Viser arkivet for stikkord change

Global warming and heat waves and cold waves.

The atmosphere is getting better at absorbing heat, and also better at transporting heat. This leads to the cold places getting much warmer, the warm places getting somewhat warmer, but also makes it possible for colder temperatures in the warm and temperate areas. Here is why.

Consider a small line of the atmosphere from the equator to the north pole. Imagine it like a steel wire on a classroom globe. Now look at it with an infrared camera. If you touch the wire at the equator you heat up that point the most, but the wire absorbs heat and transports heat. So the wire quickly begins to glow from the equator to the north pole, but only very slightly at the north pole because some of the heat is emitted out of each portion of the wire. Now, consider what would happen if the wire was made from something that was better at absorbing and conducting heat. More of the heat from your finger would be absorbed, making the equator warmer, but the wire would transport more of the energy from the equator to the north pole, so the equator would only increase slightly in temperature, while the north pole increase very much in temperature. This is what we have today. Greenhouse gases not only makes the atmosphere better at absorbing energy from the sun, greenhouse gases also make the atmosphere better at transporting energy from the warm to the cold. So the poles heat up a lot, while the equator only heat up a little bit. But the problem is, an atmosphere is not like a straight wire from the equator to the pole at all times, if it were, we’d probably be fine from a little global warming. The wire twists and turns, sometimes it can go weeks without touching the poles, equally, the wire from the poles can go weeks without touching the equator. So when we have these spirals of atmospheric “wire”, the temperate places can transport its heat to the cold places, but not get new heat from the equator. Leading to a cold wave. And a temperate place can for a while not be able to transport heat away to cold places, but still receiving more heat from the sun and the warm places, this is a heat wave.

Global warming is guaranteed to make both cold waves and heat waves more dangerous. The more heat-conducting atmosphere can more quickly transfer much of the heat from a temperate area to a cold area and if the temperate area does not regain heat from warmer areas at all times at sufficient levels, a cold wave will occur. And increasing the conductance of heat, ie, the speed at which heat travel from warm to cold areas, will greatly (perhaps exponentially) increase the amount of times heat can not be replenished as fast as it is transported to colder areas. It will also greatly increase the amount of times (perhaps exponentially) heat can not be transported away at the same rate it is received, leading to heat waves.

If global warming only made the atmosphere a better conductor of heat, not a better at absorbing heat, we would still be in a heap of trouble. Put the two together, both better at absorbing and conducting heat, and it will quickly run out of control.

We can stop climate change. But its being hampered by a curious phenomena. No, not money or powerful evil people. But imperfect fear sense.
The budget of every nation reflects the human species’ ability to fear. Imminent death like tigers and terrorists get a lot of the budget because we have a genetically based ability to fear that. What really kills the most by numbers however, aging, disease, asteroids, super-volcanoes, climate change, is not very genetically rooted in our fear-ability. If only we lived in a world where humans could fear the stuff in direct accordance with how dangerous it is, we would have a perfect world if that world was run by fear mongering politicians. But our ability to fear is not perfect. I’m way more scared of heights than cardiovascular disease, even though I’m more than twenty times more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than falling (and most falling accidents are of hip fractures on old people, so really aging kills in that case).

E-mail your governing body and say they must stop worrying so much about what humans fear, and worry more about what humans ought to fear. Like aging, disease, climate change, pollution, sustainable food production, the long term future etc. They were chosen by the people to do the stuff the people CAN NOT do (protect against asteroids and typhoid fever (see water sanitation history)), if the politicians then do what the people CAN do (protect against tigers and terrorists), then the people has no reason to hire politicians anymore.

To give a reason is to point out where it falls short.

Is an answer a valid answer if the answer fails to answer the obvious question the answer makes nessesary?
Example; Statement A is true because Reason B. Given this very common form of argument, can reason B ever be true, or considered true, if one does not also give an answer to Reason C, which makes Reason B true? Any reason B given must question itself by giving a reason C which makes reason B is true, and a reason D which makes reason C true and so on, and conceed where the end of reasoning has come in the argument. For example, if argument A is true because Reason B, because Reason C, because Reason D, but has no scientifically or logically valid Reason yet to make Reason D true, it should be pointed out, by the defending side of an argument (the one with burden of evidence), and any argumenter that does not do this readily, should be dismissed until such time atleast an end of reasoning is given. Though this does give room for Reason B1, Reason B2 etc so one can give more of one type of evidence (for example if a fossil is Reason B1, you can add more fossils as B2, B3 etc).

This should speed up argumentation in arguments that commonly only defend statement A with Reason B, without no thought to Reason C, Reason D, or that the line of reasons B, C, D, E etc exist at all (For example theism, tax-law, law, politics, psychology (those important psychologists without good scientific instruments still influence reasoning in that field heavily), public services (clamour for more money is rarely reasoned even as far as Reason B), lobbying (its very easy for anyone with time on their hands to say A is true because of Reason B, deregulate and tax corporations and the rich less (which is the problem in the majority of the economy-crisis -stricken nations)), corporate public relations and a thousand other things not too acsociated with the science of argumentation).

Argumentation is a science.

Psychology is often misunderstood, and all too often the word “mind” holds an almost theistic meaning. But there is a science behind what I must say in an argument with someone else, to get that someone else to change his mind, if what I am arguing is true or not only changes the difficulty.
For example, how do one get someone that believes in “chemtrails” to see reason, which is that the streaks after jet airplanes make the water in the air the airplane passes through to condense into clouds. How does one find a group of words that will be successful in convincing someone that does not believe this? Because if I say “this is rubbish, no one has ever found chemicals in these trails beyond what the fuel combustion releases”, it is almost guaranteed to not work. Because they have hundreds of opinions and beliefs they believe are facts about the world based on the one opinion that someone pays for filling up airplanes with thousands of tons of chemicals every year that they release all over the world from high altitude, and that no one on the inside ever dares speak of it. How does one make an argument that does not get rejected? The problem is not the facts or logic you convey, but how you convey it. I have for example found that most arguments get rejected not because of lacking logic or reason in the argument, but because the person who is told an argument think it will lower his/her social standing to agree, or a million other reasons that has nothing to do with what is being argued. A wrong use of the word “you” and the most well-spoken, well-reasoned, logical and scientifically proven argument gets rejected by the other side. This is merely a phenomena of human nature and nurture and should not be mistaken as “the one I argue with are all stupid and incapable of accepting facts”, because you also have this phenomena, the point you should take from this is that it is your mistake as an argumenter if you can not form a sentence that will get the other side to accept your argument. We are all subject to the laws of physics so rigid that a key can exist which never fits a certain lock, your words are as a key and the other person is like the lock, without the right key, the lock never fits, without changing your own lock, you never really understand what the other side is arguing, nor will you use the other side’s argument for all that it is worth, and without changing the key you try without the purpose of making a key that fits as a goal, you will fail. To argue merely to argue, without the goal to actually convince people of your view, is as useless as talking to yourself.

I hope you apply the science of forming an argument with the psychology of accepting arguments in your mind, because without it, ignorance will flourish as the children of ignorant people also adopt ignorant ways without us becoming better at arguing with ignorant people.

I also hope you keep in mind that we are born like blank slates, with nature-derived biases from evolution, but with no knowledge, and that we learn the same information at school (if we are A students, otherwise it will be some unique portion we do not know), so there should be a universal way of convincing someone to accept your argument, but only as far as for those that learned the same things in school. So people from different nations will be quite different, for good and bad. There will also be some difference from one class to another, from one town to another, from one school reform to another, and from one parent to another, from one grandparent to another etc. All the people and experiences in the lives of the person you are trying to get to accept your argument, will affect how you can get the person to accept your argument. So there will be some experiences that are very easy to base an argument from, easy as they will easily accept your argument, and there will be things that are very difficult to base arguments on, difficult as they will most often reject your argument regardless of what it says. An example; The trees are red, is an argument. They will reject this argument if they have experienced green trees, or if many people they know have said trees are green. So regardless of what you say, yellow trees, ultraviolet trees etc, it will be rejected. Most arguments for why trees are another color will be rejected no matter how much sense they make, how much evidence they present, and it is statistically almost impossible to get someone that believe trees are green to believe that trees are not green, if you use an un-enlightened approach to argumentation. It is the same with religion. They have lived inside religion, experiencing green trees so to speak, experiencing people they know and respect and trust saying trees are green etc. But, this does not mean it is impossible to figure out an argument that they will accept. Otherwise no one would have ever believed the planet went around the sun. Because the sky would look the same if the planet went around the sun or the sun went around the planet, both claims are to the senses of humans equally true. But somehow the facts were enough to change what the children experienced as truth from one to the other, perhaps without their parents accepting the new view and the children mostly only accepting the new view because the old view weren’t presented first. A study of how the world went from accepting an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe, could do wonders to the science of argumentation.