CO2 - Dumb question

There is no argument. On one side you have 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. On the other side, a rabble of armchair Google "researchers" with no training or expertise in the field at all plus a few opportunists feeding them what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

No argument. Just noise.

Edited By Hopper on 15/08/2022 23:03:48

We know you like to dominate the conversation, but again, you have no proof to back up any of that claptrap.

Yours isn't the only opinion out there so you'll need to find some coping mechanism to deal with it.

Martin.

How about Historian David Starkey?

Is he an "armchair Google researcher"?

How about? What about?

Whenever I see these two words I translate them to mean, OK I'm wrong but you have to prove you're not the same.

And the relevance of a historian to CO2's infra red absorption spectra is .......

Think Colin! Wise man and a fool. Mums the word.

History? That's living in the past that is. There's no future in that...

And what about the great physicist Richard Feynman who says there is an almost infinite number of pasts, as well as almost infinite number of futures, each with its own level of probability, and our current observations of the universe and all in it affect its past and determine the different histories of the universe? How about that then, eh?

Mum's the word indeed.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 09:22:39

Hi Hopper, while there maybe no future living in the past, without the past there would be no future and our very existence has come about from the past. The future doesn't exist until it happens and before you can blink an eye, it becomes the past.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:01:56

Feynman's view is not so cut and dried nor so singularly linear. All possible pasts exist for him, with varying probabilities for each one. And our current observations change those pasts. Which of course can change our all possible futures with their own probabilities each. Sounds like science fiction but so far his quantum physics theories have passed every test via linear accelerators and particle colliders etc etc and can be shown to apply to larger bodies too. Which makes the Newtonian understanding we have of the universe and time via our five senses completely wrong, albeit a very useful tool for navigating our way through a reality that is completely different from the way we perceive it.

It does my head in. I am currently reading Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design" on the subject. Will report back when I achieve enlightenment.

Hi Hopper, I agree that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the past, as an example, if neither of the two world wars didn't happen, as horrific they were, myself and my siblings would not have been born and the first world war was more important as my mother wasn't conceived until my grandfather came back from four years away while in the Royal Field Artillery. Feynman's view may well be valid, but not all theories result in reality. In my view, if all of the past that happened before I was conceived was different, I wouldn't be making this comment.

Regards Nick.

Probably. Mr Starkey has no scientific training or experience in this subject. I find his opinions interesting but he's an historian with provocative conservative political views described as 'the rudest man in Britain'. I'd say he's exactly the sort of unqualified chap who feeds folk what they want to hear for financial or political gain.

As he makes a good living by being controversial I suggest Mr Starkey's input to the climate debate is low-value. Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate.

Dave

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 16/08/2022 10:46:50:

Hi Hopper, I agree that there is an infinite number of possibilities for the past, as an example, if neither of the two world wars didn't happen, as horrific they were, myself and my siblings would not have been born and the first world war was more important as my mother wasn't conceived until my grandfather came back from four years away while in the Royal Field Artillery. Feynman's view may well be valid, but not all theories result in reality. In my view, if all of the past that happened before I was conceived was different, I wouldn't be making this comment.

Regards Nick.

...

Nick,

Here is what Stephen Hawking (reputed to be the world's smartest bloke) has to say about Feynman's theories so far:

'Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history."

So that is not to say that the past history of your family and your own arising from it does not exist. It does. But it is one of many (in fact all possible) pasts that exist.

It is too complex to go into all the background in a forum post, (one of many shortfalls of Google research) you would have to read the books on it to get a fuller understanding. Hawking's "The Grand Design" is quite accessible to the layman (even I can read and follow it) and well worth a read. But as he points out, much of quantum mechanics in totally counter-intuitive from our accepted Newtonian view that allows us, given complete present data, to calculate a complete picture of the past that matches our "intuitive understanding that, whether painful or joyful, the world has a definite past". He then goes on with the first quote above in italics to discredit this viewpoint.

Newtonian physics laws and our intuitive sense of the past arising from it were superseded by the quantum physics' crazy-sounding counter-intuitive laws about 100 years ago by Einstein et al in the 1920s. But Newtonian physics still provide a good "effective theory" for predicting how macro objects will behave in our everyday world, and do in fact arise from quantum laws, Hawking says.

Of Quantum physics he says "It leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts, rather than determining the future and past with certainty. Though that is distasteful to some, scientists must accept theories that agree with experiment, not their own preconceived notions". (He explains at length the many experiments that have proved conclusively since Feynman's day that his quantum laws stand up to every test they are given and have never once failed when tested by the best minds and technology since.

It's crazy-sounding stuff that challenges our long held intuitions and "common sense" as well as outdated Newtonian physics. But always remember: a man who never changed his mind never thought about anything.

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 12:00:26

Edited By Hopper on 16/08/2022 12:00:52

"Opinion not backed by evidence has no place in a technical debate"

Dave. In what way are you qualified to make that assessment of Mr Starkey - or is it just your opinion?

Martin.

The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork.

But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right?

What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists?

Dave

The thing about science is that it's all of a piece. If you accept the method and the fact that in the areas where you have direct experience the results work, then you really have to accept the results in other areas even if you don't like them. Personally I've spent my career in advance engineering and have found that the science always works as it says on the tin and the method is the most powerful tool we have to understand nature.  Oh, and the other thing is, it works even if you don't believe it.

But this thread seems to be generating much more heat than light and I suggest that it be closed so people can get on with more useful stuff.

Edited By John Haine on 16/08/2022 15:44:08

I agree with John. All this thread is doing since about page 4 is filling up 0s and 1s in the server's 'bits of grit' and moving us closer to the day we have to subscribe to the forum via PayPal or equivalent.

Best regards,

Swarf, Mostly!

Yes I agree with Swarf, Mostly.......let's just get back to "latheing"

Regards to all

Derek

"The statement wasn't specifically aimed at Mr Starkey, it's universally true. Engineering, science, and technology are all based on measurable facts, not unjustified guesswork."

You wrote six lines of text & mentioned him twice, by name, near the beginning and the end, so it certainly was aimed at him and only him.

"But I think it applies to Mr Starkey. I don't think my opinion of him is unjustified because I've not found any evidence in his statements that gainsays global warming. Perhaps I missed it. Can you put me right?"

Your opinion is as justified as his. However, you went on to rubbish his opinion because he's not a 'climate scientist' and you also made unwarranted accusations about his ethics. Whether he is right or wrong on this matter, it's a dirty tactic to use and one which I find unconvincing.

"What did Mr Starkey say to convince you global warming isn't a problem and why do you believe a historian but not a consensus of specialists?"

Nothing at all. I didn't know he even had a view on global warming.

Where have I said "global warming isn't a problem"?

I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved?

As a moderator you should be responding to what's written and should not be putting a slant on my words to suit your personal bias.

Martin.

Oh dear, I've upset Martin and it wasn't me who introduced David Starkey. Mr Starkey has strong opinions about many subjects including this one. Having pointed out I couldn't find any evidence in Mr Starkey's pronouncements on climate change, I asked if Martin could point some out, and was attacked instead. Don't worry Martin - David Starkey is able to look after himself. Martin also posted in favour of Piers Corbyn; Mr Corbyn is controversial too!

Martin says I don't know if a higher level of CO2 is a problem for mankind. All I have mentioned & asked about is whether higher CO2 levels are due solely to human activity or could other factors be involved? I think several posts have already tackled this question and anyone who wishes to check can read back through the thread.

My point is that opinions without evidence have no value in a technical debate. Surely that's not controversial?

Dave

PS As a moderator I implement the Terms and Conditions and Code of Conduct.

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 16/08/2022 20:46:22

Dave.

In case you are unaware: Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist, he has a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College...

I think that probably makes him a scientist that you should respect.

Actually, no one has explained the mechanism CO2 has in connection with global warming in this thread, least of all you. Your last explanation of this to me was simply a wall of waffle.

Dave said in a previous explanation of global warming - my comments in bold:

I'll try again:

1. The sun shines on the earth. Me: At this point, is the Sun's energy on the Earth's surface, or just on its way?
2. Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon are all transparent, i.e. not resonant with, the energy frequencies arriving from the sun, so they allow energy to arrive and leave equally well. Me: So Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are not good at holding onto the Sun's heat energy?
3. Water vapour, Methane and Carbon Dioxide are resonant with heat frequencies, so they are not transparent. Heat is retained by them. Me: So Water vapour, Methane and CO2 are good at holding onto the Sun's heat energy?
4. When solar radiation hits the surface a proportion of the energy is converted into heat resonant with Water vapour, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide, Me: What proportion of this energy that hits the surface was retained on the way in by Water vapour, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide? The energy is absorbed by those molecules, which cool by warming up the adjacent Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. Heat is retained again. Me: How is Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon now able to remove heat from Water vapour, Methane and Carbon Dioxide, whilst being less conductive and what effect does this have?
5. In the past it was thought the oceans would dissolve all the Carbon Dioxide produced by humans, but measurements show the sea only captures about half causing the amount of CO2 in the air to grow. Both have been measured. Me: You need to be more specific with where this data's sourced from.
6. Water vapour is not guilty of global warming because the amount in the air stays much the same. It's balanced because water is removed from the atmosphere by rain and snow. Me: Any evidence of this? Seems counterintuitive considering how wildly weather is reported to be changing.
7. The warmer atmosphere created by greenhouse gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat closer to the surface for longer than before. Me: You first need to show 'greenhouse gases' are a cause and not an effect. Land and sea both absorb and re-radiate heat like giant firebricks. Me: Of course - what else could they do?

That's the problem. You don't know. But 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists say that manmade CO2 emissions are a huge problem, driving the current global warming. Argue with them about it, not some guy on an internet forum. They are the experts. They do know. You, by your own admission, don't.

Edited By Hopper on 17/08/2022 06:37:58

Hi Hopper, I'm aware that Steven Hawking was a very intellectual man, but like everyone else he was not infallible, but I wouldn't have been able to challenge him, but I do think the universe is far too vast and complex for one person to understand everything about it. Although quantum physics may say the universe has no single past or history, I'm sure as I can be of the only past and history of my life and as I have already said, there were infinite possibilities during my life which would have steered it in a different direction, there may well other many other pasts that exist, but I have not been in them and I'm as sure as I can be that I've only existed in the one that has happened. An uncle of mine was an expert in his field (although not in physics) and when I asked him an important question that I trusted he would know, he couldn't give me a definitive answer, but gave me good guidance on the things I should think about before making a final decision. He concluded by saying to remember that even the best experts get some things wrong.

Regards Nick.