Thursday 28th of March 2024

good ol' gesunder menschenverstand...

common sense...common sense...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post on the AAAS community from a member and, guessing by the post, Gus Leonisky believes that the member seems to be a global warming “denialist” or at least a sceptic… Nothing wrong with this... But?

 

A denialist of global warming on AAAS? Hum... Interesting.

 

 

Aug 24, 2021 9:08 AM

 

Harold Seelig

 

Organisms alive today have adopted to every excursion of the climate.  For instance, we have the coral reefs of today, but during the 3 previous Interglacials, it was 7 deg F warmer than today, and some how, they survived to their present.

 

Some International Scientists, in the Journal of "Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics" claim that today's warming is due to Solar Output changes, the Milankovitch cycles, not CO2.  I've calculated the CO2 Greenhouse effect at 0.003 W/M^2, and the "Parasol Effect" for CO2 of 1.23 W/M^2.  But of course that is part of real Science, of peer review.  It would lead to actual real Science, as compared to Revenue Science.  We're at the end of this Interglacial, and Earth "Global Mean Land and Ocean Surface" has cooled 0.3C over the past 18 months.  Who's screaming about that?

 

Let's get real, let's look at the ACTUAL data, and as a group decide.  Real scientists consider all viewpoints.  Advocates are not scientists.

 

Harold C. Seelig, PE (ret)

 

-Celebrating 20,000 years of Global Warming

           and 5,200 inches of Sea Level Rise (from NOAA.gov, sealevels.org)--

                    10 inch (0.2%) rise from start of Industrial Age.

                              Rise rate since recent Ice Age 26 inches/century.  During Industrial Age, 7 inches/century.

 

------------

 

Harold Seelig seems to be a non-believer in the CO2 influence on global warming. Apparently Seelig seems to never have heard of the five mass extinction nor of the possibility that we are entering the sixth due our (humanity’s — mostly Western humanity's) self-indulgence. He should have left his argument at his signature, not with the garbled message that followed… But we should be able to argue some of his proposed views.

 

From the top: "For instance, we have the coral reefs of today, but during the 3 previous Interglacials, it was For instance, we have the coral reefs of today, but during the 3 previous Interglacials, it was 7 deg F warmer than today, and some how, they survived to their present., and some how, they survived to their present."

 

I do not know where Seelig found "it was 7 deg F warmer than today”… According to my research, the temperature variation between ice ages and warm periods has been between 8 and 10 degrees Celsius (46 F to 50 F) relatively and the recent warm periods never went above that of the present. I could be wrong.

 

But in regard to REEFS surviving in warmer climate, one has to consider the “migration of corals”. Yes I know corals are stationary but their offsprings are on the move all the time, sometimes to warmer waters where they could die, and to warming up water where they will establish should they find existing geo-platforms that are not too deep. For example, There is a lot of of soft and hard corals living well in Sydney Harbour, 1500 kilometres south of the Great Barrier Reef, in waters that are between 19 and 23 degrees Celsius depending on seasons. We know that corals stress out, in waters above 30 degrees Celsius. Most coral reefs around the world are now UNDER STRESS having lost between 40 to 80 percent of their coverage due to global warming. Is this an illusion of evidence? Another point to consider is that the Great Barrier Reef as it is today is only recent, possibly 12,000 year old max. The corals basically built-up on mountainous hills being submerged as the sea level rose by around 100 metres at the last big melt, between 14,000 and 10,000 years ago. 

 

 

Seelig wrote a book: Energy, Environment, & Economy published in paperback – 20 December 2013. It tells us:

 

This book relates a Center-of-the-Road objective view of contemporary (many of which are also historic) issues, economics, science, and plain good ol' common sense. "How to fix our country" is the central thrust of this work, supported by data mainly from US Federal resources, individually acknowledged in 'endnotes' at the end. Coercive factors employed in manipulating public opinion are addressed in many areas. This work examines in particular the environmental effects of human use of 'fire' as an energy source. URL's for websites are all active at the time of writing.

 

Seelig’s biography tells us:

 

Having started school early, through a socially challenged course of schooling with a classical 'nerd' personality, this author proceeded on to a technical college degree. Subsequent testing led to registration as a professional engineer, and another test to membership in MENSA. An ongoing career of recognized innovations led to technical writing and the personal multi-year project of writing "Energy, Environment, & Economy". This author has additionally a 'patent pending' for a new internal combustion engine design, and has also claimed his life's work may well be the design and manufacture of boat outboard motors.... It must be known that without the help of my lifelong friend, Howard Huegel as editor, this work would not have been completed. He added substantively to both content and format.

 

---------------

 

Seelig’s work seems to be contrary to what Gus has believed (studied) since 1979 on the subject of Global Warming. It seems to be also in tune with some of Gus’s research on manufacture but with the opposite conclusions and designs. 

