Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Latest WMO figures

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Here's my two cents' worth, as someone with a Physics degree, followed by a long commercial career (finance).

I see two problems with the so-called debate.

The first is that much of the 'debate' focuses on stuff that is known to be complex and messy, and relates to how heat flows around inside the climate system rather than the aggregate flows in and out of the system. We argue about how long it will take for the ice caps to melt, or about whether some regions will get colder rather than hotter, and non-scientists get the mistaken impression that this reflects uncertainty in the basic proposition of global warming. The fact is, the greenhouse effect, plus historical fossil fuel consumption makes the basic proposition (that the system's getting hotter because of us) 100% certain. The details (how long, regionality etc) are still uncertain and being researched, but that has nothing to do with the basics. To be fair, I don't think scientists make this point clearly or often enough.

The second problem is that most non-scientists (and sadly some scientists) do not seem to appreciate the fact that science now (since Newton) is an integrated body of knowledge. I see a lot of stuff where people seem to feel that if they can just 'disprove' some empirical observations, then the whole thing is wrong. In fact, that's not how science is structured any more. At rock bottom, science is really just 3 theories (General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Mechanics), which have been tested in 'normal' conditions so well they are certain. Everything else is really just an approximation or limiting case of these. The uncertain bits left are extreme stuff like what goes on inside a black hole. The ulitmate test of this is, of course, technology. If you think there is something wrong with SM and QR, then why does your fridge work? If you think there is something wrong with GR, why does your satnav work? Of course, complicated things (like weather) are difficult to model in practice, but basic stuff like the greenhouse effect and fossil fuels producing CO2 is simply not open for debate, not out of closed-mindedness, but just because it's fully understood, and if we are wrong about it then every piece of technology we have must be running off magic.

As commented earlier, the only real debate is about what to do. Of course that's economics, politics and ethics, which are really complicated. Maybe the answer is to do nothing, but pretending it's not happening is just silly.

[xelasnave]

Excellent summation Dave.
It is already too late.
Whatever the cause we can expect the planet to become uninhabitable in a century or two.
If man made we are doomed cause you won't change human behaviour.
If we stopped human input today the problem is the damage is already done...so I would plan how to exist on a planet with average temps so high growing food in the open is no longer possible..
I formed my opinion from much reading and reflect only the views of folk who appear to know what they are talking about.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

, could you accept what seems to be the overwhelming advice of the experts and go to the next question - what do we do about it? It would be great to have a discussion of what we could do to maximise current benefits and minimise the downside to future generations - provided that political sound-bite thinking could be kept out of it.

G'day there, Ray,
I keep trying not to talk about the optimal response to global warming and to other environmental problems, but people keep moving the discussion in this direction.
Oh well, this seems to have morphed into an environmental policy forum!
And politics always comes into it; in every Australian environmental forum that I contribute to, the obligatory comment in each and every post seems to be to criticize one particular side of politics!
(And such is the nature of environmental issues that one gets mercilessly attacked from all sides, no matter what one's opinion!)

(the following para. has been extensively edited)
In my opinion, the first question about Global Warming, insofar as figuring out what to do, and equally importantly when to do it, is to ask: "How urgent is the Global Climate Change problem compared to the multitude of other environmental problems that exist?" This is a necessary first analysis, because there is a need to prioritize the relative degree of urgency of fixing the many and various types of environmental degradation.
Why is it necessary to prioritize?
Firstly, because a lot of time and money and energy can be (and is) wasted by people on addressing problems which are of relatively low priority or which are not urgent, for instance, here are two examples of 'problems' on which environmentalists have expended vast reserves of money and committment on issues that I regard as minor problems or non-problems : :
- well-funded campaigns against the so-called 'evil' of the genetic engineering of plants
- ongoing campaigns against the small amounts of residual agricultural chemicals that are found in our food. (which cause much fewer cancers than the food itself!)
Secondly, while a specific environmental remediation effort often assumes the passionate "feel good" emotion of a crusade and thereby acquires a certain nobility, it often diverts limited resources from more important issues. One good example of this is when people will devote entire lifetimes to trying to save every last whale (and who can argue with saving such a cute animal.....), but, as a result of this effort, the much more important effort to preserve the krill & fish stocks (and the Marine Food Chain) suffers neglect in comparison to their favoured environmental cause. There are too many other examples of environmental 'crusades' that perhaps made a minor difference, but distracted attention from the most pressing environmental problems.

In other words: is global warming the first problem that needs to be addressed? Or are there other environmental problems that should be addressed before Global Climate Change? Ignoring for the moment the inherent difficulty and the enormous multi-disciplinary intellectual complexity of planetary management, the setting of priorities is a very difficult real-world problem, because human beings have available only finite reserves of time, physical and intellectual energy, and resources. This lack of energy and time and resources is, in my opinion, particularly notable in respect of environmental issues, because most people prefer to get on with day-to-day activities that are much easier and less challenging than addressing the difficult and complex issue of the ongoing management of the biogeochemical systems on the surface of our planet.

