The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Replies: 3   Last Post: Sep 14, 2012 9:43 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Paul A. Tanner III

Posts: 5,920
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Posted: Sep 14, 2012 4:23 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Wayne Bishop <> wrote:
> For some reason, you keep missing the most important part so I will put that
> first:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> In your haste to dismiss the science-based portion of my post, you seem to
> have missed the more important, albeit fuzzier, part;

>> The real problem comes with the "anthropogenic" cause and, if so (which is
>> less than certain), appreciably slowing down the process without millions
>> of
>> lives on the line, the great majority of whom would be very poor, nonwhite
>> people who currently are barely eking out a living. A very liberal,
>> progressive concept.

> In other words, try to suppress your "denier" ranting and give us your
> recommended global policy. Thanks in advance,
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Beyond that and, since I don't "debate" religiously convicted folks of any
> faith, this will be my last. However, I do appreciate the inclusion of
> another refereed journal along with those that I gave you in spite of your
> dismissal of them (surprise, surprise). If you had read a little more
> carefully, even just from the abstract you included, you'd see less (any?)
> contradiction than you appear to believe. episodes of considerably reduced
> sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer
> periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to
> orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, To be combined
> with:
> Holocene SYNONYMS OR RELATED TERMS: Recent, Postglacial CATEGORY: chronology
> DEFINITION: The present geological epoch, which began some 10,000 (bp) years
> ago (8300 BC). It falls within the Quaternary period (one of the four main
> divisions of the earth's history) and followed the Pleistocene Ice Age. The
> Holocene is marked by rising temperatures throughout the world and the
> retreat of the ice sheets. During this epoch, agriculture became the common
> human subsistence practice. During the Holocene, Homo sapiens diversified
> his tool technology, organized his habitat more efficiently, and adapted his
> way of life. That is, being that warm is not necessarily a bad thing,
> anthropogenically induced or not. Sounds more like you and the "expert" you
> quoted learned nothing from East Anglia.

First, the authors of the research I actually cited and some other authors I could cite are more qualified to speak on the matter than the authors you cited.

Not only that, none of the studies you cited that supposedly prove that it was a sure thing that the entire Arctic was free of sea ice several thousand years ago actually even studied that. That "sure thing" talk is just the blather of some denier bloggers who will latch onto whatever they can find like those studies to cited to try to justify their denial.

I repeat: All of the studies that actually study how much sea ice there actually has been in the Arctic and how long there has been sea ice in the Arctic all say that the perennial ice cover has been there for on the order of a million years.

But let's say that several thousand years ago it was warm enough to have ice free summers in the Arctic Ocean. But these alleged ice-free summers n the Arctic during the Holocene Climatic Maximum were when we had higher summer solar insolation for the northern hemisphere. This very fast collapse of the sea ice is happening while we don't don't have higher summer solar insolation for the northern hemisphere.

This means we have a problem for the deniers: They cannot explain where the heat is coming from that is causing this complete collapse of the Arctic Sea ice.

So to all you deniers: Where the heck is all this heat energy coming from?

OOPS! You forgot about that one with all this whooping about several thousand years ago, now didn't you?

And on top of all that, there is no author you could cite that has a good reputation in the climate science community who would dare say that during this time several thousand years ago, the Arctic was free of sea ice *all year long*. I repeat: In just 33 years, we are 1/3 of the way to having *no* sea ice in the entire Arctic *all year long* (in 33 years we are more than 3/4 of the way to no summer sea ice). This has not happened for millions of years.

Again: Where the heck is all this heat energy coming from?

And I also say that you will never find anyone of any good reputation in climate science who would dare say that in the past there has been this much warming this fast and this much of a collapse of the Arctic sea ice this fast.

Never mind that I cited published research last year that showed that this present warming is the first time in 20,000 years that both the northern and southern hemispheres warmed at the same time, which throws water on this idea that the temperature then was actually as warm *globally* as it is now.

And for AGW, consider:

(1) The rate of increase of the total heat budget (the total heat budget of the planet: Heat in both the oceans and atmosphere - has been increasing at the rate of three Hiroshima nuclear bombs *per second* for these past few decades);

(2) the global nighttime temperature has been rising faster than the global daytime temperature;

(3) the global winter temperatures has been rising faster than the global summer temperatures.

