Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
    Well, everybody here on HCPP took high school chemistry. We know the difference between CO and CO2, or between O2 and O3. We don't need you to give us lessons that dumb it down and treat us like 8th graders; we're educated adults. If you haven't noticed from the level of political discourse and musical talent here, people on HCPP are generally above par in many respects. I'm accustomed to posters treating each other like that, so when I read your post, it came across to me like you thought you had some special knowledge that the rest of us didn't know; since you called a difference between chemicals a 'simple variable,' it sounded to me like you weren't up to speed on chemistry.

    I have come to this forum for years because so many smart people have been here; I imagine that all being musicians correlates with the smarts. We've had scientists, religious history experts, and still have a number of econ experts; I've learned when it's my place to ask questions (like on matters of econ) and when it's time to speak with some expertise (like on biological evolution). But there's no need to automatically treat each other like dumb 'lay people.' Everyone's pretty smart. We know, for example, that hydrogen + oxygen will give you water.

    I don't know why you even brought that bit about O2 and O3 to the discussion, and it seems like your post disappeared so I can't go back and see why at this point.
    I honestly don't think musicians are smarter than other people. I DO think learning to read music causes one to approach the world and problems from a different perspective. It's why it was so important for me to get my children into having to actually read dots on lines (i.e. sheet music).

    I really like Freerepublic.com for the same reason you like this site. I actually use both sites to throw the political opinions of each over to the other to see what response I get.

    I confess that I no longer remember why I brought the whole oxygen thing into it. I've been on four sites today talking about all sorts of stuff and that one is gone.

    But the reason I do things like that is to get the topic back to basics. I used to be in sales and it was a well known axiom that no matter how long you'd been selling, you had to, from time to time, get rid of the mental junk you'd picked up and get back to basics. I have to do it in my current field as well.

    In project meetings we will sometimes get really twisted around in the weeds and I have to ask, "let's regroup and get back to why we are doing this project in the first place. It adds clarity.

    My goal is to always get to the core issues to bring clarity.

    And here is a little confession: Though my wife and I NEVER fight, one of my discussion styles is that when we are discussing a thing, I tend to discuss the holistic issue the thing represents, rather than the thing itself. My reasoning is simple. Once the holistic issue is clarified, the correct decision (usually a lot of micro-decisions) to make about "the thing" is self evident.

    Sorry about the way I came across in my post. I knew you knew what I was probably saying but I felt there was a lot of incorrect inferences going on. For fun, I found this where they are really getting into it and ignoring the "core thing": People love to argue, and in this one, every one of them is technically correct in their way.

    https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydr...ff-when-burned
    All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by RobRoy View Post


      Oh, and my use of the word "oxygen" in my post was what a lay person understands to mean the oxygen we breathe (O2). You don't need to get all technical on a musician's site. And that is why I avoided, quite intentionally, any discussion of free radicals.
      We don't breathe 'oxygen'.
      Our atmosphere is commonly referred to as 'air'.
      We breathe air.
      By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
      Last edited by RogueGnome; 09-19-2017, 10:36 AM.
      To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by RogueGnome View Post
        We don't breathe 'oxygen'.
        Our atmosphere is commonly referred to as 'air'.
        We breathe air.
        By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
        I agree. Except to get further anal about it, we DO breathe oxygen. We just breathe a lot of other stuff with it. People tend to call out the "oxygen" part because of its obvious importance to our survival.

        I used to scuba dive. Ever hear of oxygen poisoning? I think the government should start regulating activity that emits oxygen! You should only be allowed to plant so many trees.
        Last edited by RobRoy; 09-19-2017, 10:44 AM.
        All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
          I honestly don't think musicians are smarter than other people. I DO think learning to read music causes one to approach the world and problems from a different perspective. It's why it was so important for me to get my children into having to actually read dots on lines (i.e. sheet music).

          I really like Freerepublic.com for the same reason you like this site. I actually use both sites to throw the political opinions of each over to the other to see what response I get.

