Climate Change

[MooNiNite]

Encourage local restaurants not to print paper receipts for every customer.

[ralis]

13 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

OK I recommend reading the book "Mind and Nature: A necessary unity" by Gregory Bateson whose dad coined the term genetics. Bateson, Gregory, was a famed anthropologist but the book is about logical paradoxes and ecology. He doesn't "solve" the problems he is addressing but the book is a real mind-bender.

 

The first 10 minutes or so of Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" is replete with doubly binding communication. Furthermore, the AGW deniers use double binding and gaslighting to the max. Now Trump has assembled a special panel of double binders/gaslighters to confuse the public even more regarding the cause of AGW.

[Stosh]

13 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Really - so we don't have the option of "understanding and NOT agreeing"? Strange. Very strange indeed.

 

Yeah it could happen ,'Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending  me the book anyway' .

So you would have to read the book , understand it ,disagree with it ,and still tell me to read the same bogus book. (The tricky part is that yet in there. I think the yet applies to the whole sentence.) 

I think its strange, very strange,  to use a straw man argument on my grammar. .

Is your point here to have conversation , or win a discussion. My grammar is about the level of importance as finding out someones father coined a phrase. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Stosh

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, Stosh said:

Yeah it could happen ,'Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending  me the book anyway' .

So you would have to read the book , understand it ,disagree with it ,and still tell me to read the same bogus book. (The tricky part is that yet in there. I think the yet applies to the whole sentence.) 

I think its strange, very strange,  to use a straw man argument on my grammar. .

Is your point here to have conversation , or win a discussion. My grammar is about the level of importance as finding out someones father coined a phrase. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah - here's the deal - if you listen to what I wrote above - and I'll clarify it for you - Gregory Bateson was struggling with some deep paradoxes in Western logic and how they apply to science and ecology as a science. So he never solved the problems he was addressing but he did "engage" with the problems and so there is a lot to be learned from his deep engagement.

 

So you can "learn" from that book. Now for someone who has taken the learning to another level - I recommend Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes - again he is both addressing deep logical paradoxes in Western science AND he is proposing a solution. His solution is beyond what Gregory Bateson proposed. So Connes gives a good summary of his approach in a free pdf. I'll get it for you and I can quote from it a bit.

 

http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/2000.pdf

 

So we can start with this one.

So he talks about what Heisenberg inadvertently discovered doing his quantum physics - about the foundation of reality!

Then he tells a joke:

A physicist walks down mainstreet looking for a laundry. He sees a shop with signs in the window: Bakery, grocery, Laundrette....so he enters. HOWEVER the shop is owned by a mathematician so when the physicist asks, "when will the washing be ready?" The mathematician replies, "We don't clean clothes, we just sell signs."

So then he explains that for Relativity (and classical physics) the geometry is defined by REAL numbers but that does not work as the foundation of reality is quantum which, as Heisenberg discovered, is noncommutative phase logic.

 

Quote

On the other hand the stretching of geometric thinking imposed by passing to noncommutative spaces forces one to rethink about most of our familiar notions.

 

Now that's a powerful statement - he's stating the mathematical logic is FORCING science to do a 180 in thinking. Thus far science has been based on commutative symmetric mathematical logic - that everyone learns with the Pythagorean Theorem, etc. (calculus), etc.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Yeah it could happen ,'Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending  me the book anyway' .

So you would have to read the book , understand it ,disagree with it ,and still tell me to read the same bogus book. (The tricky part is that yet in there. I think the yet applies to the whole sentence.) 

I think its strange, very strange,  to use a straw man argument on my grammar. .

Is your point here to have conversation , or win a discussion. My grammar is about the level of importance as finding out someones father coined a phrase. 

 

 

 

 

OK let's consider a different Connes pdf

http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/shortsurvey.pdf

 

Quote

The difficulty is not to add arbitrarily the adjective quantum to our geometric words but to develop far reaching extensions of the classical concepts, ranging from the simplest which is measurement theory, and to the most sophisticated which is geometry itself.

So he's talking about creating a completely new science by reworking our basic notions of what it means to "measure", etc.