For (1), (2), and (3): There has not been a change in the the sun's total output to explain it, especially in the last decade, and there has not been a change in albedo (the percentage of the energy that falls onto Earth that is reflected and so not absorbed) to explain it, especially in the last decade, and so the only cause is the only one left by the process of elimination, a sufficient change in the percentage of the absorbed heat that is trapped via greenhouse gas activity and not radiated out to space as infrared radiation.

This denier claim that it is only natural therefore has no basis in fact - in fact, it contradicts the facts.

And with respect to natural causes: EVEN the BEST team that was funded by the Koch brothers just came out this past year with a new study showing that at least almost all of the heat increase that they measured cannot be explained except by human activity."

Here again is the gif animation of Arctic sea ice volume over the past 33 years:

Finally this talk that it's a good thing our trying to make the future as hot as possible just is off the deep end given what we know:

Yes, let's make it as warm as possible as fast as possible - life will be better....when in a couple centuries from now the hotter parts of the planet will have heat indexes so high that humans and at least other larger land mammals if not also birds will not be able to survive the peak heat indexes in the summers - much of the planet will become uninhabitable:

Recall that recent National Academy of Sciences paper in 2010 that warned about future killer - even extinction event - wet-bulb temperatures or heat indexes (they were not talking about killer dry-bulb temperatures):

"The Health Effects of Hotter Days and Nights"

Quote: ""Most people are more familiar with the heat index, or the feels-like temperature they see on the weather report. The wet-bulb temperatures we are talking about would have a feels-like, or heat-index, temperature of between 170 to 196 degrees Fahrenheit," Huber said.

"Researchers find future temperatures could exceed livable limits"

Quote: ""The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next.""

What this above study is about is this:

Different amounts of H2O in the air mean that equal summertime dry-bulb temperatures in places like Florida and Arizona do not yield equal enthalpy. To get a more visceral feel for this in terms of what we can expect future life on Earth in the hotter places to be like, play around with some inputs at this online heat index calculator:

"Meteorological Conversions and Calculations Heat Index Calculator"

Entering 104 degrees F and 75% relative humidity for some location gives a heat index of 171 degrees F, which would kill in hours essentially every human and land animal in that location living on the surface (and of course not in air conditioning) that needs evaporative cooling to survive.

Entering 100 degrees F and 75% relative humidity for some location gives a heat index of 150 degrees F, maybe survivable by some.

Yes, let's make it as warm as possible as fast as possible - life will be better....

As for your further above "thanks in advance" for what to do about it - no, thanks for giving more reason to promote moral economics:

"Moral economics -> world's highest living standard and greatest happiness"

There should be massive investment for energy production that does not add to the greenhouse burden.

Where do we get the money for the investment?

We should do what fast-growing China and twice-as rich-per-capita-than-the-US Norway have done: Our central governments should take over over the central banks, commercial banks, and investment banks of the world to direct their lending and investing so that, instead of mainly just making ever richer the Wall Street type super rich of the world, the Main Street economies of the world are benefitted once again, the most important of part of these Main Street economies being all these areas of science and technology - they must be fully funded; there are many innovators and entrepreneurs out there who need funding. Here are a few of the many, many things that should be fully invested in: Read and learn, including about all the new things going:

I agree with James Lovelock in terms of nuclear and natural gas. It is insane to burn coal and oil for electricity when we could for instance be generating electricity with gas (until we can eventually replace it) or nuclear power, which has become so safe, they now have essentially melt-down-proof designs (even with present designs, the socialist French with their government-owned nuclear power industry is the envy of the world in terms of nuclear safety - do what they do, which is socialize the nuclear power industry and then run the plants in terms of security and safety protocols as if they were nuclear weapons plants.

(But I'm also for investing some of this money above to see whether we could in an energy efficient way using non-carbon power split the carbon from the oxygen in the CO2: I found this

that speaks of this as a possibility. That is, if we could actually make burning oil or coal truly clean, then it would be fine.

But still, in the end, very long term, it cannot be just burn stuff we get out of the ground for electricity. Ultimately humanity will have to make fusion and other non-burning technologies work for its electricity.)

Message was edited by: Paul A. Tanner III

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.