To restate my position once again, there are a vast range of environmental problems, and a vast number of possible actions to remediate them, so the various courses of action need to be weighed up, and the various environmental problems need to be prioritized:
(1) How good is the data and the evidence for each identified environmental problem?
(2) Can the problem be quantified and/or understood in a structured manner, and can effective remedial action be identified?
(2) How reliable and accurate are the predictive models for the future behaviour of the environmental system we are trying to fix?
(3) Which environmental problems ought or ought not to be addressed first, and what is the level of urgency for a societal response to each specific problem? Which environmental problems should not be addressed?
(4) What is the social and economic cost of action on a problem, compared to the social and economic cost of inaction?
(5) Is it even feasible to remediate a particular environmental problem, or do vested interests, and/or economic costs, imply that a particular problem is inherently intractable.

The following is a random list of examples where there are several alternative environmental issues or courses of action that need to be weighed up and prioritized. It is not possible to address every problem at once.

• Do I try to save the whales (which are "cute and cuddly and remarkably smart") or should I instead be trying to preserve the base of the food chain (e.g. krill and plankton and small fish) and the keystone species?
• Should I regard marine conservation as a lost cause, and instead address the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems instead?
• Should human population control be addressed before addressing some of the direct environmental concerns? A planet which will soon have 10-12 billion people will inevitably have a more degraded environment and will also suffer a greater degree of resource depletion. Indeed, in Africa there are countries which already have 80-150 million people, and their fertility rate is still so high that the total population of some of these countries could double in a matter of 30-40 years....thereby destroying an already degraded environment.
• Should the most urgent effort go into addressing deforestation and land degradation and the loss of soil fertility, or should the major current effort go into addressing longer-term concerns such as climate change?
• A tradeoff that I often strike in my own studies of environmental remediation and restoration ecology is: do we emphasize conservation reserves and national parks, or should we conclude that these will always be of insufficient area to save sufficient numbers of species, instead putting our major effort into restoring the vast areas of already partially-degraded landscapes into conservation-capable form?
• Are some problems, for the moment, impossible or too expensive or too time-consuming to solve? For instance, strenuous efforts to preserve meaningful amounts of native vegetation on the fringes of big cities have too often failed, despite a lot of effort by a lot of people. As another example, is money that is currently spent on 'renewable energy' wasted because of the current low capacity and high cost of wind & solar generation and the consequent small effect on CO2 mitigation, and therefore should the money instead be saved and spent later on when these technologies have developed further?
• Nuclear power vs. coal-fired energy generation? This is a particularly harsh conundrum, as both technologies have some adverse effects.
• Is bad governance the first problem that needs to be addressed? In other words, is environmental degradation actually a result of corrupt and unresponsive and poorly-advised governments together with an ill-educated human population? (for instance, I once wrote to a senior government advisor on energy policy, and he did not know some of the basic information that you would get from reading New Scientist and Scientific American for a decade!)
• Should we be equally concerned about the loss of each and every species due to habitat degradation, or should we look at trying to maintain the entire landscape in habitable form? (this gets into very difficult territory, such as the question "to what degree do we assign rights to animals?")
• Is resource depletion (e.g. fish stocks, fossil fuels, phosphates, limestone, economically useful minerals, etc.) a bigger problem than the other conservation problems?

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I will not argue with this as it is pathetic thoughts of people who do not know any science.
Bert

You should have stopped there Bert. There is no point in arguing foolish people, People with no ideal about the science but feel embolden to cut and paste trash from "whatsupwithat" because a shock jock on 2GB says he doesn't believe.

Its lucky there was no internet when smoking was linked to cancer or when lead in petrol was linked to health problems. These foolish people would have been rushing to their keyboards in support of their cash for comment demigods....

Pathetic really, but you know today's world way do actual science when ctrl+v is so much easier.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

You should have stopped there Bert. There is no point in arguing foolish people, People with no ideal about the science but feel embolden to cut and paste trash from "whatsupwithat" because a shock jock on 2GB says he doesn't believe.

"foolish people"
"no idea about science"
"people who cut and paste trash"

How does this sort of language help the cause of rational argument and of the public understanding of science?

Also, I suggest that you fix good numbers of grammatical and spelling errors in your post.

Thinking yourself to be much much cleverer than madbadgalaxyman saves you the trouble of having to put up a logical argument to counter my arguments.

Most people who read my posts in IIS would agree that they show evidence of a rational mind and of substantial scientific knowledge. Moreover, I have never "cut and pasted" anything except peer reviewed scientific research that is published in widely respected journals!

