plants would require some extra
use of electricity at night to allow efficient revenue around the
clock to pay for the cost of building, and Plug-in Electric Vehicles
would be the perfect match for nuclear plants.

So who can convince the greens, or convince the judges
and jury and the committees that it is safe and economical.