:ok:

My husband, a meteorologist at the NWS, once explained me. The butterfly effect is no real effect — Cornwell1

Thanks for chiming in. I was a meteorologist for the USAF many years ago so its good to hear another give their opinions on TPF.

What I'm really concerned about is if climate action has a deadline to meet and whether we're already past that date with destiny — Agent Smith

I'd guess, yes. But Cornwell1's husband is more reliable.

Sorry for asking, but are you the "mountaineer"?

The butterfly effect is just a fable. A butterfly's flap doesn't
cause a hurricane on the other side of the Earth. Only global variation of the variables can lead to significant changes, if no hidden potential energy sources like a dam with water behind it, can be unleashed.

You can use unpredictability as an excuse for climate change denial. "How can we know?" We can.

What I'm really concerned about is if climate action has a deadline to meet and whether we're already past that date with destiny. — Agent Smith

"It's a sad sad situation, and it's getting more and more absurd", so my husband sings frequently. Already some time ago the deadline should have been met. Corona made the exhaust drop, but he fears that when all is normalized thing get worse than they already were. "Nouvaux elan"... Why can't just hold back for a while, think things over, and restart fresh and clean?

Sorry for asking, but are you the "mountaineer"? — Cornwell1

Climber :cool:

Cornwell1's husband is more reliable. — jgill

:smile:

We haven't made as much progress as we thought in the ethics department have we? Our desire to act (only) on the matter of global warming is driven by economic worries and not in any way due to concerns for the environment. As I thought and this seems to be true, translate global warming into monetary losses and we'll waste no time doing something about it. Why didn't someone think of this from before? Damn!

What I'm really concerned about is if climate action has a deadline to meet and whether we're already past that date with destiny. — Agent Smith

Even if that is so, it is still necessary to discuss how humanity will deal with it. Many civilizations have fallen because the people exhausted their resources, or weather conditions lead to famine, or disease forced them to move. Those people did not have the science to understand their situation. If they were living in large civilizations, they did not have the communication systems we have, so they had no chance of collaborating on what was happening and what to do. Today we have science and amazing communication systems and we like to think we have democracy, but obviously, we do not have a good understanding of how to use all this.

With regard to the thesis set out in the opening post, ten pages ago, ideally, I think it's our responsibility to understand what's true, and act morally with regard to what's true....not necessarily 'because God says so' but because there is an objective reality that's a web of cause and effect relations, and acting on valid knowledge within a causal reality is necessary to valid outcomes. For instance, imagine a criminal in court - who tells lies. If those lies are believed; the court may act morally, but the verdict will not be just. Valid knowledge of reality is necessary to morally valid outcomes; but also functionally valid outcomes. Imagine a technology based on principles that are wrong to reality. It won't work.

It's the same with the world. Nature is one big machine, and we're a faulty cog insofar as we are wrong, causing a system wide dysfunction. It's scientifically possible to solve the climate and ecological crisis. The earth is a ball of molten rock containing an effectively limitless amount of energy, we could harness to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, and so balance human welfare and environmental sustainability very much in our favour. Nasa proved this in 1982 - but somehow 'The Magma Enenergy Project' was quietly discontinued, and 40 years later, global population and fossil fuel use have doubled, and Trump Digs Coal!

If you see things in terms of chaos and order you end up with totalitarian government, but if you see things in terms of knowing what's true and doing what's right, you get morally valid outcomes that work! — karl stone

Very nicely worded. Not many people know what science has to do with morals and democracy but you do. In my eyes that makes you are a very valuable person.

I used the word chaos because around the world weather is being very chaotic! This year snow in unusual places has made the news. Where I am, January was so warm, flowers began blooming, and now things have taken a turn for the cold and we are reopening emergency shelters for the homeless.
A gal I know in Arkansas tells me it is over 70 degrees one day and freezing the next. Her weather has really been chaotic and that is the kind of thing that causes tornados. It is hard for people to wrap their heads around global warming when they are faced with snow blizzards or snow in unusual places, so I think we need a better understanding of our actions throwing nature into a state of chaos. And from there, your words are exactly right! Lying to the jury will not lead to justice.

It kind of reminds me of Egypt and thinking it is the pharaoh's job to prevent chaos from destroying the harmony with nature that is essential to staying out of trouble.

↪Cornwell1We haven't made as much progress as we thought in the ethics department have we? Our desire to act (only) on the matter of global warming is driven by economic worries and not in any way due to concerns for the environment. As I thought and this seems to be true, translate global warming into monetary losses and we'll waste no time doing something about it. Why didn't someone think of this from before? Damn! — Agent Smith

Absolutely and I am having a hard time not understanding our delay in doing that. It seems obvious to me when a tornado, hurricane, flood, fire does a lot of damage, the cost of that should get our attention. Maybe better news reporting would help us connect the dots and become aware of the cost of ignoring the problem?