So what emerges is that "space" or spatial measurements are malleable with time - and so time is not an outside external parameter (as has been assumed) thus far in Western science.

So he is using quantum physics based on noncommutative phase matrices - but the fundamental concept is the spectral triple - or three frequencies that create the spatial value - but the three frequencies are noncommutative (meaning if you reverse the order of the phase in the measurement as a time change then the spatial value changes).

But the key crucial factor here is that ONLY the noncommutative phase logic enables both a "continuous" infinitesimal line to coexist with a discrete real number value. Up till now science has not been able to solve this logical paradox - and that is the SAME logical paradox that Gregory Bateson was struggling to solve.

Quote

It is precisely this lack of commutativity between the line element [geometry] and the coordinates on a space that will provide the measurements of the distance.

So what is very funny about this - is that this logical paradox is found right in the Pythagorean Theorem but we, as Westerners are taught that there are "thousands" of proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem and no one should DARE question its truth. haha.

So in terms of physics - as Connes describes -

Quote

"a new perspective...which gives a clear mathematical interpretation to the renormalization procedure used by physicists to extract finite values from the divergent expressions....

So up till now physicists - and science in general - has been ignoring the divergent math as an "unobservable" and since it is "unobservable" - therefore it can be ignored - with supposedly no physical effects.

This then got passed on into economics as an "externality" of ecology and social justice.

So because we can cut off the divergence from the math equation - therefore we can just declare it unobservable and so it no longer has any physical effect.

But that was all a lie. So now the entropy of commutative symmetric logic has built up on Earth - the ecological destruction is now taking revenge - the unobservables are now returning as the "returned of the repressed."

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Stosh]

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Yeah - here's the deal - if you listen to what I wrote above - and I'll clarify it for you - Gregory Bateson was struggling with some deep paradoxes in Western logic and how they apply to science and ecology as a science. So he never solved the problems he was addressing but he did "engage" with the problems and so there is a lot to be learned from his deep engagement.

 

 

 

Here is the fact, there are no paradoxes , he didn't solve the 'problems' ,   and so he has nothing to teach.

That's like me teaching you to ride a motorcycle , when I never got it figured out! 

He failed ! he wanted to come away with some credit, wanted  to still be the 'smart guy' and have everybody follow him in his failure!  

If we copy him , in his thoughts , we are not going to be advised of where he went wrong , we will simply go over the same cliff and waste a lot of time wrestling with an idea that there are paradoxes , when what happened was he was simply what we in grade school called -wrong. 

You don't get to reinvent science , it's a defined methodology. When one takes a wrong turn , that is not 'redrawing the maps'. 

The only thing this has to do with climate change , is the guy decided to throw logic and common sense out the window, and engage in some kind of hallucination to get approval.. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Stosh

[voidisyinyang]

18 hours ago, Stosh said:

Here is the fact, there are no paradoxes , he didn't solve the 'problems' ,   and so he has nothing to teach.

That's like me teaching you to ride a motorcycle , when I never got it figured out! 

He failed ! he wanted to come away with some credit, wanted  to still be the 'smart guy' and have everybody follow him in his failure!  

If we copy him , in his thoughts , we are not going to be advised of where he went wrong , we will simply go over the same cliff and waste a lot of time wrestling with an idea that there are paradoxes , when what happened was he was simply what we in grade school called -wrong. 

You don't get to reinvent science , it's a defined methodology. When one takes a wrong turn , that is not 'redrawing the maps'. 

The only thing this has to do with climate change , is the guy decided to throw logic and common sense out the window, and engage in some kind of hallucination to get approval.. 

No he didn't "fail" - because he was not being "graded" - he was "learning" as an on-going process.

So - to keep on with this "noncommutative phase" process - it is directly connected to Gregory Bateson via Eddie Oshins.

http://ecoechoinvasives.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-physics-of-tao-eddie-oshins-cracked.html

But then I discovered he had focused on quantum psychology (pdf) by working with Gregory Bateson on the double bind! Wow! Then....I discover that Eddie Oshins was a Wing Chun instructor!!

[Stosh]

14 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

No he didn't "fail" - because he was not being "graded"

 

"So he never solved the problems he was addressing" = Failed , bombed , has nothing to offer , (whether or not you choose the world fail. )

If I was cutting a tree for firewood , and never actually got the tree to come down , people would describe that as a failure , and I wouldn't have the wood to sell or burn. 

 

According to your idea, I would still be able to make use of the wasted time, and sell all that wood still standing! 

 

In mathematical terms , when ,  1+1= ????????????,  it = failure 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Stosh

[Jonesboy]

 

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

 

Quote

 

The Iceman Cometh

 

By

Science News

1:17pm, August 11, 2005

A Web site maintained by Italy's South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology offers an illustrated look at scientific efforts to understand the life and death of Oetzi the Iceman, who perished in Europe's Alps more than 5,000 years ago only to be discovered in mummified form by hikers in 1991. Explore Oetzi's clothing, equipment, and tattoos, and take a look at efforts to preserve his body.

Go to: http://www.archaeologiemuseum.it/f01_ice_uk.html

 

 

Wow it took one google search to debunk your link!!

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

"So he never solved the problems he was addressing" = Failed , bombed , has nothing to offer , (whether or not you choose the world fail. )

If I was cutting a tree for firewood , and never actually got the tree to come down , people would describe that as a failure , and I wouldn't have the wood to sell or burn. 

 

According to your idea, I would still be able to make use of the wasted time, and sell all that wood still standing! 

 

In mathematical terms , when ,  1+1= ????????????,  it = failure 

The cutting a tree analogy - actually Gregory Bateson states the forest needs to be burned to maintain regeneration. So you got close.

 

[Jonesboy]

9 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

 

Wow it took one google search to debunk your link!!

 

 

 

Not sure at all how your link debunks anything.

[Stosh]

8 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

The cutting a tree analogy - actually Gregory Bateson states the forest needs to be burned to maintain regeneration. So you got close.

 

He is wrong again, there are plenty of forests that do not burn and yet maintain the canopy over time. Think Amazon. 

[ralis]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

He is wrong again, there are plenty of forests that do not burn and yet maintain the canopy over time. Think Amazon. 

 

The Amazon basin does have forest fires which are caused by AGW drought as well as human activity i.e, deforestation. The following paper makes it abundantly clear that your statement is flawed! Also there are many sources online that corroborate this paper. 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02771-y

 

Quote

Abstract

Tropical carbon emissions are largely derived from direct forest clearing processes. Yet, emissions from drought-induced forest fires are, usually, not included in national-level carbon emission inventories. Here we examine Brazilian Amazon drought impacts on fire incidence and associated forest fire carbon emissions over the period 2003–2015. We show that despite a 76% decline in deforestation rates over the past 13 years, fire incidence increased by 36% during the 2015 drought compared to the preceding 12 years. The 2015 drought had the largest ever ratio of active fire counts to deforestation, with active fires occurring over an area of 799,293 km². Gross emissions from forest fires (989 ± 504 Tg CO₂ year⁻¹) alone are more than half as great as those from old-growth forest deforestation during drought years. We conclude that carbon emission inventories intended for accounting and developing policies need to take account of substantial forest fire emissions not associated to the deforestation process.

 

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

The Amazon basin does have forest fires which are caused by AGW drought as well as human activity i.e, deforestation. The following paper makes it abundantly clear that your statement is flawed! Also there are many sources online that corroborate this paper. 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02771-y

 

 

I didn't say forest fires didn't ever happen in the Amazon basin, they are just not required to perpetuate that type of forest. The intended burns are done to get rid of the mature forest,not perpetuate it.

So if my statement is flawed, you didn't find it.😊

[ralis]

4 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I didn't say forest fires didn't ever happen in the Amazon basin, they are just not required to perpetuate that type of forest. The intended burns are done to get rid of the mature forest,not perpetuate it.

So if my statement is flawed, you didn't find it.😊

 

You stated "do not burn" in the context of what you wrote. Furthermore, deforestation as a result of logging and AGW which increases drought conditions and therefor forest fires in the Amazon. I have seen nothing regarding prescribed burns in the Amazon as a way to thin the forest. 

[Stosh]

18 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

You stated "do not burn" in the context of what you wrote. Furthermore, deforestation as a result of logging and AGW which increases drought conditions and therefor forest fires in the Amazon. I have seen nothing regarding prescribed burns in the Amazon as a way to thin the forest. 

The parts of the land which have not burned, in a long long time, still perpetuate without burning. They become old growth mature forest. The parts that burn repeatedly would be a different canopy and different from the old growth forest. 

Forests that require burning , are adapted for the conditions caused by fire. The old growth forests have non fire- adapted canopies un- like that which eucalypts have.

 

The very first line suggests that outside of droughts, most of the burns are intentional, but,true, you wouldn't exactly be thinning, because the trees can't handle the burns,,, not to mention the destruction of the thin clayey and organic soils  they require.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Stosh

[Stosh]

If the droughts are from gw, then gw could be considered destructive. 

If the forest was being rejuvenated, then gw wouldn't be destructive here, rather it would be causing rejuvenation!

[Jonesboy]

41 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

You stated "do not burn" in the context of what you wrote. Furthermore, deforestation as a result of logging and AGW which increases drought conditions and therefor forest fires in the Amazon. I have seen nothing regarding prescribed burns in the Amazon as a way to thin the forest. 

 

Maybe because the Amazon is also known as a rain forest 🌳 

 

Also, if you are talking about California I posted pages ago about how the total acreage of forest fires have actually decreased.

 

No, the intensity of fires 🔥 hasn’t increased either. 😄

[Stosh]

28 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Maybe because the Amazon is also known as a rain forest 🌳 

 

Also, if you are talking about California I posted pages ago about how the total acreage of forest fires have actually decreased.

 

No, the intensity of fires 🔥 hasn’t increased either. 😄

I love their argument so far. 

 

Anthropogenic Global Warming is causing droughts, which are rejuvenating the Amazon rain forest by causing forest fires!  😂

Edited March 7, 2019 by Stosh

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Maybe because the Amazon is also known as a rain forest 🌳 

 

Also, if you are talking about California I posted pages ago about how the total acreage of forest fires have actually decreased.

 

No, the intensity of fires 🔥 hasn’t increased either. 😄

The total number of people has and this is the root issue. Uncontrolled irresponsible breeding habits.

 

I agree with Shatner.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/25/william-shatner-worries-humanity-wont-live-to-experience-star-treks-utopia/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.76a8c2dda82d

[voidisyinyang]

8 hours ago, Stosh said:

The parts of the land which have not burned, in a long long time, still perpetuate without burning. They become old growth mature forest. The parts that burn repeatedly would be a different canopy and different from the old growth forest. 

Forests that require burning , are adapted for the conditions caused by fire. The old growth forests have non fire- adapted canopies un- like that which eucalypts have.

 

The very first line suggests that outside of droughts, most of the burns are intentional, but,true, you wouldn't exactly be thinning, because the trees can't handle the burns,,, not to mention the destruction of the thin clayey and organic soils  they require.

Quote

The Sahara dust, a tan cloud in the air, stretches between these continents, and ties together the desert and the jungle. Scientists have been studying this process, and, as it turns out, Saharan dust feeds the Amazon rainforest just enough to replace lost nutrients there.Feb 24, 2015

 

YES the point here is that ecology, like the Amazon rainforest - is TOO complex to be modeled even by a supercomputer. The "burning" of the forest is a metaphor for the "burning" of the map - not the territory. Science is simply a model - not the truth of reality.

Saharan dust feeds Amazon rainforest, perfectly | Earth | EarthSky

 

https://earthsky.org/earth/saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-rainforest-perfectly

 

Dwindling desert dust spells danger for the Amazon | Cosmos

 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/dwindling-desert-dust-spells-danger-for-the-ama...

May 7, 2018 - Modelling finds a worrying link between climate change, the Sahara ... starving the Amazon rainforest of nutrients and turning up the heat in the ...

 

 

Dwindling desert dust spells danger for the Amazon

---

Modelling finds a worrying link between climate change, the Sahara and South America’s rainforest. Michael Lucy reports.