          I confess that I no longer remember why I brought the whole oxygen thing into it. I've been on four sites today talking about all sorts of stuff and that one is gone.

          But the reason I do things like that is to get the topic back to basics. I used to be in sales and it was a well known axiom that no matter how long you'd been selling, you had to, from time to time, get rid of the mental junk you'd picked up and get back to basics. I have to do it in my current field as well.

          In project meetings we will sometimes get really twisted around in the weeds and I have to ask, "let's regroup and get back to why we are doing this project in the first place. It adds clarity.

          My goal is to always get to the core issues to bring clarity.

          And here is a little confession: Though my wife and I NEVER fight, one of my discussion styles is that when we are discussing a thing, I tend to discuss the holistic issue the thing represents, rather than the thing itself. My reasoning is simple. Once the holistic issue is clarified, the correct decision (usually a lot of micro-decisions) to make about "the thing" is self evident.

          Sorry about the way I came across in my post. I knew you knew what I was probably saying but I felt there was a lot of incorrect inferences going on. For fun, I found this where they are really getting into it and ignoring the "core thing": People love to argue, and in this one, every one of them is technically correct in their way.

          https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydr...ff-when-burned
          Well, whatevs. Whenever I compare our discussions here to comment threads on Facebook or Fox News or wherever, I feel like, 'dang, HCPP has some smart folks. That business about math correlating with music might explain it, or maybe it's the fact that harmony central musicians are obsessive hobbyists.'

          Anyway, the reason why I keep dinging you on the greenhouse effect is I recall that you and I had a discussion before in which you used an argument from incredulity to say that CO2 did not make up a large enough fraction of the atmosphere to justify the greenhouse effect's contribution to global warming claimed by climate scientists. So then when I saw you say something that was obvious to anyone who took a high school chem class, and you said it as though you were teaching it to us, I wanted to be like, 'No sh*t sherlock. That's obvious. You're making yourself sound silly. If you want to speak about global warming with any expertise, and you want to know the difference between super-ultra-obvious chemistry and less intuitive chemistry, and you want to learn more about bond energy, CO2, and the greenhouse effect so that you can try to disprove climatologists about climate change, then go take some classes.'
          My band!:
          www.steelphantoms.com/
          my stage stuff:
          fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
            Well, whatevs. Whenever I compare our discussions here to comment threads on Facebook or Fox News or wherever, I feel like, 'dang, HCPP has some smart folks. That business about math correlating with music might explain it, or maybe it's the fact that harmony central musicians are obsessive hobbyists.'
            Facebook is lunacy. It is like this site was a long time ago. The amount of sheer ignorance - and arrogant ignorance - going on there from BOTH sides is kinda comical. But they'll learn. For a lot of them this is a new concept and they are finding out they "don't know what they don't know". We're just ahead of that particular curve.
            Last edited by RobRoy; 09-19-2017, 11:07 AM.
            All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

              Anyway, the reason why I keep dinging you on the greenhouse effect is I recall that you and I had a discussion before in which you used an argument from incredulity to say that CO2 did not make up a large enough fraction of the atmosphere to justify the greenhouse effect's contribution to global warming claimed by climate scientists.
              It's not that I don't think that it's too small. I never did. Rather, I "buy into" what is being articulated here:

              https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...years-at-most/
              All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                It's not that I don't think that it's too small. I never did. Rather, I "buy into" what is being articulated here:

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...years-at-most/
                So did you read the paper that the article is about? https://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/201...-1213-2012.pdf The study regards deglaciation 19,000 to 11,000 years ago. It studies CO2 levels rising shortly after deglaciation/sea level rise thousands of years ago. The data we see with our present-day situation shows CO2 levels rising first, followed by temperatures rising.


                One of the paper's authors says in the article:

                What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen adding “That is why it is even more important that we have a good grip on which processes caused the climate of the past to change, because the same processes may operate in addition to the anthropogenic changes we see today. In this way the climate of the past helps us to understand how the various parts of the climate systems interact and what we can expect in the future.

