romansh

So in short we are at an impasse. I agree models are likely not "right" on either side. But end of the day CO2 is increasing, as is the acidification of the oceans. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-15/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxN_XBRCFARIsAIufy1YsVWj0yRLvQ151NXlXNoiSHkDWwPl6wbpWiJKp-ZgpHnlTZxQB_BMaAu-9EALw_wcB No one doubts that CO2 is contributing to the warming we are seeing. Not even the most hardened intelligent skeptic. The are questions about is it warming as much as we (some of us) think? It is warming, and what is the cause of this warming ... saying it is part of some natural cycle is true ... in that human activities are completely natural.

This phrase I always have trouble with The Ground of Being: Being monistically inclined I can't but help but read this phrase as the universe or multiverse if we are inclined that way. Any one else?

Wrong Huxley. Belief and faith are not the same thing, at least not in this sense. Please don't conflate the two. Faith is belief without evidence. Proof of everything? ... not looking for proof other than is some utterly trivial sense of the word. This is just an opinion Thormas. But for an agnostic some supporting evidence for a belief is required. Did you miss that in Thomas Huxley's quote? An agnostics armour is made of uncertainty.

I can recommend some well referenced books for you - The Self Illusion Bruce Hood, Subliminal, Leonard Mlodinow, Behaviour, Robert Sapolsky. Plus any of the popular science books, plus I learnt about the illusory nature of reality in high school in physics classes. Then you should be using a lower case 'g'. Joseph I get what Maharshi is trying to say here, But I can't help thinking the world will carry on quite nicely with my functioning brain. Here it seems we are obsessed with the observer/measurer relationship with reality found in physics. The late great John Bell captured the thought nicely here. I assume there is a reality beyond my perception. But my perception is illusory and incomplete, but nevertheless a reflection of that reality.

Wiki data ... Notice the steady increase in actual temperature. The scary bit over the last forty years or the solar irradiance has been Notice that the irradiance and sunspot activity have been lower over the last two cycles. So one is left wondering what is causing the increase in the Earth's temperature? It apparently is not the sun's irradiance. Answers please on the back of a post card. And here is a clue as to what might be the cause .... Show me your data. All models are wrong; but some may be useful. George EP Box.

Are you suggesting anthropomorphic global warming is real, but we pragmatically can't do anything about it? Exactly how we address these air quality issues within a week? The only coal power fire station I visited in the States did have SO2 and particulate capture in place. I can't imagine most of the others do not. You initially implied that the current global warming was not anthropomorphic but was due other factors. You categorically said CO2 does not cause global warming. This is false. It does, but the question is how much. My greater worry is acidification of the oceans through CO2 release. Also you did not address my many questions. Please have a try and do so.

Thormas claimed: And here is Huxley who coined the term Plainly it appears you don't think or read much about agnosticism and are unaware of the nuances that are out there.

How is this relevant to the discussion? If you mean I have lost my belief that my perception is an accurate reflection of reality then yes, I have come down on a side. While I agree there is no proof that the Earth can be considered spheroid orbiting the sun there is a whack load of evidence for this observation. There is much evidence that much of our perception is illusory, should we care to look at it. I certainly have no need of the concept of God or god. Show me your evidence for any particular god and I will consider it.

Astrophysics causes climate change, no one is claiming otherwise. Yes the sun's irradiance changes with various cycles, the most immediate, the eleven year sun spot cycle. No one is arguing against this. Plus there are several orbital precessions which affect the Earth's temperature. No one is claiming otherwise. So which of these is causing the current observed warming trend? Does CO2 absorb infra red energy? Does CO2 acidify oceans? So what? The questions are, is the current warming trend anthropological in origin and if so do we want do something about it and if so what? Reference please for the 0.3 degree anticipated increase in temperature please. Wiki Global Warming. What evidence do you have that CO2 is irrelevant to anthropological global warming? Regarding CO2 in greenhouses, yes things grow faster in higher CO2 atmospheres, but the nutritional value might not increase. I already said that. I also said at higher temperatures organic material will decay faster. The interesting thing about water vapour is it is also a huge energy store in the atmosphere, which is released when it condenses. I suggested you think about water vapour in the atmosphere ... you appear not to have done so. Did you actually read the paper? It is irrelevant to global warming ... it discusses air quality with respect to ozone, SO2 and CO not CO2 (plus particulates) Yep I'm afraid you have demonstrated this. I was not talking about acid rain, I was talking about acidification of the oceans Burl. Acid rain is largely irrelevant, in fact it tends to offset global warming. I did not mention particulate pollution, so I don't know where you got that from. Burl you plainly do not understand the issues and chemistry involved here. A little more scientism, priestly or otherwise would be of benefit on your behalf.

This quote alone shows you are not listening Thormas. I completely accept this. I fail to see this as a relevant argument. This is why I take an agnostic stance Thormas. Yet I go where the evidence takes me even if I might be wrong. And be careful not to conflate illusory with delusory. Even if something might be illusory it still could be a reflection of reality. Where's your evidence Thormas?

Burl ... another general scientific thought. The earth is not in equilibrium. I would say it is in a quasi-steady-state where over short periods time (perhaps decades) carbon is fixed at roughly the same rate it is released. Now as the CO2 fixing rate increases with concentration and temperature which is a benefit; but from a life nutrition point of view it is debatable. As CO2 increases, energy adsorption will increase and temperatures will rise. A slightly higher temperature will be a benefit from a Le Chatilier point of view, this is of mild benefit. From a kinetic perspective the increased temperature will significantly increase the rate of organic decomposition. So do we want to bet the enhanced CO2 uptake by biology will overcome decomposition?

Yes these things do change climate ... eg it's cooler at night usually. I also don't deny adsorption of infra red energy by carbon dioxide ... it's one the experiments that I did at university. Water vapour is also a strong absorber of infra red, so as things warm there will be more moisture in the air. Something to think about. Perhaps more worryingly is the acidification of the oceans by carbon dioxide. The interaction of carbon dioxide, calcium carbonate and water is interesting and complicated.

This reminds of a time in the eighties at a moderately swank hotel in Swaziland. My Dad and I got talking to a waiter serving drinks. His wish was to get into apartheid South Africa. When asked why, his answer was at least the South Africans would pay him. Foreign labour particularly in the mines did cause some strife.

Lets just carry on with Pruitt ... we have Trump appointing Pruitt to the EPA ... a climate warming denier. He has been put in charge of undoing much of the work the EPA has been doing. He meets with twelve Vatican people for a dinner at 240 $ a head ... (the Italy trip came to 120 000 $). One of the twelve was a climate warming denier, George Pell. This was arranged, apparently, by an activist and friend of Pruitt. Really? is this what the US voted for? Is this what you and your community voted for? Trump has appointed someone who is not a champion for the environment, seems to go against what is accepted science, makes really poor personal choices when it comes to handling taxpayers money. Trump appears not to be able to distinguish between his agenda and reality. Here is an interesting perspective on green technology*... it's short. Meanwhile the US will try and invest in coal! * trigger warning - not a Rupert Murdoch news agency.

Here you are switching gears Joseph. You asked whether:: Charter? Perhaps not. But I think it would make sense to be part of the plan. But the US is taking an isolationist role. Take a look at the uncertainty around tariffs on aluminium and steel with its partners - never mind the opposition - China. The rhetoric around securing borders was and continues to be based of fear mongering and lies in general. This was design to appeal to isolationists. While helping out the less fortunate is part of the Christian ideology. Have we missed the meaning of the Good Samaritan parable? While I don't recommend this as a simple dogma, it does make sense. Ultimately we'll find a large disparity is unsustainable. If the US truly cannot accommodate more refugees, then fair enough, tighten up the borders. but show the working. Trump thinks you can afford the wall, but not refugees. If I were a US citizen I would be asking for that particular analysis. But no we get fear mongering.

Mine is based on science, reason and careful personal observation. What is everybody else's based on? Or more to the point what is yours based on?

Yes I agree the news is partisan. But if a small proportion of the negative press about Trump is true then I can't see how we don't have severe doubts about Trump as President. Just bear in mind regardless of how useful this bit of technology might have been, this is just part of a systematic dismantling of environmental protection in the US. Pruitt is a case in point.

Really? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44067797

No not just this. Books on science in general, personal introspection and actually thinking about the subject lead me to this conclusion. Again a simple assertion with little science.

And yet clocks do not tick at the same rate at the top of your head and at your feet. Interesting fun fact. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm

Be careful with the word "should", Joseph. Assuming the universe is not set in concrete and cause and effect hold sway: then every action will have a consequence, and of course there will likely be unintended consequences. So any model we choose will be wrong, but hopefully some will be useful. So if we act solely in our immediate self interest (as the US as appeared to have done by electing Trump) this will have consequences. If we take a longer term look to our self interest, eg having steady partners (military and trade) on our ever increasingly global borders, then I don't see isolationism being a benefit to any nation. Specifically a charter? I don't know. Left to the individual? To be effective there is likely an effective size for an organization to accomplish this supposed altruism. That would likely depend on luck as much as anything. I suspect you are asking "should" all individuals be required to contribute to the nation's security? I'll let you answer that.

You continue to propagate your fallacy. What lots of people think and how they bought into a position is not evidence for that position.

Please read the whole link I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true. You are also conflating fallacies. What people believed over history is irrelevant. People [some] still believe the Earth is flat, so what? Please read what I wrote not what you wrote. The few tens of milliseconds is for high speed activities like catching a ball. For the rest "now" consists of an amalgam of the last two to three seconds. Fun fact.

Argumentum ad populum and Argument from incredulity OK so we are never in the "now". This to me suggests "now" is an illusion. Eckhart Tolle's The Power of the Very, Very Recent Past?

I am always amazed by how much we can deduce about God.