Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

[essentialsaltes]

What Einstein had shown was that there is no universal “now.” Whether two events are simultaneous is relative to the observer. And once simultaneity goes by the board, the very division of moments into “past,” “present,” and “future” becomes meaningless.

At worst, it becomes complicated, but certainly not meaningless.

You might as well say that the division of space into "left," "right," and "center" becomes meaningless because it differs for different observers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Time is not psychological it can be measured. Measuring time is a whole and large area of metrology.

It can't be measured unless there is an intelligent mind TO measure it. You can't get around that fact.

I'm not alone in this thinking ... time being an illusion

Time is a fundamental aspect of our lives and the universe, shaping the way we think and experience the world around us. Many scientists and philosophers argue that time is not a fixed and objective reality, but rather a subjective and human-made illusion.

According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality.

Because time doesn't exist in a physical form, many scientists have questioned whether it even exists, as well as how it passes and why.

What Einstein had shown was that there is no universal “now.” Whether two events are simultaneous is relative to the observer. And once simultaneity goes by the board, the very division of moments into “past,” “present,” and “future” becomes meaningless.

Requires an observer according to Einstein.

There are lots of theories about it. So pick your theory ... that don't mean the theory you pick is fact. Existence of time without mankind is a total unknown.

It's rather interesting and profound really. ;o)


Takes a mind. There is no way to determine time without an intelligent mind of some sort. Time exists because we do.

This is a pointless distraction from the topic of the post -- global warming.

 

[eleos1954]

At worst, it becomes complicated, but certainly not meaningless.

You might as well say that the division of space into "left," "right," and "center" becomes meaningless because it differs for different observers.

Time can not measured without the human mind.

 

[eleos1954]

This is a pointless distraction from the topic of the post -- global warming.

Warming and cooling of the earth has been going on for many years, according to science even before the onset of human life .... during earths warm periods was it CO2 causing it? What did cause it? Unknown

Mother earth is going to do whatever she wants ... now we most surely should protect our resources by limiting pollution ... and we have and are doing some things in that regard.

We have done better in emissions of gases into the air (Carbon dioxide concentrations from fossil fuel) ... that being the case .... how much time have we extended for the inhabitants of planet earth?

 

[eclipsenow]

Existence of time without mankind is a total unknown.

It's rather interesting and profound really. ;o)


Takes a mind. There is no way to determine time without an intelligent mind of some sort. Time exists because we do.

Except the 13 billion years before humanity evolved ...
You're twisting B theory to say things it doesn't really say - like if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it - does it really makes a sound?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Warming and cooling of the earth has been going on for many years, according to science even before the onset of human life .... during earths warm periods was it CO2 causing it? What did cause it? Unknown

And yet it is known, both the recent climatic change and the most of the more ancient ones.

Mother earth is going to do whatever she wants ... now we most surely should protect our resources by limiting pollution ... and we have and are doing some things in that regard.

Humanity as a whole has done *some* things to limit CO2 emissions, but frankly not that much so far.

We have done better in emissions of gases into the air (Carbon dioxide concentrations from fossil fuel) ... that being the case .... how much time have we extended for the inhabitants of planet earth?

This makes no sense. The Earth isn't going to explode or something. Even humanity will go on in some form even if all civilization collapses.

 

[SelfSim]

Time can not measured without the human mind.

I'll try and make this my last post on 'time is an illusion' .. its an important issue to be dealt with.

My own stance, (FWIW), is that I actually agree with most of the statements in the supporting references you've posted because there is clear objective evidence supporting them, yet I disagree with the inference that time therefore an illusion. This cannot be the case when we all perceive/experience time, (past, present, future), in the normal ways we do. We cannot step outside of our own minds' perceptions and claim that our minds exist in an illusionary state, when its our own minds which are also completely involved in the development of the reference standards against which Illusions are compared and then concluded (ie: physical measurements).

