• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gulf oil spill. Help me understand.

#102
aborgman said:
I wouldn't call using a device wrong intentionally an "error".
Click to expand...

Most people wouldn't, but then most people aren't engineers.

"User error" is a broadly applied term used to describe equipment failure that often could more accurately be ascribed to "friggin dumbass."

It does not imply that the user made a mistake but rather the user employed the device improperly.

Example: Contrary to the manufacturer's advice and all common sense you decide to attach your boat trailer to you truck with a single, common bungee cord. You know it's probably a bad idea but what the heck, you just have to go around the corner. Now, when the bungee cord breaks, as it assuredly will, is it because the bungee cord was improperly designed or manufactured? Is it due to a defect in the boat trailer? I think this one would be chalked up to "user error."
 
#103
Philbiker said:
Food is essential for me, but if I raise my intake there are consequences. If my intake constantly goes up and up and up the consequences get worse.
Click to expand...

^So we have more C02 which causes more plants to grow which means we increase our intake of vegetables? While I might go to the dinner table kicking and screaming, and put up healthy protest to the menu, this is not exactly unhealthy.
 
#105
PSPookie said:
Most people wouldn't, but then most people aren't engineers.
Click to expand...

True.

But I am an engineer.



PSPookie said:
"User error" is a broadly applied term used to describe equipment failure that often could more accurately be ascribed to "friggin dumbass."

It does not imply that the user made a mistake but rather the user employed the device improperly.
Click to expand...

...and generally not INTENTIONALLY.

If you misread the directions on the box and screw up, it's user error.

If you read the directions on the box, understand them just fine, and choose to violate them... not user error, IMO.


PSPookie said:
Example: Contrary to the manufacturer's advice and all common sense you decide to attach your boat trailer to you truck with a single, common bungee cord. You know it's probably a bad idea but what the heck, you just have to go around the corner. Now, when the bungee cord breaks, as it assuredly will, is it because the bungee cord was improperly designed or manufactured? Is it due to a defect in the boat trailer? I think this one would be chalked up to "user error."
Click to expand...

If you knew with a certainty the failure was likely?

Not user error - user negligence.

Negligence: conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another from foreseeable risks of harm.
 
#106
MakiSupaStar said:
^So we have more C02 which causes more plants to grow which means we increase our intake of vegetables? While I might go to the dinner table kicking and screaming, and put up healthy protest to the menu, this is not exactly unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Up to a point.

Of course - the corresponding massive increase in temperature doesn't help all plants either.

...and of course there is a point where C02 concentration become too high and start to degrade plant growth.

I suggest folks take a look at what happened due to massive global warming (partially caused by the Siberian Traps) during the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
 
#107
aborgman said:
If you knew with a certainty the failure was likely?

Not user error - user negligence.

Negligence: conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another from foreseeable risks of harm.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll agree with you on the negligence.

At any rate, if it was a case of user error or user negligence then it wasn't necessarilly a bad design. The point I was trying to make was: Let's not be in a rush to blame it all on the engineers :D
 
#108
PSPookie said:
Fair enough. I'll agree with you on the negligence.

At any rate, if it was a case of user error or user negligence then it wasn't necessarilly a bad design. The point I was trying to make was: Let's not be in a rush to blame it all on the engineers :D
Click to expand...

Given that this is BP we're talking about - chances are the design was just fine and they

a) Didn't maintain it
b) Cheaped out on installing it
c) Knew it was likely to fail and ignored it.
 
#110
MakiSupaStar said:
^So we have more C02 which causes more plants to grow
Click to expand...

CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis, but higher concentrations do not cause more plants to grow. Unlike water, there are no known "drought" conditions for CO2 anywhere on Earth, where the concentrations may be inadequate for plant life.

In fact, around Mammoth Mountain--which is a currently dormant volcano as well as a nice ski resort--there are large areas of tree kills where high levels of CO2 seep from the ground.
 
#112
aborgman said:
Up to a point.

Of course - the corresponding massive increase in temperature doesn't help all plants either.

...and of course there is a point where C02 concentration become too high and start to degrade plant growth.

I suggest folks take a look at what happened due to massive global warming (partially caused by the Siberian Traps) during the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia's P-Tr extinction even page said:
The Emeishan and Siberian Traps eruptions may have caused dust clouds and acid aerosols which would have blocked out sunlight and thus disrupted photosynthesis both on land and in the upper layers of the seas, causing food chains to collapse. These eruptions may also have caused acid rain when the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere. This may have killed land plants and molluscs and planktonic organisms which build calcium carbonate shells. The eruptions would also have emitted carbon dioxide, causing global warming. When all of the dust clouds and aerosols washed out of the atmosphere, the excess carbon dioxide would have remained and the warming would have proceeded without any mitigating effects.[83]

The Siberian Traps had unusual features which made them even more dangerous. Pure flood basalts produce a lot of runny lava and do not hurl debris into the atmosphere. It appears, however, that 20% of the output of the Siberian Traps eruptions was pyroclastic, i.e. consisted of ash and other debris thrown high into the atmosphere, increasing the short-term cooling effect.[92] The basalt lava erupted or intruded into carbonate rocks and into sediments which were in the process of forming large coal beds, both of which would have emitted large amounts of carbon dioxide, leading to stronger global warming after the dust and aerosols settled.
Click to expand...

If you follow the Trap theory (or the idea of a small impact event coupled with the trap eruptions) then you've got to consider the effects of the massive amount of dust being thrown into the air and how it would affect the climate in the short run. The lack of sunlight compromises the ability of plants to engage in photosynthesis which decreases the amount of CO2​ that can be turned back into oxygen and then used.

The same article also states that the siberian traps released massive quantities of CO2​ as well as methane, which is much more efficient at trapping heat.

In any case though I think using something as extreme and sudden as the P-Tr extinction event to demonstrate the negative effects of CO2​ is rather extreme.
 
#114
aborgman said:
Error: mistake: a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention;

Deliberate misuse is neither bad judgment, ignorance, nor inattention.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that deliberate misuse actually defines bad judgment, ignorance, and/or inattention.
 
#115
sloasdaylight said:
In any case though I think using something as extreme and sudden as the P-Tr extinction event to demonstrate the negative effects of CO2​ is rather extreme.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I think if you're arguing for the likelihood of a similar thing happening due to human induced global warming - it's extreme.

I think if you're arguing about worst case effects of high C02 concentration - it makes perfect sense.

In other words - I'm not arguing it's likely to happen, I'm arguing that those who say it COULDN'T happen are delusional.
 
#116
aborgman said:
Error: mistake: a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention;

Deliberate misuse is neither bad judgment, ignorance, nor inattention.
Click to expand...

From the standpoint of the designer, anything other than a products use in accordance with the operating instructions IS user error. If you deliberately run an amp designed for a 120v AC off a 220V AC line and it blows up, that is user error. :D
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back