Science and technology - the Q & A thread

[hbarcat]

We need to clarify a few things about AGW. This is what we know from solid, science based evidence:

-- Over the past 400,000 years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods.

-- The burning of fossil fuels from the industrial revolution to the present has resulted in an increase of atmospheric CO2 to about 400 parts per million.

-- This 30% increase of CO2 has resulted in a a higher overall atmospheric temperature in excess of the natural baseline due to the so-called greenhouse effect.

-- It is a relatively straightforward calculation to estimate the amount of excess warming that has taken place due to the primary cause of the greenhouse effect. This number is about 0.3 - 0.5 C.



From here, we enter the territory of less well established results:

-- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) assumes that the entire increase of atmospheric temperature over the past century of about .7 C is entirely due to human activity.

-- The UNIPCC uses an quantity called "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" (ECS) that is used to calculate how much warming can be expected given an known increase of atmospheric CO2. ECS is calibrated as a quantity of degrees Celcius assuming a doubling of CO2 over baseline.

-- They claim ECS is about 3.5 C (+/- 1.5 C). They predict that this is approximately the amount that the atmosphere will warm during the next several decades and continue until fossil fuels are no longer widely used.


The numbers claimed in the IPCC may or may not be accurate. Straightforward calculations of predicted atmospheric warming based entirely on the known physics behind the greenhouse effect suggest that ECS is about 1.5 C (+/- 1 C), significantly less than the IPCC estimate.

This is where the scientific debate belongs. We need to pin down a reliable number that predicts how much warming we can expect given a known amount of atmospheric CO2.

What we don't need is a continuation of the current popular "argument" taking place where one side claims that global warming is a hoax and the other side claims the most exaggerated claims of global crisis are to be accepted without skepticism.

 

[Aberdumbie]

We need to clarify a few things about AGW. This is what we know from solid, science based evidence:

-- Over the past 400,000 years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods.

-- The burning of fossil fuels from the industrial revolution to the present has resulted in an increase of atmospheric CO2 to about 400 parts per million.

-- This 30% increase of CO2 has resulted in a a higher overall atmospheric temperature in excess of the natural baseline due to the so-called greenhouse effect.

-- It is a relatively straightforward calculation to estimate the amount of excess warming that has taken place due to the primary cause of the greenhouse effect. This number is about 0.3 - 0.5 C.



From here, we enter the territory of less well established results:

-- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) assumes that the entire increase of atmospheric temperature over the past century of about .7 C is entirely due to human activity.

-- The UNIPCC uses an quantity called "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" (ECS) that is used to calculate how much warming can be expected given an known increase of atmospheric CO2. ECS is calibrated as a quantity of degrees Celcius assuming a doubling of CO2 over baseline.

-- They claim ECS is about 3.5 C (+/- 1.5 C). They predict that this is approximately the amount that the atmosphere will warm during the next several decades and continue until fossil fuels are no longer widely used.


The numbers claimed in the IPCC may or may not be accurate. Straightforward calculations of predicted atmospheric warming based entirely on the known physics behind the greenhouse effect suggest that ECS is about 1.5 C (+/- 1 C), significantly less than the IPCC estimate.

This is where the scientific debate belongs. We need to pin down a reliable number that predicts how much warming we can expect given a known amount of atmospheric CO2.

What we don't need is a continuation of the current popular "argument" taking place where one side claims that global warming is a hoax and the other side claims the most exaggerated claims of global crisis are to be accepted without skepticism.

You are an exceptional mediator. That is the most useful and well stated assessment of the facts I have ever seen. Very well stated.

I think maybe my personal issue with the whole argument comes from my years in the Army. Knowing that advancement of such concepts have no bearing at all to certain unscrupulous world leaders that have something other than "good intent" in their motivations. I fear often that we get so wrapped up in our good intent that we lose view of some that are moving their destructive agendas forward at breakneck speed while we debate. Personally I practice care for the environment. I do want my grandkids to enjoy this world. I just don't know it is in our best interests to get so caught up in the debate that we lose sight of those in the world that would like nothing more than to see us tie our hands in economic regulation while they move their agendas forward.

 

[Tom Bomb]

What we don't need is a continuation of the current popular "argument" taking place where one side claims that global warming is a hoax and the other side claims the most exaggerated claims of global crisis are to be accepted without skepticism.

In the right circles, all this stuff is irrelevant. It should never be a focus. Science in the town square is a pantomime. Nobody there is thinking. But in the halls of wisdom, great people, of many stripes, are getting on with the job of sorting through the evidence.

A little thought experiment: You're placed beside a busy street in a fog. You're blindfolded and then given the option to stay put or cross the street. All you need is on your side of the street but there are some things that appeal to you on the other side. The odds for you getting skittled on your way across are fifty fifty - you can't see cars; drivers can't see you - What's the sensible thing to do, besides taking off the blindfold and waiting for the fog to clear?

 

[Funky Ghost]

I would like to preface this with a simple thought; No sane person can deny humans are negatively impacting the environment. They are also positively impacting it, and that sentiment is a growing thing. Wonderful! But, the alarmists ($) and the "green" legion ($) and the sustainable ($) contingents also have a monetary agenda. They are not without fault and should be held as accountable as those they try to lynch. If everyone were as open to data as we bass players seem it would be less of a thing.

I had read several years ago a scientific journal that stated after exhaustive research the mean temperature of the planet has changed an infinitesimally minute amount beyond 1 degree. That figure encompassed known mammalian life on earth through the time of the document. I am sorry to say I do not know where it was that I gathered that from. I suppose it is still out there. I didn't mean to be flip at all with the volcano "thought experiment". Water, animal, eco-systems and innumerable other things happen in that single event. And they happen on a global scale in some instances. I understand that eruptions are a rarity, but natural disasters are not. Tornadoes, tsunamis and "insert name here" was simply used by myself to forward the thought that this planet adapts. It will be here long after we are gone. I read about the bees OH NO THE BEES !!! Yet they have survived a global extinction event, several ice ages, 2 nuclear events during war time, 3 nuclear disasters and all the natural disasters and cars and the bald apes that have made themselves king, for now, of this planet.

My logical mind cannot connect the outcries to the actualities. I am well read, I investigate and form my own opinions based on known data. I admit to effect. I do not think it is as dire as some would want you to believe. This is my own personal belief to be sure. However, it is incumbent upon them to prove, without fuzzy logic and math, to prove it is so. Such irrefutable proof would be agreeable by most ( because there would never be an "all" in the scientific field... and that is as it should be too ). I have yet to see that proof.

 

[BBQisgood]

About 2 billion years ago the world's oceans began teeming with life that was capable of oxidizing carbon dioxide in order to make sugar. In doing so these tiny organisms burped out oxygen.

Terribly insoluble in water, the O2 bubbled its way into the atmosphere and eventually comprised approximately 21% of the air we breathe.

The result was that fuel was available for respiration and those tiny "early plants" were able to snatch energy from the Sun's photons and terraform our hot, nasty rock of a planet into a place where we live in relative climate stability and comfort.

Fast forward to now:

The numbers we are talking about are variations all less than about 0.025 percent of the total concentration within the last 400 thousand years.

The effects of small changes on a vast system can be hard to measure, predict and understand.

We have been discussing the importance of atmospheric CO2 on temperature but we haven't yet mentioned the effects it might have on the oceans, which are the cradle of the life which supports our oxygen reserve even after 100s of thousands of years.

 

[petrus61]

About 2 billion years ago the world's oceans began teeming with life that was capable of oxidizing carbon dioxide in order to make sugar. In doing so these tiny organisms burped out oxygen.

Terribly insoluble in water, the O2 bubbled its way into the atmosphere and eventually comprised approximately 21% of the air we breathe.