Either everything is an illusion, (in which case, 'illusion' loses its meaning), or its not and the concept of time is a fundamental baseline our minds require, in order to make sense of all our conscious perceptions/experiences.

 

[SelfSim]

.. if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it - does it really makes a sound?

If no-one is there, then there is no-one there to ask that question now, is there? Or have you just, conveniently, completely ignored that person the we can all see is present in that scenario, for some reason? Its a hypothetical for goodness sake! Think about it: what is doing the hypothesing there, eh?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Time can not measured without the human mind.

The same is true of the weight of the potatoes I bought at the grocery store, but this does not mean that either potatoes or mass are mind-dependent.

 

[sjastro]

The same is true of the weight of the potatoes I bought at the grocery store, but this does not mean that either potatoes or mass are mind-dependent.

Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head are clearly mind dependent.

 

[SelfSim]

The same is true of the weight of the potatoes I bought at the grocery store, but this does not mean that either potatoes or mass are mind-dependent.

What you mean by 'potatoes', 'mass', 'weight' (and everything else you use to describe what you mean there), is though .. There is no evidence supporting mind independence about any of that. (Unless you choose to simply believe in mind independence).

 

[Ophiolite]

If no-one is there, then there is no-one there to ask that question now, is there? Or have you just, conveniently, completely ignored that person the we can all see is present in that scenario, for some reason? Its a hypothetical for goodness sake! Think about it: what is doing the hypothesing there, eh?

Fine. "When a tree falls in a forest."

 

[SelfSim]

Fine. "When a tree falls in a forest."

Ok .. (understood) .. but that change makes no difference, unfortunately.

So the question becomes: 'When a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it - does it really make a sound?'

The answer is:
Of course it does .. because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falls in a forest, does what we mean by make a sound.
The mind dependence of all of that could not possibly be more obvious because its still a hypothetical tree, hypothetically falling in a hypothetical forest .. and so it hypothetically makes a sound.
Zero evidence of evidence of mind independence in any of it and plenty of evidence that the 'really' qualifier, is also mind dependent .. (ie: why wouldn't that be so?)

 

[eclipsenow]

Warming and cooling of the earth has been going on for many years, according to science even before the onset of human life .... during earths warm periods was it CO2 causing it? What did cause it? Unknown

CO2 in fact DID cause some warming in past events due to excess volcanism. But rather than go through the various epochs of climate change - like Snowball Earth when the earth nearly froze to death - but excessive volcanism and a very high build up of CO2 in the atmosphere actually helped save life on earth - through to extinction level events caused by super-hot-house climate events - let's look at something even more basic to climate science.

Namely - how important paleoclimate science is to how climate scientists even model what they think they is going to happen. The physics of CO2's heating effects are well understood and repeatable in any lab on the planet. A little maths, and you've got the basic energy imbalance and heating effect on the earth.

But there are also the oceans, water vapour, and other feedback events on earth. Once the heat is trapped, what exact effect will it have? Where will it go? How sensitive is the highly complex and interacting climate system to this extra heat?

Not only are the various climate epochs before the industrial revolution studied and largely understood by climate scientists - but they are essential for modelling the future. There's an important number they need. A number they feed into the models that model various possible futures. That number? Climate sensitivity.

Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science and describes how much Earth's surface will warm for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.[1][2] Its formal definition is: "The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing."[3]: 2223  This concept helps scientists understand the extent and magnitude of the effects of climate change....​

...​

Scientists do not know exactly how strong these climate feedbacks are. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the precise amount of warming that will result from a given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of scientific estimates, the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C (3.6 °F) will be difficult to achieve.[4]​

​

There are two main kinds of climate sensitivity: the transient climate response is the initial rise in global temperature when CO2 levels double, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity is the larger long-term temperature increase after the planet adjusts to the doubling. Climate sensitivity is estimated by several methods: looking directly at temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations since the Industrial Revolution began around the 1750s, using indirect measurements from the Earth's distant past, and simulating the climate.​

​

Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So when a climate denier sits in their armchair doing armchair denial and boldly declares "The climate's changed before, did Fred Flinstone's feet-propelled car actually emit CO2? Duh!" - and think they've made some devastating point - they've actually revealed how little they know about what climate science even is and how it works! They've also revealed what kind of social circles they hang in - as this is hymn number 1 in the climate denial handbook.

