Climate scientists unsurprised to discover greenhouse gas concentrations originate from...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Science is a method. I guess you hate science but I really think you hate being shown your ignorance.
Damn you are dumb.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are pretty good at posting.
How about explaining the physics. What is the explanation of the force of gravity? Why do two objects with a mass have a measurable force of attraction?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Nobody knows the answer to that. Why is the gravitational force so weak, while the strong force so strong? Why do we need a fudge factor such as "G" in the gravitational force equation?
a senile fungus
Well-Known Member
The constant?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LOL You don't know much do you?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I am interested in your explanation as to why gravity exists. Please proceed.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Dont worry yourself too much, he's a heroin baby.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies
The alternative? "Give up your toys."
Eric Roston eroston
September 23, 2016 — 3:00 AM PDT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.
That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:
Think of Rieder's as the argument waiting in the wings should the 195-nation Paris Agreement, which came within a shade of enactment this week, fail to address the problem.
An edited transcript of an interview with him follows.
The alternative? "Give up your toys."
Eric Roston eroston
September 23, 2016 — 3:00 AM PDT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.
That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:
- How carbon-heavy fuels are
- How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP
- GDP per capita
- Population
Think of Rieder's as the argument waiting in the wings should the 195-nation Paris Agreement, which came within a shade of enactment this week, fail to address the problem.
An edited transcript of an interview with him follows.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Q: So. What seems to be the problem?
A: There are 19 million adoptable orphans, and there's catastrophic climate change on the horizon. Contributing a child to the world both makes climate change worse and, if we don't get our act together, it might actually not be all that great for the child either.
You have two tracks. You could say climate change is a big structural problem, so it requires a structural solution; that's a policy question. Or you could say a problem like climate change requires that we change our culture of individual obligation, and everybody needs to think about having small families.
Q: That seems like a pretty heavy ask. People don't even want to think about having small bags of movie popcorn.
A: Well, the argument goes like this: Okay, humans have shown me that they're just not willing to give up their toys. And so we need another option on the table. You want to continue to live in your 10,000-square-foot house? You know, fly private jets around, and that kind of thing? Well, that would mean a lot fewer people on the Earth.
Source: Amazon.com
Q: At least in the carbon-heavy countries? Do you think that would actually ever happen?
A: Mostly I want to put it on the table. Population is a central part of the equation for total emissions, but that gets kind of looked over because people don't like to talk about it.
Total emissions is per-capita emissions times population, minus technological advances. We've been trying to get you to give up your toys—to change per-capita emissions. So if you're really going to continue to show reluctance, well, here's the other option: We'll start putting pressure on families. If that pressure's really, really, really undesirable, then, well, maybe people decide to start doing the other thing.
If we could fix everything through decarbonizing our economy, then it's likely that the population variable wouldn't be a real concern.
Q: It does have the distinct unpleasant feel of a moral gun to the head.
A: Here's my actual suspicion, though: Most people don't find it that undesirable. Demographic trends the world over show when you give women choice, you educate them, you give them power in the household, and you start to fight back against patriarchal society, then fertility rates go down.
Q: People are helpful to have around, though, if you want to have an economy. China may learn that the hard way.
A: This is the most infamous example, but it turns out there's been a lot of countries with pretty influential fertility-reducing policies and strategies. What we found is that some of them are really, really good. That's one of the reasons people balk at this sort of argument. They say, 'Look what happened in China.' None of those are arguments against any kind of strategies; those are arguments against the ways the Chinese government employed them.
We put policies on a kind of spectrum of invasiveness, what we call a coercion spectrum. There are things we obviously should never do. You should never violate basic human rights by forced sterilization or forced abortion. That's off the table. We're not going to talk about that. Nobody's going to talk about that.
But this is actually really good fertility policy: Provide family planning. Provide your people with health care. Educate women, and empower women within the home.
There have been media policies, poster campaigns. Some of them are a little nasty, showing lots and lots of poor people reaching through gates and saying, 'Don't have too many kids, we don't have enough jobs.' And stuff like that. That feels a little nasty. Some of them are just, like, happy pictures of a couple with one child saying, 'Please stop at one.' A lot of these media campaigns had verifiable success. Data was collected and fertility rates dropped.
Q: Pope Francis wants to fight climate change, but I'm not sure he'd be down with your full argument here.
Close all those tabs. Open this email.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
A: Religion—not only Catholicism but Mormonism, ultra-orthodox Judaism, that sort of thing—probably is a really good reason to think about using population as a way to raise the stakes. If you're Catholic, and you're really going to stare climate change in the face, refuse contraception, and continue to have sex anyway, there's the foreseeable outcome that you will have more children than average. Well, then you really better be doing your darnedest in all sorts of other ways. When you make that choice, there's a cost. You have to pay for it in some way.
Q: How's the reception to this work been?
A: The far-right hate machine is in full swing, and I'm getting hate mail. All that good stuff.
A: There are 19 million adoptable orphans, and there's catastrophic climate change on the horizon. Contributing a child to the world both makes climate change worse and, if we don't get our act together, it might actually not be all that great for the child either.