                So, yeah, if you agree that anthropogenic changes to our environment and climate have occurred over the last 150 years, then you and I are on the same page.
                Last edited by arcadesonfire; 09-19-2017, 12:07 PM.
                My band!:
                www.steelphantoms.com/
                my stage stuff:
                fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                  It's not that I don't think that it's too small. I never did. Rather, I "buy into" what is being articulated here:

                  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...years-at-most/

                  I find it 'interesting' that you believe Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman, who did not finish his electrical engineering degree, and professes no formal training in climate science, and who's 'published' output is his own blog, and you do not believe NASA, NOAA, and other peer-reviewed, trained climate scientists on this subject.

                  That would be like believing Breitbart and Free Republic over CNN and The New York Times.

                  Yeah, probably exactly like that.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                    So did you read the paper that article is about? https://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/201...-1213-2012.pdf The study regards deglaciation 19,000 to 11,000 years ago. It studies CO2 levels rising shortly after deglaciation/sea level rise thousands of years ago. The data we see with our present-day situation shows CO2 levels rising first, followed by temperatures rising.


                    One of the paper's authors says in the article:

                    What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen adding “That is why it is even more important that we have a good grip on which processes caused the climate of the past to change, because the same processes may operate in addition to the anthropogenic changes we see today. In this way the climate of the past helps us to understand how the various parts of the climate systems interact and what we can expect in the future.

                    So, yeah, if you agree that anthropogenic changes to our environment and climate have occurred over the last 150 years, then you and I are on the same page.
                    Yes. I also read the comments afterward (and there are a LOT of them). Many of them attack the bolded for what it is. A Big Fat Claim.

                    The reason I liked the article and the information it is about is that it is kind of like showing sausage being made. i.e. it is an ugly process. Except making sausage is not a process of discovery. It is a process of creation.

                    What is demonstrated here is just how much is being debated that most people don't have a clue about and, truth be told, about all the experts DO have is "a clue".

                    You don't upend free cultures for that. You keep studying until you can be a bit more sure.
                    Last edited by RobRoy; 09-19-2017, 12:10 PM.
                    All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by wasgtrjones View Post


                      I find it 'interesting' that you believe Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman, who did not finish his electrical engineering degree, and professes no formal training in climate science, and who's 'published' output is his own blog, and you do not believe NASA, NOAA, and other peer-reviewed, trained climate scientists on this subject.

                      That would be like believing Breitbart and Free Republic over CNN and The New York Times.

                      Yeah, probably exactly like that.
                      That is ad-hominem. Credentials (and he has them) are the price of admission. They are what cause me to read his stuff. I then compare it to the writing of those that disagree. The truth percolates to the top.

                      Oh, and whichever side you're on, if you create a bunch of models/predictions and they are all wildly off as time progresses, I may just take what you say with a grain of salt. And you gotta admit it is comical that one side had to come up with a "pause".

                      And watts is only a small part of what I read from that side. You probably were not here when I created a thread on this issue that went well over 5,000 posts. I don't really argue this much any more since the risk of our country wasting a major part of its wealth on preventing the sky from falling. We can let europe do that.
                      All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                        I agree. Except to get further anal about it, we DO breathe oxygen. We just breathe a lot of other stuff with it. People tend to call out the "oxygen" part because of its obvious importance to our survival.