 

 

Not a member of MENSA, nor an engineer, Gus is at a disadvantage to push his own barrow against Seelig's. Scientists could do a better job at arguing. It looks that this particular post has left them stunned and no-one has responded so far or they decided to let sleeping dogs lie... But when “common sense” is mentioned, one is opening a Pandora Jar for Gus Leonisky to look into, again. 

 

Common Sense is a philosophical position. It does not mean that one is right or wrong… Evidences have to be studied and often promoted to “no-common-sense” platforms. Here imagine that Quantum Mechanics/Physics/Theories are mostly against common “ol’ common sense”. Even the Theory of Relativity is completely misunderstood by common sense people who feel that god makes more common sense… Below a certain intellectual level, the idea of god simplifies our torment of existence: behave, believe and there is spot for you at the banquet…

 

So common sense has to be studied in detail to find it is not as common as sand on Bondi beach. Is common sense as rare as diamonds? Are diamonds making sense?

 

I don’t know why but I will start with the economic gurus famous for their stinginess, the Scots...

 

Scottish common sense realism, also known as the Scottish school of common sense, is a realist school of philosophy that originated in the ideas of Scottish philosophers Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson, James Beattie, and Dugald Stewart during the 18th-century Scottish Enlightenment. Reid emphasized man's innate ability to perceive common ideas and that this process is inherent in and interdependent with judgement. Common sense, therefore, is the foundation of philosophical inquiry. Though best remembered for its opposition to the pervasive philosophy of David Hume, Scottish common sense philosophy is influential and evident in the works of Thomas Jefferson and late 18th-century American politics.

 

David Hume was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist, librarian and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Beginning with A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), Hume strove to create a naturalistic science of man that examined the psychological basis of human nature. Hume argued against the existence of innate ideas, positing that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. This places him with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley as a British Empiricist.

 

Aged 18 or so, Hume made a philosophical discovery that opened him up to "a new Scene of Thought", inspiring him "to throw up every other Pleasure or Business to apply entirely to it". As he did not recount what this scene exactly was, commentators have offered a variety of speculations. One prominent interpretation among contemporary Humean scholarship is that this new "scene of thought" was Hume's realisation that Francis Hutcheson's theory of moral sense could be applied to the understanding of morality as well.

 

From this inspiration, Hume set out to spend a minimum of 10 years reading and writing. He soon came to the verge of a mental breakdown, first starting with a coldness—which he attributed to a "Laziness of Temper"—that lasted about nine months. Later, some scurvy spots broke out on his fingers, persuading Hume's physician to diagnose Hume as suffering from the "Disease of the Learned".

 

We know this disease well. As we get covid-locked-ups, we turn to the idiot box to teach us idiocy. We pretend to learn something...

 

Hume wrote that he "went under a Course of Bitters and Anti-Hysteric Pills", taken along with a pint of claret every day. He also decided to have a more active life to better continue his learning. His health improved somewhat, but in 1731 he was afflicted with a ravenous appetite and palpitations of the heart. After eating well for a time, he went from being "tall, lean and raw-bon'd" to being "sturdy, robust [and] healthful-like." Indeed, Hume would become well known for being obese and having a fondness for good port and cheese.

 

In France, Hume met with Isaac de Pinto

 

This Common Sense Pandora box is like the philosophical and tentacular Kraken…

 

Enough here… Otherwise we might need the rest of our life to post this column… 

 

 

More to come.

 

 

Gus leonisky

 

Pseudo-philosopher in Hell’s kitchens

 

 

free assange, president biden...

the trend is towards warming...

Earth "Global Mean Land and Ocean Surface" has cooled 0.3C over the past 18 months.  Who's screaming about that? Asks Harold Seelig...

 

 

Despite La Niña, 2020 ranked as the second-warmest year in the 141-year record for the combined land and ocean surface, and land areas were hottest on record. Many parts of Europe and Asia were record warm, including most of France and northern Portugal and Spain, most of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Russia, and southeastern China. An even larger portion of the globe was much warmer than average, including most of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The heat reached all the way to the Antarctic, where the station at Esperanza Base, at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, appeared to set a new all-time record high temperature of 65.1 degrees Fahrenheit (18.4 degrees Celsius) on February 6, 2020. 

 

Read more:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

At this level, One has to consider the melting of the ice sheets which is not homogenous, nor continuous. see: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/26175

waiting a long time...