One sign

It kind of reminds me of Egypt and thinking it is the pharaoh's job to prevent chaos from destroying the harmony with nature that is essential to staying out of trouble. — Athena

I'm not sure I should be pharoah; cultural appropriation and whatnot! I'm thinking more along the lines of philosopher king of the world. But I'll settle for philosopher.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse. In my view, the chaos we see is the causal consequence of acting at odds to reality. Religious, political and economic ideological concepts do not describe reality as it really is - science does! Acting on the basis of ideological concepts we act at odds to reality, and as the disparity between our course, and 'true north' becomes ever wider, the chaos increases.

Magma energy is a viable technology. It was proven by NASA in 1982, in a series of papers entitled The Magma Energy Project. I cannot be certain the project was not developed because of the vast national and economic interests in fossil fuels, but science showed limitless clean energy is available, and it hasn't been developed. That was over 40 years ago, and in the meantime - global population and fossil fuel use have doubled.

My hope, recognising this relationship between the validity of knowledge, as a basis for human action, and the validity of the outcome - will allow us to have our cake and eat it. I'm certainly not suggesting we tear down the churches, banks and borders, to start again from scratch, making all our representations conform to strict scientific rationality. Rather, my hope is that recognising the significance of a scientific understanding of reality will create the authority to do that which is necessary to survival; namely, develop magma energy to meet all our energy needs, plus power carbon capture and storage, deslaination and irrigation, and the recycling of all waste - allowing for a prosperous sustainable future.

On point. We (seem to) have the means to mount a global movement on climate. Nevertheless things look better only by comparison; perhaps there's still a long way to go before democracy and the internet, among other things, can have the required effect.

Relative vs. Absolute. We have improved but there's still more that needs to be done.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse — karl stone

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse
— karl stone

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. It's science used as a tool, in pursuit of ideological ends, rather than developing and applying technology for reasons rational to a scientific understanding of reality. For example, Trump Digs Coal, because it creates jobs and revenues, but ignores the global threat of climate change.
Magma energy technology is possible, and could supply the world's energy needs and much much more, without greenhouse gas emissions. So it's not technology per se - it's putting national economic interest ahead of scientific truth.

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. — karl stone

That's still technology.

That's still technology. — Cornwell1

Your post is disappointing.

Yeah, well, what's more to say about it. You might consider technology an art, the material expression of knowledge, and assign high value to state of the art technology, but it is embedded in a larger reality. It's a fact that if the presence of technology increases, and knowledge grows, they will reinforce each other exponentially, a fact supported by economic growth models. You might have a clean energy source, say the Sun, fusion, or magma, like on Island (where the world's first hydropen pump station opened up), you might recycle all you use, but if technology's presence grows exponentially, no technology in the world will be sufficient to restore the disturbed balance. Only a stable presence of tech can prevent disaster. Maybe a technology that doesn't grow but changes.

Yeah, well, what's more to say about it. — Cornwell1

At least, that you understood the premise. What I write makes sense to me, but I have no idea how it's recieved by others. I don't know if I'm communicating effectively without feedback on what you think I mean. From your response:

"

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

I can deduce one of two things, either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. So I explained the premise again; that it's not technology that's the problem, it's the wrong technology that's the problem. And your reply:

That's still technology. — Cornwell1

...still doesn't tell me whether I'm communicating effectively, because I don't know if you understand, but disagree, or don't understand. That's disappointing.

Now you say:

You might consider technology an art, the material expression of knowledge, and assign high value to state of the art technology, but it is embedded in a larger reality. It's a fact that if the presence of technology increases, and knowledge grows, they will reinforce each other exponentially, a fact supported by economic growth models. You might have a clean energy source, say the Sun, fusion, or magma, like on Island (where the world's first hydropen pump station opened up), you might recycle all you use, but if technology's presence grows exponentially, no technology in the world will be sufficient to restore the disturbed balance. Only a stable presence of tech can prevent disaster. Maybe a technology that doesn't grow but changes. — Cornwell1

...and, I'll tell you straight up that I don't understand what you mean by this. I understand all the words, I can read the sentences, but the idea you are seeking to express is unclear.

For my part, I'm talking about solving climate change by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, and trying to understand why we haven't done that already.

I'm not sure I should be pharoah; cultural appropriation and whatnot! I'm thinking more along the lines of philosopher king of the world. But I'll settle for philosopher.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse. In my view, the chaos we see is the causal consequence of acting at odds to reality. Religious, political and economic ideological concepts do not describe reality as it really is - science does! Acting on the basis of ideological concepts we act at odds to reality, and as the disparity between our course, and 'true north' becomes ever wider, the chaos increases.

Magma energy is a viable technology. It was proven by NASA in 1982, in a series of papers entitled The Magma Energy Project. I cannot be certain the project was not developed because of the vast national and economic interests in fossil fuels, but science showed limitless clean energy is available, and it hasn't been developed. That was over 40 years ago, and in the meantime - global population and fossil fuel use have doubled.

My hope, recognising this relationship between the validity of knowledge, as a basis for human action, and the validity of the outcome - will allow us to have our cake and eat it. I'm certainly not suggesting we tear down the churches, banks and borders, to start again from scratch, making all our representations conform to strict scientific rationality. Rather, my hope is that recognising the significance of a scientific understanding of reality will create the authority to do that which is necessary to survival; namely, develop magma energy to meet all our energy needs, plus power carbon capture and storage, deslaination and irrigation, and the recycling of all waste - allowing for a prosperous sustainable future. — karl stone

That sounds wonderful and I watched a show last night about Bill Nye the Science Guy and his fight to get religious leaders to accept science, We all need to picket this place at the top of the tourist season
https://arkencounter.com/ . It is a theme park presenting a full-sized Noah's ark as though this were science. The people who present this park, and visit it, are the enemies of science. They are climate change deniers. Or perhaps we could find out which churches in our neighborhoods are climate deniers and ask to talk with them about global warming?

It is not strange to me that things are getting worse, because the ancients saw the end as a time when there was more life on earth than the earth could support. We are there. The mass of humanity has overwhelmed the earth's ability to support it. The world seriously needs population control and it would be nice to do this with reason, instead of killing the excess humans in our countries and making war on other countries. The refugee problem around the world is the reality of overpopulation. This terrible future was predicted and we can even use the bible to explain it. But the Bible is not the only source of information about the end of time. No matter how well we develop our technology, if the mass of humanity is not reduced the earth will not be able to sustain it.

And perhaps we should get a better grip on reality. Any species will become destructive to its environment if nature does not keep it in check. That is a problem with plants and animals that are not indigenous. Chances are good in a new environment nothing will hold it in check and it will proceed to destroy the environment. It could be ivy that spreads and kills everything it climbs on, and then deprives the animals of the food they need. It could be feral cats or feral pigs brought to the island by people. Thinking life is either good or evil sucks, because without death there can not be life. Everything needs to be held in balance. And I would bet, even non-religious people walk around with a fantasy in their heads about some kind of Garden of Eden where nothing dies.

For my part, I'm talking about solving climate change by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, and trying to understand why we haven't done that already — karl stone

You can harvest the wind too. Or solar energy. And use hydrogen to store the energy and make it portable. Only water will be waste.

Not to mention fusion energy.

Magma energy technology is possible, and could supply the world's energy needs and much much more, without greenhouse gas emissions. So it's not technology per se - it's putting national economic interest ahead of scientific truth. — karl stone

Without scientific truth, economy wouldn't have grown as devastatingly as in the modern world.

↪Athena On point. We (seem to) have the means to mount a global movement on climate. Nevertheless things look better only by comparison; perhaps there's still a long way to go before democracy and the internet, among other things, can have the required effect.

Relative vs. Absolute. We have improved but there's still more that needs to be done. — Agent Smith

I just posted there must be death for there to be life. How many people want to think about that? I suspect most non-religious people are in as much denial as religious people. I believe all of us have a hard time accepting reality. I don't know if there is a good way to deal with that? The science folks want to believe technology will save our asses as much as the religious folk wants to believe a God takes good of us. We live on a finite planet and we might need to accept its limits while working on exploring the universe and trying to find a new home.

You can harvest the wind too. Or solar energy. And use hydrogen to store the energy and make it portable. Only water will be waste. Not to mention fusion energy. — Cornwell1

Wind and solar are not reliable, nor heavy duty enough to meet our energy needs. The UK, where I live would need about 20,000 windmills just to meet demand for domestic energy. They cost about £25m each, and last about 20 years. You'd bankrupt the country building them, and wouldn't complete construction before that first ones built would need replacing at the same cost. Worse, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow, or blows too hard, you always need a full fossil fuel back up generating capacity.

Solar is no good where I live. It's not light enough long enough. It's dark at 3pm in winter.

Fusion will never work economically in earth gravity. I'll explain why if you want to know.

Magma energy is the right technology for a lot of sound reasons. It's heavy duty, clean, and essentially limitless.

Hydrogen storage is a good idea, but wind, solar, fusion, not so much.

Without scientific truth, economy wouldn't have grown as devastatingly as in the modern world. — Cornwell1

This is helpful. It shows me you haven't understood my premise. The 1634 trial of Galileo divorced science as a tool, from science as an understanding of reality. As an understanding of reality, science was suspect of heresy. As a tool, science drove the indistrial revolution - and technology was developed and applied for power and profit, not because it's true!

Fusion could already have been economically if only enough effort had been put in it. Solar cells can get more economical still. You can put them on every roof top or even in the dessert. Hydrogen can be made with the aid of that energy and truly green cars pproduced. On my birth island in Italy, magma heath is used for saunas. Who knows what will happen if you tap magma energy for the whole Earth? Nobody.

The best solution: lower the energy consumption.

That sounds wonderful and I watched a show last night about Bill Nye the Science Guy and his fight to get religious leaders to accept science, We all need to picket this place at the top of the tourist season https://arkencounter.com/ . It is a theme park presenting a full-sized Noah's ark as though this were science. The people who present this park, and visit it, are the enemies of science. They are climate change deniers. Or perhaps we could find out which churches in our neighborhoods are climate deniers and ask to talk with them about global warming? — Athena

That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know!

It is not strange to me that things are getting worse, because the ancients saw the end as a time when there was more life on earth than the earth could support. We are there. The mass of humanity has overwhelmed the earth's ability to support it. The world seriously needs population control and it would be nice to do this with reason, instead of killing the excess humans in our countries and making war on other countries. The refugee problem around the world is the reality of overpopulation. — Athena

I could not disagree more. Over-population is not a problem at all. The misapplication of technology is a problem. I live in the UK, and population density is relatively high by global statndards, but less that 2% of the UK land surface is actually built upon. Globally, it's going to be less than that. So, if humans can live sustainably - there's no lack of room. And magma energy can give us all the energy we could ever want - we could deslainate sea water, pump it inland and make the deserts bloom if we so chose. So over-population is not a real problem; it's a consequence of the scarce, expensive and polluting fossil fuel energy we continue to use. It limits what we are able to do.

Here, we're philosophers. We volunteer to have our ideas tested to destruction. Similarly, polititians and industry have a responsibility. I seek to convince you, and politics and indisutry that a prosperous sustainable future is possible - that humankind can live long term by harnessing magma energy and using that to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. If we applied those technologies, we could bring 3 or 4 billion poor people into the first world economy - sustainably. The economic opportunity is vast, and we're missing it because of an addication to fossil fuels!

That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know! — karl stone

:100:

Fusion could already have been economically if only enough effort had been put in it. — Cornwell1

No, that's not true. There have been many, very expensive attempts to develop fusion energy over the past 50 years. The latest attempt is ITER; you can read about it online. The adage regarding fusion energy is that it's been "five years away for the past 50 years." And just so, ITER is saying 'five years and we'll have cracked it' - but IMO - they never will. I do not believe fusion can work in earth gravity.

Solar cells can get more economical still. You can put them on every roof top or even in the dessert. — Cornwell1

The energy produced by wind and solar is low grade; and to transmit energy along a cable takes a lot of umph, and also degrades by about 10% per 1000 km. So you build a solar array in the desert - you can't transmit the energy anywhere, and there's not even any water to store it as hydrogen. In some circucmstances, solar is a very useful technology, but it cannot supply global energy demand. Regarding solar roofs, etc, you can look online yourself and find endless stories about people suing companies and banks over loans taken out to install solar panels that didn't deliver the promised savings.

Hydrogen can be made with the aid of that energy and truly green cars produced. On my birth island in Italy, magma heath is used for saunas. Who knows what will happen if you tap magma energy for the whole Earth? Nobody. The best solution: lower the energy consumption. — Cornwell1

If you have less energy, then everything gets more expensive. It's more expensive to do things, because everything we do requires energy. If you don;t maintain something, it falls apart. Plus, poor people breed more. Lowering energy consumption implies a spiral of poverty, driving overpopulation, driving greater poverty. That can't end well.

ITER is saying 'five years and we'll have cracked it' - but IMO - they never will. I do not believe fusion can work in earth gravity. — karl stone

Then why they still trying? You can make it happen in a bomb, so why not in a plant?

If you have less energy, then everything gets more expensive — karl stone

Or you can consume and produce less.