Mother earth is going to do whatever she wants ... now we most surely should protect our resources by limiting pollution ... and we have and are doing some things in that regard

No she's not as thousands of the world's best independent climate scientists and every National Academy of Science on the planet cannot find the natural forcing at work that explains the warming of the last century. Only our fossil fuel emissions explain it

We have done better in emissions of gases into the air (Carbon dioxide concentrations from fossil fuel) ... that being the case .... how much time have we extended for the inhabitants of planet earth?

Um - try rewriting that sentence as I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok .. (understood) .. but that change makes no difference, unfortunately.

So the question becomes: 'When a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it - does it really make a sound?'

The answer is:
Of course it does .. because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falls in a forest, does what we mean by make a sound.
The mind dependence of all of that could not possibly be more obvious because its still a hypothetical tree, hypothetically falling in a hypothetical forest .. and so it hypothetically makes a sound.
Zero evidence of evidence of mind independence in any of it and plenty of evidence that the 'really' qualifier, is also mind dependent .. (ie: why wouldn't that be so?)

There is a real opportunity for conscious, or unconscious equivocation in this matter. (For example, I have seen it argued that "sound" is not a systematic vibration of molecules transmitted through a medium, but rather the perception of such a vibration. ) I read your original post to be arguing something different from what is now clear was your intent. I agree with you and think it likely fruitless to debate whether this was a reading comprehension problem on my part, a writing clarity problem of yours, or disagreement over the impact of "if" rather than "when".

 

[SelfSim]

There is a real opportunity for conscious, or unconscious equivocation in this matter. (For example, I have seen it argued that "sound" is not a systematic vibration of molecules transmitted through a medium, but rather the perception of such a vibration. ) I read your original post to be arguing something different from what is now clear was your intent. I agree with you and think it likely fruitless to debate whether this was a reading comprehension problem on my part, a writing clarity problem of yours, or disagreement over the impact of "if" rather than "when".

Agreed .. (although my only original intent was to challenge the notion that time is an illusion).
If it helps, (and out of respect for your inputs), I might also add that I think the source of any surprises there, is likely to be the notion that time exists independently from our models and concepts of time, for which there is no objective evidence .. and so my arguments do not rely on that in any way.
Overall, its clearly the wrong thread to continue discussing this deep topic. Thank you for your commentary. Cheers.

 

[eleos1954]

Scientists have known since the 1960s what is causing climate warming, they predicted the troposphere was warming and lower stratosphere was cooling.
Lower stratospheric cooling was confirmed in the late 1970s by satellite measurements removing any doubt AGW is the cause.

I find the attitude of Christians disgusting who use the Bible to justify their own ignorance and bigotry against science to the point of denying any moral responsibility of leaving the earth in a state for future generations to prosper.
The attitude is similar to the religious opposition against Edward Jenner's discovery of smallpox vaccination in the late 18th century, where if you were to die from smallpox it was the will of God and science should not interfere.


The issue amongst physicists is not whether time is real but if it is fundamental or emergent.
ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π.
This equation tells us if a quantum system goes from state A to state B which is separated by an energy difference ΔE, the transition time difference is Δt.
We humans can't change the equation to say ΔE.Δt ≤ h/4π or ΔE.Δt = h/4π, the transition time is real we haven't made it up.

well ... according to science there has been warming and cooling going on for millions of years ... long before mankind ... to think mankind can control the earths weather globally on a large scale is ridiculous imo ... we can and do manipulate it some what (such as cloud seeding) but the manipulations are very minimal and very localized? Controlling the weather globally? (naw). Who's to not say we are in another "particular age" or between ages?