Aug 26, 2021 11:26 AM

 

Steven Johansen

 

I wish to reply to comments by Harold Seelig, who stated that organisms alive today have adopted to every excursion of the climate. Yes, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at different levels in the geologic past.  We know that stable ecosystems evolved to live in a world with the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was significantly higher.  The crux of our current dilemma is not the absolute value of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  It is the rate of change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and how that rate of change affects ecosystems.  Coral reefs survived in the past interglacials.  But the rate of change we are now experiencing is much greater than in past interglacials.  A coral ecosystem can migrate over 100's or 1000's of miles if the rate of change is gradual.  New species can evolve, or existing species can develop mechanisms to cope with the changes in mean temperature, extreme temperature, and ocean acidity, given sufficient time.  That is not happening in our current world, where the rate of change in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is on the order of 0.6 ppm per year.  As a point of reference, consider the most dramatic example of ecological collapse of which we know in the past 600 million years, which was the collapse of world ecosystems in the end-Permian event. Somewhere around 252 million years ago, about 80% of all genera on the planet went extinct.  It took somewhere between 1 million and 10 million years for the ecosystems of the world to recover, albeit with a dramatically different assemblage of life-forms.  How great was the change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during that event?  A recent paper by Wu and 8 others (2021, Nature, 'Six-fold increase of atmospheric pCO2 during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction') documents that atmospheric pCO2 changed from values of about 425 ppm, similar to current values, to values of over 2,500 ppm.  Over a period which they currently estimate was about 75,000 years.  That is an average rate of change of about 0.028 ppm per year.  In this extreme case, most ecosystems collapsed when the rate of change was about 5% the current rate of change.  There is a time element and magnitude element here that we have not yet fully resolved .... is it the rate of change or the total magnitude of the change?  Given that stable ecosystems ultimately evolved to live at the higher carbon dioxide levels of the Mesozoic era, and given that stable ecosystems also existed at much lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, we know that living things can live at different levels of carbon dioxide concentration.  But do we wish to wait for 1 to 10 million years for a new global ecosystem to evolve that can support human society?

 

------------------------------

Steven Johansen 

Houston TX

 

(member of AAAS community...)

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

of carbonic acid...

Apparently, in one of the comments (Sep 3, 2021) at the AAAS membership someone advises:

 

"In the presence of excess water vapour in the lower Troposphere, CO2 combines with that water vapour to become a hydrated bicarbonate of Carbonic acid."  

 

"Carbonic acid” apparently is not a warming gas as it does not readily react to the spectrum of infrared like CO2 does… Yes… So all we would have to do is combine CO2 and water to eliminate the warming effects of CO2 and Bob would be our long lost uncle. But… 

 

The question and answer to this is more complicated by the fact that (even in liquid water), the maximum conversion of CO2 into “carbonic acid” in water seems to be no more than one per cent of the total CO2 in solution — a fact that is nonetheless lowering the pH of sea water and making it more acidic.

 

Thus the concentration of CO2 is still climbing despite the water vapour in the atmosphere. Present CO2 ppm is approaching 420 (fluctuating daily from 415 to 418 with an extra 2.5 ppm added annually in a Covid situation), when the natural maximum has been 300 ppm of CO2 for the past 500,000 years.

 

It is most likely that the complex computer models of the IPCC take into account this modest conversion of CO2 into (H2CO3) and HCO3−…

 

 

A bit more chemistry

 

... the acid-base behaviour of carbonic acid depends on the different rates of some of the reactions involved, as well as their dependence on the pH of the system. For example, at a pH of less than 8, the principal reactions and their relative speed are as follows: 

CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3 (slow)

H2CO3 + OH− ⇌ HCO3− + H2O (fast)

Above pH 10 the following reactions are important: 

CO2 + OH− ⇌ HCO3− (slow)

HCO3− + OH− ⇌ CO32− + H2O (fast)

Between pH values of 8 and 10, all the above equilibrium reactions are significant.

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/carbonic-acid

 

The maximum conversion of CO2 into “carbonic acid(s)” in water seems to be no more than one per cent of the total CO2 due to the reaction equilibrium.

 

Note, Gus isn’t a chemist and was always baffled by moles (6.02214076 x 10^23)  and making nitroglycerin in the lab at school…

 

(Nitroglycerin, also called glyceryl trinitrate, a powerful explosive and an important ingredient of most forms of dynamite. It is also used with nitrocellulose in some propellants, especially for rockets and missiles, and it is employed as a vasodilator in the easing of cardiac pain.)

 

Even Arrhenius mixed the effect of CO2 and “carbonic acid” in his research, because at the times the names were a bit mixed up: 

 

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground 

 

Svante Arrhenius 

 

Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science

 

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

 

-------------------- 

2011: Rising carbon dioxide concentrations are already causing the planet to heat up. At the same time that greenhouse gases have been increasing, average global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880.

 

2021: The average global temperatures have risen 1.1 degrees Celsius (1.94 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880.

 

Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052, if warming continues at the current rate.

 

------------------------

 

Note:

 

Major difference between carbonic acid and carbolic acid:

 

Carbolic acid is a dangerous compound (phenol)

 

Phenol is an aromatic organic compound with the molecular formula C₆H₅OH. It is a white crystalline solid that is volatile. The molecule consists of a phenyl group bonded to a hydroxy group. Mildly acidic, it requires careful handling because it can cause chemical burns. A very poisonous chemical substance made from tar and also found in some plants and essential oils (scented liquid taken from plants). Carbolic acid is used to make plastics, nylon, epoxy, medicines, and to kill germs.

 

Read from top.

 

assangeassange