You have two tracks. You could say climate change is a big structural problem, so it requires a structural solution; that's a policy question. Or you could say a problem like climate change requires that we change our culture of individual obligation, and everybody needs to think about having small families.
Q: That seems like a pretty heavy ask. People don't even want to think about having small bags of movie popcorn.
A: Well, the argument goes like this: Okay, humans have shown me that they're just not willing to give up their toys. And so we need another option on the table. You want to continue to live in your 10,000-square-foot house? You know, fly private jets around, and that kind of thing? Well, that would mean a lot fewer people on the Earth.
Source: Amazon.com
Q: At least in the carbon-heavy countries? Do you think that would actually ever happen?
A: Mostly I want to put it on the table. Population is a central part of the equation for total emissions, but that gets kind of looked over because people don't like to talk about it.
Total emissions is per-capita emissions times population, minus technological advances. We've been trying to get you to give up your toys—to change per-capita emissions. So if you're really going to continue to show reluctance, well, here's the other option: We'll start putting pressure on families. If that pressure's really, really, really undesirable, then, well, maybe people decide to start doing the other thing.
If we could fix everything through decarbonizing our economy, then it's likely that the population variable wouldn't be a real concern.
Q: It does have the distinct unpleasant feel of a moral gun to the head.
A: Here's my actual suspicion, though: Most people don't find it that undesirable. Demographic trends the world over show when you give women choice, you educate them, you give them power in the household, and you start to fight back against patriarchal society, then fertility rates go down.
Q: People are helpful to have around, though, if you want to have an economy. China may learn that the hard way.
A: This is the most infamous example, but it turns out there's been a lot of countries with pretty influential fertility-reducing policies and strategies. What we found is that some of them are really, really good. That's one of the reasons people balk at this sort of argument. They say, 'Look what happened in China.' None of those are arguments against any kind of strategies; those are arguments against the ways the Chinese government employed them.
We put policies on a kind of spectrum of invasiveness, what we call a coercion spectrum. There are things we obviously should never do. You should never violate basic human rights by forced sterilization or forced abortion. That's off the table. We're not going to talk about that. Nobody's going to talk about that.
But this is actually really good fertility policy: Provide family planning. Provide your people with health care. Educate women, and empower women within the home.
There have been media policies, poster campaigns. Some of them are a little nasty, showing lots and lots of poor people reaching through gates and saying, 'Don't have too many kids, we don't have enough jobs.' And stuff like that. That feels a little nasty. Some of them are just, like, happy pictures of a couple with one child saying, 'Please stop at one.' A lot of these media campaigns had verifiable success. Data was collected and fertility rates dropped.
Q: Pope Francis wants to fight climate change, but I'm not sure he'd be down with your full argument here.
Close all those tabs. Open this email.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
A: Religion—not only Catholicism but Mormonism, ultra-orthodox Judaism, that sort of thing—probably is a really good reason to think about using population as a way to raise the stakes. If you're Catholic, and you're really going to stare climate change in the face, refuse contraception, and continue to have sex anyway, there's the foreseeable outcome that you will have more children than average. Well, then you really better be doing your darnedest in all sorts of other ways. When you make that choice, there's a cost. You have to pay for it in some way.
Q: How's the reception to this work been?
A: The far-right hate machine is in full swing, and I'm getting hate mail. All that good stuff.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Science isn't something that can be loved. One either uses the scientific method or they don't. Most people including myself like to learn. For me, using mathematics, biology, chemistry, mechanics and physics helps me understand. But I don't love science. I do really enjoy solving a problem or coming to a new understanding of why something is happening. That's not a love of science, it's just a love of learning.
The gravity part will have to wait, I'm a bit high right now.
Last edited:
qwizoking
Well-Known Member
Blasphemy
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Probably a nominal amount.
Even with a massive warehouse grow youre not talking more than 200KW.
Drowning-Man
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The reason why I taunted @desert dude about gravity is because he posted this and because he's a shithead:
The diagram is a representation of curvature of space time by a massive object. It explains gravity differently from Newtonian physics which has an axiom that says two bodies with a mass attract each other proportional to size and distance. From the reference of the earth, N-physics for the theory of gravity assumes Earth's downward force on an object. An object will accelerate downward unless there is an upward force to balance it.
Relativity theory assumes a body will follow a continuous line through space-time unless something stops it. If the object is traveling through space time without a mass nearby, it will follow a straight line. When the small object is near a massive object, space time is curved and the object follows the line through curved space. Referring to the diagram you posted, most paths lead to the center where the massive object lies. When an object encounters a massive object, the Earth, for instance, at the bottom of the well, it is blocked and comes to rest on the surface of the Earth. The object is still moving through space time along with the Earth and everything else. The Earth blocks the object from following it's own path through time-space. There is no downward force. The earth exerts an upward force on the object that prevents it from moving independently.
This video gives a good visual representation of objects moving through time space. The simplest representation is found at 1:50:
This video shows the difference between N-physics and Relativity theory. In Relativity theory, there is no downward force, only an upward force that stops an object (an apple in this video) from following its path through time space.
So, there is no gravity. When a person feels what we call gravity by picking an object up, what we are feeling is the force required to hold an object from following an independent line through space time.
.
Last edited: