Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not seen any research that takes this into account,
Are you sure that they don't? I get this with research a lot... people say we are missing some factor, but often don't realize that we over-accounted for that factor to have ruled it out as much as possible.
Unless you have a model that shows why this is a factor, there's nothing to account for.
I will have to look around. I don't have a model obviously. This is just my gut feeling that I have. venus and Mars both used to have atmospheres I believe and they were burned away by the Sun. Neither had life that we know of. While Venus is pretty close to the Sun, Mars isn't that close. While I have not read anything that seems to take this into account, I certainly do not have time to read 24 hours a day lol. So sure I could have missed it.
After reading the article you quoted, our average temperature has only slightly gone up over the last century.
From article: "Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit)."
While that is a change, it is very little. -
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
venus and Mars both used to have atmospheres I believe and they were burned away by the Sun.
Mars had something but no magnetism so yes, blown away. Venus was not burned away, but has so much atmosphere that it shows how easily greenhouse gases can become the only significant factor. Venus is "all atmosphere."
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
Neither had life that we know of.
Mars is not believed to have been viable for life, for the very reason that it had no sun protection even when it had an atmosphere.
But Venus there is heavy suspicion of life because it shows what is expected from runaway greenhouse effect.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
From article: "Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit)."
While that is a change, it is very little.That's actually huge. I'm not sure how you get "very little" from that. It's the largest and more unprecendented change since earth's environment stabilized. I think you are looking at climate like weather, and it's nothing like that. In climate, .1F is significant, 1.1F is staggering, 2F is like.... potentially civilization ending.
1.1F is so much it can disrupt life as we know it, and very, very obviously is already doing so.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
While I have not read anything that seems to take this into account, I certainly do not have time to read 24 hours a day lol. So sure I could have missed it.
I think the problem is.... you are assuming that the vast body of research DIDN'T take into account the obvious, and that something non-obvious is a huge factor making all research wrong because you didn't have time to look into it. That's a really bad approach. Imagine in the storage world saying.... "Well, all research says RAID 5 is dangerous, and I don't have time to look into it, so I'll assume all research is wrong because I imagine some factor that has been otherwise ruled out wasn't really considered and that it's significant without checking" and then base decision making on that.
Being skeptical is great, but there's a big gap between skepticism and not believing research based on a specific essentially made up hunch, without any checks that it's common knowledge and already addressed. Nothing wrong with bucking convention, but be wary of discounting all human knowledge and research because you just guess that they missed something that should have been obvious.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jmoore It seems that people are definitely taking this into account in the studies.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
After reading that article, I agree they are taking it into account more than I thought. However it does seem to me that they are also saying the sun's effect is more than minor.
I'm not saying humans have no effect, its just my feeling that it is less than most people think. I could certainly be wrong but I am looking for more information either way. I enjoy reading about it and writing about this topic too. Here are a couple articles I wrote about the Sun's radiation and How the Sun Works. It is basic stuff but was accepted as some alternate course material here for beginning classes. Later I added some conceptual problems with a touch of math in it for exercises.
So like I said I'm definitely no authority but I have read a lot. I will read these again when I get home.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
After reading that article, I agree they are taking it into account more than I thought. However it does seem to me that they are also saying the sun's effect is more than minor.
No, you are attempting to find an excuse where there isn't one. There are extremely clear, it's SO minor. Just look at the graph. The sun has a direct impact on a tiny, regular variation, but is and cannot be in any way related, in fact it is backwards, from the big changes.
You need to produce serious evidence that contradicts all scientific research or accept that all the research and researchers agree wholeheartedly.... the sun is unrelated to current warming, even to the point of being inverse at this point!
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm not saying humans have no effect, its just my feeling that it is less than most people think. I could certainly be wrong but I am looking for more information either way.
So two huge factors here....
- This is the same "you feel it is wrong" like you had about the sun. But that was backwards. So while it's a small case, we've just established that your "feel it is wrong" was just wrong about the piece that was your foundation of the next piece, so it's a pretty safe bet that since you built the second piece on the first mistake, that the second one is a mistake two.
- You say you are looking for more evidence, but you are convinced that something crazy and counter-intuitive is true without doing even 30 seconds of research that it took to come up with solid research on it. Like I said, it's fine to be skeptical, but that's not what you are doing. You are taking the position that a hunch based on already determined mistakes it true, and assuming all the evidence to the contrary is wrong, but not doing any research. In fact, you are avoiding the research. Just casually news or conversation brings up more than necessary to be "more than enough" to rule out your theories.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
I enjoy reading about it and writing about this topic too. Here are a couple articles I wrote about the Sun's radiation and How the Sun Works. It is basic stuff but was accepted as some alternate course material here for beginning classes. Later I added some conceptual problems with a touch of math in it for exercises.
But wait, didn't we just determine that you'd not looked into this at all yet and hadn't done even cursory research on the subject? Something is off here. You are writing articles and saying it's like a hobby of yours, but you aren't aware of the body of evidence and research that lay people know through casual interactions and is expected as common knowledge.
It's expected that every normal adult knows that humans are the primary cause of climate change and that the sun has little real impact on this, and that there is a body of evidence that is readily available and peer reviewed. That's the common knowledge. Can that be disputed? Of course. But can it be disputed before being known? No. To reasonably dispute the "body of human knowledge", you have to first be aware of the corpus of knowledge and then have knowledge above and beyond that to dispute it. You can't dispute it without being aware of what it even is.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
How the Sun Works
The sun isn't actually our only source of heat. It's by far the largest source, but rogue planets generate their own heat all on their own, as well, as well as getting heat from gravitational interactions with other bodies, radiation from other planets, universal background radiation and so forth. The planet does freeze without the sun, but it doesn't approach 0K without it, just very, very cold.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sun's radiation
I know waves are hard to define, but I'd be careful using a definition that requires a medium. Light waves do not use a medium for travel, photons pass through the lack of medium. The requirement for light to have a medium is æther theory, the ancient Greek belief that there was no empty space, but rather an undetectable medium called æther through which things traveled. This is considered non-scientific and just a religious belief of the ancient Greeks, nothing to be taken seriously.
Light is actually photon based, not wave based. Waves describe a behavious of photos, but it's not truly a wave. Light can be detected on a unit basis, photon by photon. It is digital, whereas a wave is continuous or analogue. What makes physics interesting is the wave-like behaviour that photons generally posses, but it's a behaviour without a medium.
-
@jmoore think of it this way....
Flat earthers don't have any reason to believe that the earth is flat, as there is literally no indicators of this, none (because it isn't.) Yet they doubt the evidence that the earth is round - obviously because they've not looked into it since the slightest checking tells you that it is, in fact, round. It's trivial to observe this even with the human eye, at sea level (by the water.)
It's fine to challenge the concept that the earth is round, we need people to question assumptions. But to do so effectively, one would have to look at the evidence presented of it being round (like that we can fly around it, we can see it from space, we can see ships go over the horizon, and you can see the curve from a tall building, and so forth) and then determine how that evidence could be wrong.
That's where we are here. You think that there is going to be evidence that the sun affects the earth's climate (rather than its weather) but do so without evidence (because it doesn't, so there isn't really any.) And you then believe that all of the evidence that we have that humans are changes the climate are wrong. But you aren't looking into that evidence and then disputing it, you are just saying you think it must be wrong without any basis for that.
It's almost exactly the flat earth problem. There's no evidence to support your theory, and mountains of evidence that the obvious, common sense factors are, in reality, the actual factors. Without producing evidence to the one effect (because none exists) and by simply not looking at all the existing evidence (which is overwhelming) you are then presenting a belief that the things you've not researched, even to the expected "all members of society are supposed to know this to a certain level", are wrong. That's a pretty dramatic stance to take, given the total lack of supporting evidence, observation, or common sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
but not doing any research.
I never said I did not do any research. I did say I have read a lot about this over the years. I have seen both sides of opinions and many of each.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
crazy and counter-intuitive is true without doing even 30 seconds of research that it took to come up with solid research on it
Well this is the hard part. Astrophysicists don't even know what causes the Sun's magnetism for sure or how its internals work, or the effect dust clouds have, or how solar winds affect our atmosphere, or the effect of the Sun's rotation on everything around it. There are way too many variables to say for sure one way or the other.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
But wait, didn't we just determine that you'd not looked into this at all yet and hadn't done even cursory research on the subject? Something is off here.
You determined this yes. It never came from me. I am just modest in what I say about myself. I have read and studied, astronomy, calculus physics 1 and 2, modern physics, computational physics, and astrophysics. I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot. the more I study the less I realize I know about anything.
I also never said I was not aware of research that has been put out. I have read about this for a long time and I also talk to friends that are professors and a couple others that work in physics fields. Is anyone truly qualified to give an opinion on any of this? I am not sure. One thing I have gleaned from my many discussions of this and other topics is that media that have strong opinions on things usually have financial reasons behind it because not enough data has been collected for a long enough period of time. I tend to believe that. It makes no sense to be as absolutely sure of anything as we are with as little as we know about anything in our galaxy. I am just saying its my opinion that it isn't entirely accurate and there are probably financial reason behind so many people pushing the same thing. Money is about the only thing that truly unites people unfortunately.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
The sun isn't actually our only source of heat.
You are right, it is not. I need to correct that. That was a mental lapse when I wrote that. It is at least 99% of our heat though. -
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
I know waves are hard to define, but I'd be careful using a definition that requires a medium.
Well some types of energy do require a medium though. This is why there is no sound in space, because there is no medium compatible for sound waves to travel through. I understand what your saying though. The early philosophers were quite off in their ideas on certain things for sure and aether theory is certainly one of them. They were reaching for something but it was just too early so they made up this artificial construct to help describe their world.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Light is actually photon based, not wave based.
I will have to partly disagree with you here. Light is an example of both. Light moves as a wave but when it is absorbed by something it becomes a photon. The wave kind of collapses into its photon counterpart.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Light is actually photon based, not wave based.
I will have to partly disagree with you here. Light is an example of both. Light moves as a wave but when it is absorbed by something it becomes a photon. The wave kind of collapses into its photon counterpart.
I mean like... that's not how the science of it works.
-
@jmoore said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well some types of energy do require a medium though.
Absolutely, but it's not a requirement of a wave and light is the perfect example, which is the one that you were describing, that has no medium. That something can have a medium isn't the same as having the requirement of the medium be part of the definition.