                        I used to scuba dive. Ever hear of oxygen poisoning? I think the government should start regulating activity that emits oxygen! You should only be allowed to plant so many trees.
                        Not anal, IMHO. We breathe air, with a lot of other stuff with it- including oxygen. Our air is over 80% nitrogen, yet you didn't say we breathe nitrogen.
                        Rob, If you even got as far as an open water dive certification, then you know that your scuba tank is filled with air; not oxygen.
                        That's why/how people get bent (DCS; decompression sickness).
                        Their blood absorbs inert gas bubbles; primarily nitrogen from an uncontrolled or rapid ascent and/or deep dives or long dives at depth.
                        To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                          That is ad-hominem. Credentials (and he has them) are the price of admission. They are what cause me to read his stuff.
                          Which credentials of his were the ones that caused you to read his stuff? He has no credentials. He reads the weather for a 5,000 watt radio station in Chico, CA. (I went to college in Chico, BTW)



                          I then compare it to the writing of those that disagree. The truth percolates to the top.
                          DO you actually read the writings of those that disagree? Or just read the criticisms of them on right-wing/climate-denier websites?
                          Last edited by guido61; 09-19-2017, 12:41 PM.
                          ______________

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                            Yes. I also read the comments afterward (and there are a LOT of them). Many of them attack the bolded for what it is. A Big Fat Claim.

                            The reason I liked the article and the information it is about is that it is kind of like showing sausage being made. i.e. it is an ugly process. Except making sausage is not a process of discovery. It is a process of creation.

                            What is demonstrated here is just how much is being debated that most people don't have a clue about and, truth be told, about all the experts DO have is "a clue".

                            You don't upend free cultures for that. You keep studying until you can be a bit more sure.
                            So I see dissonance when you trust the scientific claims throughout that whole paper but then you reject the claim (rapid CO2 rise over last 150 years and anthropogenic changes) that has been examined and supported in tons of papers. The bolded part was not a 'big fat claim.' It has been studied and supported scientifically to an even greater degree than all the stuff in this paper that you do accept.

                            So it seems to me that you accept this particular paper's findings because you can try to use it to say that Al Gore and most climate scientists have things backwards. But even in order to do that, you accept the viability of the scientific methods and institutions that determined the theory of anthropogenic climate change. And then you turn around and deny their legitimacy in your final conclusion about climate change. That seems inconsistent to me.
                            Last edited by arcadesonfire; 09-19-2017, 12:45 PM.
                            My band!:
                            www.steelphantoms.com/
                            my stage stuff:
                            fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                              So I see dissonance when you trust the scientific claims throughout that whole paper but then you reject the claim (rapid CO2 rise over last 150 years and anthropogenic changes) that has been examined and supported in tons of papers. The bolded part was not a 'big fat claim.' It has been studied and supported scientifically to an even greater degree than all the stuff in this paper that you do accept.

                              So it seems to me that you accept this particular paper's findings because you can try to use it to say that Al Gore and most climate scientists have things backwards. But even in order to do that, you accept the viability of the scientific methods and institutions that determined the theory of anthropogenic climate change. That seems inconsistent to me.

                              Yes, but he read the COMMENTS section. And there were a LOT of them.

                              Who needs science when you have a LOT of COMMENTS on a web site?
                              ______________

                              Comment


                              • arcadesonfire
                                arcadesonfire commented
                                Editing a comment
                                And here I thought RR and I had agreed comment threads tend to have lots of folks who aren't so smart or edumacated.

                            • #75
                              Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                              That is ad-hominem. Credentials (and he has them) are the price of admission. They are what cause me to read his stuff. I then compare it to the writing of those that disagree. The truth percolates to the top.

                              Oh, and whichever side you're on, if you create a bunch of models/predictions and they are all wildly off as time progresses, I may just take what you say with a grain of salt. And you gotta admit it is comical that one side had to come up with a "pause".

                              And watts is only a small part of what I read from that side. You probably were not here when I created a thread on this issue that went well over 5,000 posts. I don't really argue this much any more since the risk of our country wasting a major part of its wealth on preventing the sky from falling. We can let europe do that.


                              It is not ad-hominem. I am not attacking the man, as I do not know him. I am questioning his credentials, which apply to his ability to understand (and therefore explain) the topic. I cannot see how a TV Weatherman has better credentials than the climate scientists at NASA or NOAA.

                              Comment













                              Working...
                              X