What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.

[joigus]

OK, then. But I think you should be aware that you're using language in a very special (figurative) way, as in "this room needs painting".

Quote

prosopopoeia

/ˌprɒsəpəˈpiːə/

 

noun

 

1. 1.

   a figure of speech in which an abstract thing is personified.

    
2. 2.

   a figure of speech in which an imagined, absent, or dead person or thing is represented as speaking.

 

[JohnSSM]

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK, then. But I think you should be aware that you're using language in a very special (figurative) way, as in "this room needs painting".

Maybe you should use my examples of context of the "John Needs" analogy.    People in these forums never want to find a common perspective they can both debate from.  I offered one.  And you came back with, OK.  Ill assume you know I am correct now, and theorize that i may be using a figure of speech in which an abstract thing is personified.  I have no opinions or cares about that.  Or the judgement itself means nothing to me.  I explained what NEED is and how it is used in our language.  Ignore that, and make any adjustments you need to justify another subjective view.  Or address my points, and lets decide if I was right about the application of the word needs.  You assume needs creates a position of needing or being needed.  It does not.

 

16 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK, then. But I think you should be aware that you're using language in a very special (figurative) way, as in "this room needs painting".

 

No, I know that rooms have no needs unless they have a purpose to fulfill.  So any particular room has no needs to me.

IN that sentence, who needs the room to be painted?  The room doesnt need it.  But who does.  Its not even in your sentence.  But still, your sentence says that the room needs to be painted. Who thinks so?  You?  Its not implied is it? because you do not need to imply what needs the room to be painted.  YOu just made a factual statement of need about the room, i didnt.  Does the room need to be painted?  If you say so.

Now I am living on planet earth as a biological life form that needs the sun to keep its climate favorable for my survival, I don't need it.  My survival needs it.  I didnt demand this need, i evolved into the need.  The sun also evolved into the process of this need, without wanting to, but it is still there, being needed, and i am still here, needing it.  The only reason I need the climate to remain as it is, is because my life is a factor of needing sunlight.  And there is nothing that exists that doesnt need to be used.  Need has no direction of flow as a verb.  It simply makes necessities, as a verb.  Blame the people who thought we needed rules to guide definitions, and then you can continue to be confused by how need is not want, or a reward.  It takes 2 things for anything to be possibly needed.  

[studiot]

33 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK, then. But I think you should be aware that you're using language in a very special (figurative) way, as in "this room needs painting"

Actually joigus, the Oxford English Dictionary makes it quite plain that the verb 'needs' can be applied to a person or a thing way back to medieval times. There is no special distinction so your example is perfectly correct common English ie not very special.

It is, however worth pointing out to the OP that on a technical site like SF, many words do have a special technical meaning.
And many disagreements and misunderstandings arise from folks not being careful to distinguish.
I do not know of a special technical meaning, so I think that your use of the common Englisn 'needs' is fine, but it would be unfair to knowingly misdirect someone whose first languauge is not English by misuse. Even someone whose Engish is as impeccable as that of joigus.

[beecee]

10 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

My perception must be way off...all this time I thought i saw the word "earth needs" in both explanations, and all it takes is prepositional phrases to change where we place it in a sentence.  Silly me.

Your perception is way off.....the Earth doesn't needs, it's the biological life that needs.

 

[joigus]

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually joigus, the Oxford English Dictionary makes it quite plain that the verb 'needs' can be applied to a person or a thing way back to medieval times. There is no special distinction so your example is perfectly correct common English ie not very special.

It is, however worth pointing out to the OP that on a technical site like SF, many words do have a special technical meaning.
And many disagreements and misunderstandings arise from folks not being careful to distinguish.
I do not know of a special technical meaning, so I think that your use of the common Englisn 'needs' is fine, but it would be unfair to knowingly misdirect someone whose first languauge is not English by misuse. Even someone whose Engish is as impeccable as that of joigus.

Thanks for the clarification, @studiot. I've checked the online version of Oxford Learner's Dictionary of Academic English, and it seems to be the case that in modern English "something or someone needs + gerund" doesn't carry any special figurative value. But to me, it gives some leeway to be used in a sense that lets anthropomorphism of inanimate things slip in, which is not the best for a scientific discussion, as pointed out abundantly on this thread by many.

[JohnSSM]

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your perception is way off.....the Earth doesn't needs, it's the biological life that needs.

Ok sure, but the sentence, "Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate.

48 minutes ago, joigus said:

But to me, it gives some leeway

Congrats on your experience with your experience.  It has nothing to do with mine, and no objective rule over anything.

[joigus]

28 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

It has nothing to do with mine, [...]

(My emphasis.)

Yours? This is not your thread. The OP was,

Quote

What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.

Why don't we wait until the proponent clarifies what they meant? You can pose your own question if you wish, or maybe a split is in order. In any case, I don't think these shades in meaning about the verb "need" belong in the Classical Physics forum, TBH.

 

2 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

And you came back with, OK.  Ill assume you know I am correct now,

Not so. OK as in "OK, I understand what you mean now".

And it's wrong. That kind of "OK."

Edited March 25, 2021 by joigus
minor addition

[JohnSSM]

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yours? This is not your thread. The OP was,

I know, but i didnt want you to think just because you see something doesnt mean anyone else does.  So congrats on seeing something.  What did you add to the thread at all with that observation?  I guess thats what IM wondering.