 

Global warming may cut the amount of dust blown into the atmosphere from the Sahara Desert by up to 100 million tonnes a year, starving the Amazon rainforest of nutrients and turning up the heat in the north Atlantic.

Rising temperatures will mean less wind and hence less dust, according to a paper posted on the arXiv preprint server by NASA earth scientist Tianle Yuan and colleagues. Previous attempts to predict future dust levels have had limited success, but the new paper argues they have ignored the key factor: the temperature difference between the north and south Atlantic.

 

As the world warms, climate scientists expect that the northern part of the Atlantic ocean will get hotter faster than the southern part. Southern hemisphere winds will rush northward to balance out the temperature contrast, meaning that the area where air circulation from the two hemispheres meets – a blustery band of latitude known as the intertropical convergence zone, or ITCZ – will drift northward.

 

This all adds up to weaker winds over the Sahara, resulting in less dust in the air. Depending on future carbon dioxide emissions, Yuan’s team calculate that the amount of dust could drop by as much as 60% by the end of the twenty-first century.

The authors checked their model against historical records and palaeoclimatic evidence, and found that temperature differences between the north and south Atlantic are correlated with levels of African dust over the last 17,000 years. They also found a decreasing trend in the amount of dust since 1980.

The decline in dust levels may become a self-reinforcing cycle. Another effect of the airborne dust is to provide shade that cools the north Atlantic. As the dust dwindles, clearer air will mean warmer seas – which in turn means less dust.

[voidisyinyang]

7 hours ago, Stosh said:

I love their argument so far. 

 

Anthropogenic Global Warming is causing droughts, which are rejuvenating the Amazon rain forest by causing forest fires!  😂

So the current "slash and burn" farming was not the same - today it is a total burn of even the big trees whereas in ancient times it was just the understory.

Quote

Farmers increased the amount of food they grew by improving the nutrient content of the soil through burning and the addition of manure and food waste.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180723142845.htm

Ancient communities transformed the Amazon thousands of years ago, farming in a way which has had a lasting impact on the rainforest, a major new study shows.

Ancient farmers transformed Amazon and left an enduring legacy on the rainforest

Quote

Dr Maezumi said: "Ancient communities likely did clear some understory trees and weeds for farming, but they maintained a closed canopy forest, enriched in edible plants which could bring them food. This is a very different use of the land to that of today, where large areas of land in the Amazon is cleared and planted for industrial scale grain, soya bean farming and cattle grazing. We hope modern conservationists can learn lessons from indigenous land use in the Amazon to inform management decisions about how to safeguard modern forests."

 

[Stosh]

If burning was good for the soils, you wouldn't have to keep doing the slashing. I think it just liberates potash, but the organics are blowing away on smoke. I have to check on that.

 

  But I totally !  agree that the systems are tremendously complex, and is generally beyond the simplicity a computer can crunch. 

 

I found this burnt soil.pdf on the properties of burnt soil, note, that the bio-assessment was done on shade intolerant trees and plants , not the type of trees which compose the mature forest . Also , there was a decrease in water retention , and the soil was made harder.

There were lasting effects to soil , and any increase in nutrient was sourced in the tree canopy burnt. ( When they stripped plots , there was no appreciable change in the soil structure or content.) 

 

So fires do not create nutrients , they 'liberate' them from the existing trees and plants, that fragile skin of life drifts away as windblown ash , and the character of the forest shifts from old growth shade tolerant trees, to shade intolerant trees and plants ( or crops) .

The water begins to wash off the surface of the land ,creating additional local erosion issues. 

The low intensity burns were not as destructive to the soil but they still change the character of the forest, and soils. 

Therefore , the burning in these forests is not regenerative of the old growth forest that burned, it destroys that magnificent multi-tier complex canopy and web of living creatures , replacing it with a temporary cover of shade intolerant weeds, or farm.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Saharan dust feeds Amazon rainforest, perfectly | Earth | EarthSky

 

Since the article says that the nutrients are largely retained in living plants and soils,

it kind of makes sense that, that which drifts in as dust , is approx. that which washes out the Amazon, because its not being used by the plant cover. 

So if dust is redirected out to sea, then the nutrients washing into the sea from the Amazon will drop.