We do have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth and it's habitants ... such as minimizing pollution and we have taken some steps in that direction and should continue to do so ... such as better minimizing pollution from fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping gas, also known as a greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and natural processes like volcanic eruptions.

Can we exceed the C02 levels that are emitted due to that which is emitted by natural processes?

How much of C02 has been reduced by the things we have done thus far?

How much have we extended earth's time by doing what we have done so far?

Regarding time .... many scientific theories about it ... but it takes a physical mind

Time

Does time have a beginning and a end?

Any end to a process of change itself represents a process the end of which requires a further change-ending event, and so on. Hence there cannot be a beginning or end to time because there cannot be a first or last change, and time is just the measure of change. If there isn't a mind to experience change then it can't be measured because there isn't a mind to measure it. We observe time in accordance to planet earth ... outside of that represents what some of us call eternity ... science says our universe is continuously expanding (which is the same as eternity - no end) unless one accepts the theory of a closed universe.

The currently accepted view of physics is that time is as real as space. Time is sometimes thought of as 'just' the fourth dimension, but it seems as though it is somehow different from the three dimensions of space. For a start, it appears to flow in only one direction.

(The underlined above is what I call "scientific loose language") ... that is ... not actual definite knowns (facts) but possibilities ... not indisputable facts.

Just saying there are a lot of scientific ideas about it.

Time is a fundamental aspect of our lives, shaping the way we think and experience the world around us. Many scientists and philosophers argue that time is not a fixed and objective reality, but rather a subjective and human-made illusion.

I'm with the scientists that believe time is a human-made illusion ... you are not ... OK ... we pick our scientists. But don't make statements that we are science deniers .. because there are MANY scientists that believe it is a human-made illusion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

well ... according to science there has been warming and cooling going on for millions of years ... long before mankind ... to think mankind can control the earths weather globally on a large scale is ridiculous imo

Your opinion is wrong. We certainly can and h ave.

... we can and do manipulate it some what (such as cloud seeding) but the manipulations are very minimal and very localized? Controlling the weather globally? (naw). Who's to not say we are in another "particular age" or between ages?

Incredulity is not a form of evidence or argument.

We do have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth and it's habitants ... such as minimizing pollution and we have taken some steps in that direction and should continue to do so ... such as better minimizing pollution from fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping gas, also known as a greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and natural processes like volcanic eruptions.

Natural processes (especially volcanoes) are minor compared to human emissions.

Can we exceed the C02 levels that are emitted due to that which is emitted by natural processes?

We have for a long time.

How much of C02 has been reduced by the things we have done thus far?

None. Humans are still emitting net CO2. More CO2 in the atmosphere than the year before for 60+ straight years. We've barely started to put a dent in the rate of emission.

How much have we extended earth's time by doing what we have done so far?

Earth doesn't have a limited time, not even humanity. This is about maintaining the ecological conditions our society is built upon.

Regarding time ....

Not today

 

[essentialsaltes]

well ... according to science there has been warming and cooling going on for millions of years ... long before mankind ...

Right, due to forces and drivers that also act on geological or astronomical time scales. That's not what's happening now.

Can we exceed the C02 levels that are emitted due to that which is emitted by natural processes?

They are verrrry roughly the same. But whether one is bigger or smaller than the other is not as important as seeing that the combined amount is very roughly double the natural amount. With natural CO2 alone, the system had reached something close to an equilibrium, such that changes (as you note) were apparent over spans of millions of years. Now that one side of the equation has doubled, the equilibrium is shifting.

 

[SelfSim]

Many scientists and philosophers argue that time is not a fixed and objective reality, but rather a subjective and human-made illusion.
...
.. because there are MANY scientists that believe it is a human-made illusion.

Many scientists also believe in a mind independent reality .. and you'll also find that they know the belief basis there, is not an objectively justifiable one for making claims about illusions.