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Not so. OK as in "OK, I understand what you mean now".

And it's wrong. That kind of "OK."

Yes, well you still havent proven me wrong, so once again, congrats.

"Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate.

You can talk till the cows come home.  You cannot tell me that the statement is not accurate.  But I will enjoy seeing you try.

I should thank you once again for providing the answer i was looking for in this thread, about the OP. I am grateful.  

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Yes, well you still havent proven me wrong, so once again, congrats.

 

John, it's not my intention to prove you wrong, any more than it's very often my intention to prove myself wrong, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. Very often I take a back sit, click on the "follow" button, and try to learn from others, as you can easily check on the website's interface. There are many threads on which I'm just a follower.

I strongly recommend you to carefully distinguish hostility towards you from rejection of your ideas, or even just honest intent to clarify your expression so that others can understand you.

Edited March 25, 2021 by joigus
minor addition

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

"Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate.

You can talk till the cows come home.  You cannot tell me that the statement is not accurate.  But I will enjoy seeing you try.

Perhaps joigus cannot dispute the correctness this statement, for he is a Physicist.

But I can because it is just plain wrong.

 

To the best of our knowledge Paleoclimatology tells us that the Earth has only had its present nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere for less than half its existence.
And the oxygen was not a component of the original atmosphere.
The oxygen was actually released as a waste product from lifeforms that existed before oxygen for example stromatolites.
Naturally the climate was also different then.

So if the climate changed again, so would 'biological life', but it would probably still thrive, just as it has done before.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by studiot

[JohnSSM]

Just now, studiot said:

To the best of our knowledge Paleoclimatology tells us that the Earth has only had its present nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere for less than half its existence.
And the oxygen was not a component of the original atmosphere.
The oxygen was actually released as a waste product from lifeforms that existed before oxygen for example stromatolites.
Naturally the climate was also different then.

So if the climate changed again, so would 'biological life', but it would probably still thrive, just as it has done before.

Im sorry, you didnt achieve your goal.  That must suck.  

Just now, JohnSSM said:

So if the climate changed again, so would 'biological life', but it would probably still thrive, just as it has done before.

Gosh, I guess all those dinosuars just couldnt adjust fast enough to the changes that the asteroid brought to the earth that killed them.  We all know that can happen, besides you, apparently.

See. when the asteroid changed the earth's climate, the earth needed to retain its climate, or the dinosaurs would die.  It could not, so they died.

Anyone want to argue that reality or the way I expressed it?  

Step right up folks, This thread is now about proving if dinosaurs died, because the earth failed to meet the needs of biological life, due to an asteroid impact.  

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

Im sorry, you didnt achieve your goal.  That must suck.  

Gosh, I guess all those dinosuars just couldnt adjust fast enough to the changes that the asteroid brought to the earth that killed them.  We all know that can happen, besides you, apparently.

See. when the asteroid changed the earth's climate, the earth needed to retain its climate, or the dinosaurs would die.  It could not, so they died.

Anyone want to argue that reality or the way I expressed it?  

Step right up folks, This thread is now about proving if dinosaurs died, because the earth failed to meet the needs of biological life, due to an asteroid impact.  

 

Confucious he says "He who is downright rude and dismissive to all around him soon ends up with egg on his face".

You said

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

"Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate.

Which means that all biological life (whatever that tautology means) ........  and added the rider '100% true'.

Not some life or even nearly all life but 100% of life will encouter difficulties with survival.

The dinosaur mass extinction (K-T event)  was not even the greatest mass extinction in Earth's history - that distinction goes to the Permian - Triassic (P-T) event.

But neither was 100%

So life survived.

[Area54]

Having re-read the posts in this thread my personal summary is, I need the Earth, sadly the Earth does not need me.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

"Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate.

 You cannot tell me that the statement is not accurate.  But I will enjoy seeing you try.

While I can understand what you mean, the statement is not accurate. The Earth existed long before life evolved via abiogenesis, and it will probably exist long after all life has become extinct. The Earth, solar system, galaxy, the universe does not really give a hoot about any life that just happened to evolve because conditions and enough time were suitable for that abiogenesis to take place.

[Area54]

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

While I can understand what you mean, the statement is not accurate. The Earth existed long before life evolved via abiogenesis, and it will probably exist long after all life has become extinct. The Earth, solar system, galaxy, the universe does not really give a hoot about any life that just happened to evolve because conditions and enough time were suitable for that abiogenesis to take place.

The difficulty, I think is that @JohnSSM, believes the following two statements have an identical meaning.

• Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival.
• If the current Earth climates are not preserved then biological life will find it difficult to survive.

These two statements are quite different. A form of equivalence might be granted by some if we are speaking colloquially. That seems inappropriate in this context.

Even if the non-equivalence were to be accepted and John were to switch to the second option, problems would still remain. First, a minor point, we have the peculiar phrase "biological life", a bizarre tautology as pointed out by @studiot. Also, as noted by studiot and perhaps others, a change in climate would be a challenge to some lifeforms, but many would be comparatively unaffected.

I don't know the current state of debate about the biomass of subterranean life versus surface and near-surface life, but all parties seem to agree the subterranean life is abundant. Surface climates would likely have no significant impact on the bulk of that life.