The result was that fuel was available for respiration and those tiny "early plants" were able to snatch energy from the Sun's photons and terraform our hot, nasty rock of a planet into a place where we live in relative climate stability and comfort.

Fast forward to now:

The numbers we are talking about are variations all less than about 0.025 percent of the total concentration within the last 400 thousand years.

The effects of small changes on a vast system can be hard to measure, predict and understand.

We have been discussing the importance of atmospheric CO2 on temperature but we haven't yet mentioned the effects it might have on the oceans, which are the cradle of the life which supports our oxygen reserve even after 100s of thousands of years.

Where did the oceanic life that spawned our world come from?

 

[BBQisgood]

Where did the oceanic life that spawned our world come from?

The oceanic life didn't spawn our world. It simply changed it. Our world was around for billions of years prior to photosynthetic life.

 

[petrus61]

The oceanic life didn't spawn our world. It simply changed it. Our world was around for billions of years prior to photosynthetic life.

Where did the photosynthetic life come from?

 

[sissy kathy]

Where did the oceanic life that spawned our world come from?

For years it was thought that it formed spontaneously here over eons. That theory has been thrown in question with the discovery of proteins found in meteorites. That doesn't mean that life came from space but it appears that at least some the building blocks of life did. Life's origins are still in question to my knowledge.

 

[BBQisgood]

Where did the world and the ocean come from?

Why did neutrons stabilize in the proper number post big-bang and, after plasma cooled, coalesce and stabilize heavy nuclei? Why didn't they decay?

Where did spacetime come from? Do they (space and time) really exist as we understand them to or will we someday discover they are only poor, ad hoc explanations for physical phenomena (wouldn't that be something?)?

Why is there a universe at all?

 

[Funky Ghost]

Where did the world and the ocean come from?

Why did neutrons stabilize in the proper number post big-bang and, after plasma cooled, coalesce and stabilize heavy nuclei? Why didn't they decay?

Where did spacetime come from? Do they (space and time) really exist as we understand them to or will we someday discover they are only poor, ad hoc explanations for physical phenomena (wouldn't that be something?)?

Why is there a universe at all?

All wonderful questions. All are being addressed as well as we can with the % of our brains we use There are a bunch of theories that touch on a few of those. Some based in physics and some on theology. Until we find out all are viable and should be pursued to their logical ends. That we, alone, on this planet ponder this is marvelous indeed.

 

[BBQisgood]

For years it was thought that it formed spontaneously here over eons. That theory has been thrown in question with the discovery of proteins found in meteorites. That doesn't mean that life came from space but it appears that at least some the building blocks of life did. Life's origins are still in question to my knowledge.

Extraterrestrial proteins have never been found on/in a meteorite.

Amino acids have been found. It is really important to make this distinction: amino acids can form spontaneously given the right components. To make proteins then you have strung those aminos together in a meaningful way. Essentially if we had found proteins on meteorites then the debate over ET would be done. He/she/it would be out there.

Also, a good number of the amino acids found from outside our planet are completely useless to life as we know it (there are important reasons for this). Precious few of them could be used, though. Maybe.

 

[12bass]

I just don't know it is in our best interests to get so caught up in the debate that we lose sight of those in the world that would like nothing more than to see us tie our hands in economic regulation while they move their agendas forward.

I'm not going to comment other than to say that the underlined section points out an obvious ideological bias (bordering on conspiracy theory) which is shared by most people who deny anthropogenic climate change, a bias which tends to lead to motivated reasoning about the issue rather than an objective analysis.

 

[12bass]

Where did the world and the ocean come from?

Why did neutrons stabilize in the proper number post big-bang and, after plasma cooled, coalesce and stabilize heavy nuclei? Why didn't they decay?

Where did spacetime come from? Do they (space and time) really exist as we understand them to or will we someday discover they are only poor, ad hoc explanations for physical phenomena (wouldn't that be something?)?

