Yes I know. And also (on top of) at mountains the weather conditions can change vastly. Such changes are always an issue when travelling thru S/E-asia....it became even dangerous in the Cameron Highlands (Malaysia)...landslide.....had been two times there, trekking tours....2 times issues with sudden massive rainfall....they said abnormal behavior actually not predictable...probably a global warming issue already there as well. No need to be upset and it even doesn't disprove Einstein. You have related your idea of death to your idea of absolute. You can have that relative insight.
Not mine!!! Somebody else is letting you pass, whilst trying to shoot me down, with the same "ambush"...
Regardless what humanity does on this planet to "save it", it won't stop the cycle. In nature, everything goes in cycles, only humans see straight lines. So relax, enjoy your life on this planet.
Changes-Time-cycles-science and an result: Global warming. Some ideas. To understand the complex relations some basic thoughts seem to me important. Before science could exist there had to be ‚somebody’, somebody with an idea of ‘oneself’. All the observations that are made are related to the observer. There hadn’t been an idea of time yet. An observer can observe changes. All related to the observer. A special nature of ‘changes’ are movements. The idea of time dates back to the observation of movements, especially to the observation of cycles. The idea of time had been relative all the time. Later then the idea of time became degenerated to an absolute ‘thing’. The term of linear absolute time was born, better said the last degree of the freedom of time. Science had a period where everything had an absolute value, where everything seemed to be determinable. Humankind needed some ‘geniuses’ to break that illusion. Actually an more original state had been restored. Everything is relative. Every-thing. And every-thing is related to an observer, always. The entire ‘science’ is dependant on the definition / idea of an observer. I mean what is the observer, or more generic what is a human individual. ‘I observe.’ I relate my idea of myself (I am standing here on earth) to the objects I am observing. This is the current state of the evolution of the mind, I am my body, I am the observer on earth. Firstly humans had only their senses to observe, later they could develop technology which seemingly is able to move the position of the observation, devices which are superior to human senses. (Satellites, telescopes) Linear absolute time. This term has the fewest of all degrees of freedom. Time can only go from A to B. A is the past, B is the future. 15 minutes are exactly 15/60 of another unit, division strictly linear progressive. To get a linear progressive time humans have created an artificial value that makes possible to count time. It is a seemingly observable change, but actually just an idea. This idea then can be replaced with another longer period cycle when another observation / relation is made. Example: One earth rotation = 1 day. This is one cycle that is repeating. When it starts to repeat we determine a seemingly difference and add an artificial change, means we count the cycles. We don’t need an observable change yet. After each rotation we add an artificial change. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7….. When relating only to the rotation of the earth, we have just cycles, but without to add that artificial ‘change’ by counting the cycles we actually don’t have the idea of a linear progressive time (yet). So we can say a higher degree of freedom is the appearance of time as cycles. Relation of the cycles. Each shorter period time cycle is a part of a longer period time cycle, or can be related to. This is actually the basic of to count. Decimal system is common. To each digit’s cycle we add another artificial change to determine it absolutely and unique to create an idea of absolute linear time. First cycle: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Now the cycle would repeat. 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. But by doing that only we don’t have a progression, a cycle only. The second digit adds that artificial change. 10. A new cycle is related, a ‘longer period cycle’. So we can say the structure of cycles is also found in our number system which we use to count (time). The invention of that additional artificial difference makes it possible to create an idea of progressive linear time. Each condition is seemingly different, each time is seemingly different. The nature of objects is ‘changes’. These appear as relative movements (space) and time. All these relative to me, the observer. The illusion of a progressive linear time can persist by relating shorter period cycles to longer period cycles. Example: 1 day = one earth rotation. (relative movement). Now when changing the view to other objects the observer changes the objects he relates. Now earth to sun, relative to the observer. Whilst the earth is rotating around its axis the earth rotates around the sun. (1/364.25). When the ‘longer period cycle’ repeats we add a difference, a new year. (Remember long and short are relative terms also, what once was long becomes short when the relation changes) We can extend this cycle game as ‘long’ as we want, because the cosmos is infinite. Important is to know, that time appears as cycles, always. Its degeneration is the idea of linear time. How do we relate that now to the topic, global warming. Global warming is a (part of) a cycle. And there is another cycle which can be related to it. Science tries now to figure those cycles and dependencies. The first difficulty we encounter is where to start. Cycles are related to each others and have no start and no end. We seemingly determine an end of an cycle when we stop the relation to it by determining the end (in time) of an object itself. The end of that object is part of another cycle, though. Example: A leaf of a tree falls in autumn. It disappears, it dies. So we cannot relate anything more to that leaf. But its disappearance is a part of an other cycle. The cycle of seasons. There soon will be new leaves we can relate to. So the earth will disappear one time, and that is a part of another cycle, the cycle that has created it. So what’s about global warming? Shall we care at all then? Of course! But not to preserve the earth forever, that is not possible. Goal is to live conform to nature. Why? Because when doing that we are not alienated, we follow her intelligence, her ‘goal’. To comply means no suffer. To behave ‘different’ means to suffer and to bring suffer on others. The amount of suffer says how far away we live from the nature. That suffer is the power that forces us to follow the natural intelligence. The driving force of evolution. So global warming is a cycle. I can now relate another cycle to it. I have decided to use the Milankovitch cycles. (Long time period cycles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles This fits to Jeremy D. Shakun’s conclusion “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation“ Global warming is a part of a cycle since everything is a part of an cycle. So we can say it is not man made, it is natural. But since all cycles are related, humans have an influence on global warming for sure. Means how ‘fast’ it will happen, means how time is related to. I finish this now with a model. Lets say global warming cycle has started. Then the CO2 level has increased. The solubility of CO2 in water and ice decreases at higher temperatures. That’s Physics. Atmospheric CO2 absorbs heat radiation that is usually reflected back to space, that’s Physics, too. And water vapor does that even more and is actually more effective than CO2. And air can have more humidity when warmer, that is Physics, too. And ice surfaces are reflecting radiation back to space. And humans have started to burn fossil fuels. And they join organic carbon to oxygen which produces CO2, that is Chemistry. All these effects accelerate each others. So are humans responsible of global warming? Yes. They have not initiated it (is not a man made cycle) but they accelerate the process. The Physics and Chemistry are indicative that it will happen this way. But it is actually not very important if my model is right or wrong. Important is that we create suffer (on others) because we are not conform to nature. Why? It is actually simple. My entire post is about relations. And everything is related to the observer (scientist). That is the point. Everything is related and nested. And the home of relations is our mind. Also there is the home of our self-image. Everything is related on that self-image, the entire complex of relations. The creation / relation of time, the entire world as it appears is based on our self-image we relate ‘it’ to!!!! The new-thinking has to be at each individual since it affects everyone’s ‘self-image’. Our wrong idea of ourselves and the nature is the issue. This causes suffer and this suffer appears as a scientific determinable event, called global warming. The mind is the king of relations. Awareness is the jewel to make it possible to live where life can only happen. And that is ever now. Awareness is the power to let us things perceive as they really are. Awareness cannot be studied. One simply needs to be it. To be aware of nature, to be present ever and now resolves the issue. Time will get its highest degree of freedom. It loses any relation since anything can happen only now, there is no difference of nature and humans. This is the actual barrier of evolution of humankind. Whilst busy with relations we are not aware of the present. Nature is the mirror of oneself, it is just another side of the same medal. Our sickness to pollute and exploit expresses our lack of understanding. Global warming should be a reminder to create a new awareness a new idea of a self-image, that is the reason why it is here. It seems there is something wrong with our current image. Actually quite simple. Awareness of nature and the conditions play at more and more people a role already. A healing effect is starting.....more and more will join.
There is a part of this cycle where relaxation is possible and there is a part of this cycle where if you choose relaxation your body will die as a result of your choice .. It is that simple
Snow will be a thing of the past http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Somebody must have invented a time machine then. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21038913 I detest all the media hype.
It seems in many arguments (pro or contra) people try to go for absolutism rather than going for an inclusive/embracing approach. So for example someone said that the currently perceived global warming trend (as far as our data will allow us to make such an assessment) might actually be part of the Earth's natural cooling and warming cycles, and that we are now in a warming cycle, to then conclude global warming is not man-made. But it could obviously be both, and perhaps we're lucky if there is also a natural warming trend going on whilst our man-made warming is occurring, so that this issue has been brought to our attention sooner and more poignantly so that we can take some measures to do something about it. The 'one or the other' approach is inherently fallible in this discussion about global warming. The Poll above is kind of illustrative to that issue: you can't select "both" I, too, detest media hype, but I also notice there has been media hype going both ways -- stemming both from people who believe in global warming as affected by man and by people believing there is no global warming and/or that the global warming perceived is not man-made. So my hatred for media hype will not contribute to my assessment of man-made global warming being a reality or not. So a newspaper's article is just what that is, an article written by one guy. It had nothing to do with whether or not global warming is real, as it certainly won't be proved by reading that article (or not reading it). The 'one or the other' approach is fallible. The first post in this thread states that the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years (not to mention it hasn't been inhabitable for billions of these years!) and that only the last 200,000 years of that people have been around on the planet, and then further that people could have only been contributing to global warming for the last 200 years. I agree. But then there is a very strange implication of a conclusion in what follows, which clearly communicates the following: well, because 4.5 billion years is a lot more than 200,000, and 200,000 is a lot more than 200, therefore whatever has happened in the 200 years could not have caused global warming. That is not reasonable by the longest stretch of the imagination. The true questions are: what has man been doing in those 200 years, what has he been pumping into the atmosphere, how large is the human population, how many trees and natural habitats (responsible for ecological balance, etc.) have been destroyed, etc. It has nothing to do with time-frames or the Earth's age as a planet as they are not relative to the argument. Besides, man-made global warming can only logically be considered during the time that man has been possibly contributing to global warming, which of course would be something brought on my global industry. So in other words the point has to be argued inside its own time frame and subject matter! I think it is very reasonable to consider the effect of human industry on the planet and its atmosphere. The industrial impact upon the Earth is huge and unprecedented. Who could deny that? No one with the slightest bit of knowledge of human industry could deny that. Also, that this industry is affecting the air, water, and land is irrefutable. That this industry is affecting the atmosphere and climate is not only irrefutable but should be common sense by now. The question is not anymore whether or not industry is affecting the atmosphere in enormous (and unforeseeable) ways -- the questions now are how is it affecting it, what will these changes signify for sustained life on the planet, and what can we do to prevent or curtail undesirable or even disastrous outcomes, etc.
That's like saying: "If we poor two hundred trillion cubic tons of water on top of that enormous wave coming our way, it will not be affected in any way whatsoever." If you want to be able to say, "relax, enjoy your life regardless of what human industry does" you have just mixed yourself into this discussion in more ways than one The questions that arise when you say, "relax, enjoy your life" are: a) are you relaxed because you got heat pouring into your home from gigantic industrial generators running on oil, coal, or gas, and can you come home because of your nice car produced in enormous industrial complexes, running on gas, while you consume thousands of products a year while your waste ends up in giant land fills? b) are you relaxed because your have mastered your body and live a very simple life, close to nature, and you don't need all the comforts of life and leave a very small environmental footprint? See? You just put yourself squarely into this discussion
Your reply makes me smiling. Believe it or not. Before I had pressed the submit button I knew already that such a reply will happen. First the answer: No. I wrote that during a break @work. One should know when there is time for it and when not. Anyway it is fascinating. I think the hippie movement where mara played a major role had the same cause why it appeared. To some there had been something wrong. The idea of a perfect self-image with its defined goals. Capital and wealth, generally personal benefits only. Nature? Immaterial 'values'? We don't care. Suffer played a role also (Technology for weapons, Vietnam war). To some that had been too much. The hippie movement had been created. With the same cause: The awareness that the 'relation to nature' seemed to be disturbed. The movement was just a previous reaction of it, of course colored with the corresponding circumstances.
Parapher, every scientist worth his/her salt knows the name of the game is hedge-betting... Yen, '68 and onwards had a very close, even intimate relationship with the Frankfurt School! But they had very little experience of the student "grass roots"... Adorno once called the police, as one of the students exposed herself during classes...
You mean Hannah Weitemeier? I don't think violence can be associated with grass-roots. It's sedative, lol. She had contact to persons which later became members of the RAF! (My last history lesson is far away, though)... From the original hippie movement itself there had been created different other movements and cultures. The original idea can become degenerated and some actually lived (again) what they firstly had denied. Personal benefits, dominance...and finally violence. The punk movement degenerated also. Nature, immaterial values, what were they again??? And when one inclines to violence, something serious never had been resolved. The same is with global warming. The original intent to get a closer relation to nature turns into personal (political) interests. We also know violent activists concerning nature and protection. .......as I have said...."......of course colored with the corresponding circumstances."......
I guess what you are saying is: "We can't very well but hedge-bet since we don't have climatological data spanning more than a two centuries." I think some people do like to hide behind technical discussion a bit too much where it comes to deciding for themselves how to view global warming when they are subconsciously inclined against environmental protection or its political arms. I think the impressions conveyed by certain astronauts give a common sense, emotive viewpoint on the matter. Astronauts have often commented on how very tiny the 'sliver' of the Earth's atmosphere is, as seen from space. The lives of all of us and all our biological kin on this planet depends on that tiny sliver of atmosphere. How arrogant, then, to think releasing untold tons of pollution into it will not significantly affect it. It is like watching a living cell under a microscope, and then injecting small amounts of very concentrated substances in it, some of which the cell cannot very well break down and expel. Watching such a process, no one would even doubt this is having major (and most likely adverse) effect on the cell. Yet with the Earth's atmosphere it's suddenly a different story for some people, because 'it looks big when you look up in the sky'. Life is very, very fragile, but we tend to forget. Just like we tend to forget how hard life is for some people, as all our needs and comforts are taken care of. But how balanced and good-natured would we be if just some of our comforts are taken away, let alone our needs? Hell, some treat other people like waste even while having a good life! Our atmosphere, land, and water is not some kind of chance machine, where you just throw some substances in it without studying what happens and then hope it turns out OK. People from all over the world are commenting that beside the atmosphere (in some places you can't even breathe) they are finding people are using the oceans as a dump site. Cargo ships just throw anything they no longer need overboard, fishing ships discard their nets which drag over the sea floors and destroy life, people are frequently reporting oil chunks just floating on the ocean surface, mixed with other debris. That same ocean was almost pristine a couple of hundred years ago, to the beginnings of the Earth! So naturally I can't stand when people talk callously about the Earth as if it's some kind of 'resource'. I agree with Yen that is is all about relationship. We are relational beings to the core and only if you're not straight with yourself (I guess Yen calls this 'bad self image') can you not be straight with the Earth as well, or other human beings. I've never seen a person who is mature, caring, and good, talking callously about the environment. They may not be aware of something, but they don't show disdain or indifference to it. It IS relative to you. The expression 'Mother Earth' is apt, because it is truly the mother of every living being on this planet. If it turns out (as it does) that we haven't only gotten our life from that blue pearl in space, but are at the same time inherently a part of 'her' then that is no cause for disdain but rather for the greatest privilege and care. Indeed, a micro-organism that endangers the total organism of which it is a part is a cancer or disease. Having a choice means you do have a measure of power. If you really think about the Cosmos and how all the elements we are made of make us 'stardust' and you think of all that tiny oasis of life we call 'Earth' it is so beautiful it hurts