Why is there a universe at all?

Why questions tend to be questions that presuppose purpose or design. If asking why is intended as a teleological question, then science is not the tool to use. However, science can address the how questions.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Stephen Hawking Predicts Human Destruction From Technological Advances. Why might that be, I wonder?

Famous physicist Stephen Hawking has said mankind is facing threats from technology that once helped them achieve big feats. Threats like nuclear war, global warming and artificial intelligence are quite grave but Hawking is hopeful that joint efforts will succeed. ( Hawking.org )

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has warned that mankind is facing threats from new technology strides [that] will imperil their survival.

Listing the threats, Hawking said there are too many, ranging from climate change to mass species extinction. The physicist noted that humans have achieved many big feats because of technological advances. Now those gains are augmenting their demise.[…]

"Since civilization began, aggression has been useful inasmuch as it has definite survival advantages," the scientist said. […] "We need to control this inherited instinct by our logic and reason," Hawking Invalid Link Removed. […]

Too bloody right, mate

Forgive me. I didn't mean to answer my own question. Actually, I don't think I did Feel free to weigh in, anytime. Fancy Hawking being a crackpot. My goodness

[edit] Thought I'd better justify my conspiratorial murmurings so here's a little more from the Professor for you,

The technology overkill can bring about mass species extinction, an excess of artificial intelligence and unbearable global warming. Amid the despondency, the physicist exuded optimism that a calamity can be avoided if humanity shuns a parochial outlook and works toward a world government.


Hope Amid Grim Outlook

Noting that aggression is hard-wired into human genes by Darwinian evolution, Hawking said the advancement of technology has added more fangs to it and destruction of the human race by a nuclear or biological war cannot be ruled out.

He reminds me of Invalid Link Removed, in a way

Though we have thousands and thousands of professors and hundreds of thousands of students of history, working upon the records of the past, there is not a single person anywhere who makes a whole time special job of estimating the future consequences of new inventions and new devices. There isn't a single professor of foresight in the world. But why shouldn't there be? Isn't foresight as important as history?
H. G. Wells

 

[12bass]

The politician, we say, looks to the next election, the statesman to the next generation, and philosophy to the indefinite future. - John Rawls

While some may see philosophy as a "dead" discipline, the ethics of science/technology is needed now perhaps more than in any previous time in human history.

 

[mapadofu]

Where did the world and the ocean come from?

The world coalesced out of a cloud of gas and dust ~4.5billion years ago.

For the ocean, it is my impression that there is still some uncertainty as to whether the water that forms the oceans has been here since the planet formed or if it was deposited by asteroids and comets after the the Earth's formation. This isn't a binary problem; the answer will probably be more like XX% of the Earth's water was deposited after formation and 100-XX percent has been here the whole time.

Anybody up to date with the science on where the oceans came from?

 

[Lobster11]

Anybody up to date with the science on where the oceans came from?

Well, when a mommy ocean and a daddy ocean love each other very, very much, they....

 

[mapadofu]

Why did neutrons stabilize in the proper number post big-bang and, after plasma cooled, coalesce and stabilize heavy nuclei? Why didn't they decay?

I don't know what the "proper" number is, but the ratio of H, to He to Li is a signature of the characteristics of the early universe. Early on, the universe was so hot that nuclear reactions analogous to those in the center of the sun went on, eventually (time scale of minutes I think) the universe cooled down enough that the thermal energy scale dropped below that for nuclear reactions an the relative abundances of H, He and Li were set. There was further churning through stars to produce the other elements.

Which ones are stable or not is a non-trivial problem in nuclear physics, but the reason why the stable ones are stable is that given that a bunch of protons and neutrons are bound in a nucleus, there just isn't a lower energy state for it to decay into via a transition that satisfies the various selection rules.

 

[hbarcat]

Where did the photosynthetic life come from?

Go back to post #20