I put a lot of work and thought into my last post in this thread, so I do not appreciate being called a scientific ignoramus.
As such, my last post in this thread deserves a considered response.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Please note that I have substantially edited paragraph 2 of my long post about the need to rank environmental problems in order of importance and/or urgency.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

Here's my two cents' worth, as someone with a Physics degree, followed by a long commercial career (finance).

I see two problems with the so-called debate.

...
As commented earlier, the only real debate is about what to do. Of course that's economics, politics and ethics, which are really complicated. Maybe the answer is to do nothing, but pretending it's not happening is just silly.

Great post.

[xelasnave]

Robert I have said many times I enjoy your posts.
Your long post raised many issues but seems to suggest you are sceptical about the climate change science basic premise which is ...we have a very serious problem that potentiallymay see the planet become uninhabitable ... Such a proposition seems to me to be worthy of attention over every other issue.
Certainly there are many problems but the prospect of the planet potentially being unable to support life needs to be addressed and given priority over all else.
The modelling may not be complete and the data incomplete but the consensus is clear. Could we have better models and more comprehensive data ..of course we could but at the moment what we have suggests strongly the problem is real .
So perhaps you will understand that your questions will been seen as somewhat missing the point. I don't approve of personal attacks but suggest that folk who grasp the serious prospect we face could become frustrated and resort to name calling etc.
Should not be that way so never take attacks personally when talking about emotive issues.
If it turns out that we had nothing to worry about that will be wonderful but certainly even though our models could be better and data more extensive the pointer strongly suggests the problem is real and very serious.
The question is can humanity survive in two or there centuries from now.
Addressing such a question is not a waste of money.
I don't think you are a fool or in anyway lacking intelligence and say I do hold you in the highest regard.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

...we have a very serious problem that potentiallymay see the planet become uninhabitable ...

Uninhabitable is a difficult term. What do we mean by it?

• Everything dies. Not going to happen. The Earth has been hotter than we are likely to make it and life endured.
• All humans die. Unlikely. Even on the worst case, some people will hold on somewhere. I suspect that actually quite large numbers (billions) will survive.

The most likely disaster IMHO is that food production slumps/collapses. Also, sea level rise floods most of our major cities and disrupts distribution networks. The result is mass starvation. The starving people go looking for food - carrying guns. Food wars are a real possibility and that is a very nasty scenario. However, total extinction of humans is overstating the situation.

[xelasnave]

David I like your more specific views of the possible future.
I also doubt if everything will die, in the past extinctions something survived hopefully this will remain the case.
I use the term uninhabitable loosely I admit and really seek to describe a possible situation where it is too hot for vegetation to survive.
I believe the planet has endured hotter times and life survived .. How hot can we go?
Well there are various levels from bad to worse but no doubt there is a level which could see a situation where wild life, animals and plants, no longer exists and we live underground or in cities under domes so as to create localised acceptable conditions for humans, animals and plants. I don't know what the future holds but certainly there is a point where by todays measure the planet could be described as uninhabitable.
If we extrapolate the trend the data suggests to those interpreting it we can suggest the future may see the planet so hot life will be markedly different to what we consider the norm today.
How high can temps go? We don't know really but to model a scenario of absolute disaster would not be difficult I suspect.
I believe, unscientific approach but not unrealistic, that we are powerless to change the future. Everyone will have answers but nothing will be done..goodness we can't solve so many smaller problems ..drugs war religious intolerance, so to presume the whole world can magically sit down and formulate a plan to me is simply nonsense..However governments will tax the problem and corporations will profit from this fix or that but really nothing will change..Some think that we are even now powerless to stop anything and who knows if that view is realistic or not.
So I say do nothing other than prepare for the worste case outcome stop arguing about energy pollution etc and get thinking about living in a world different to today...
Maybe consider that populations may have to relocate before the bands of displaced people demand recognition at fun point..Envisage a world where Vennis is for subs diving and Greenland is the new food bowl.

[xelasnave]

I tried to edit...fun point should read gun point..and scuba diving in vennis..anyways I hope spelling etc does not detract from my meaning...

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

If medicine makes a major advancement that extends life-expectancy to 200+ years, I wonder if that would be enough of a self-interest stake for most people to soberly ponder climate-change issues.

However for too many, I suspect climate-change is like a little toothache that will be ignored unless the pain really kicks-in.

And it may not happen during my lifetime so ... Don't Worry; Be Happy!!

Lol, just joshing. Tomorrow is a new day, where these issues will be discussed again at the UN, and strangely, I don't think they will be taking any notice of what we say here!

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Your long post raised many issues but seems to suggest you are sceptical about the climate change science basic premise which is ...we have a very serious problem that potentially may see the planet become uninhabitable ...
Certainly there are many problems but the prospect of the planet potentially being unable to support life needs to be addressed (.....)

The modelling may not be complete and the data incomplete but the consensus is clear. Could we have better models and more comprehensive data ..of course we could but at the moment what we have suggests strongly the problem is real .

Alex,

thank you very much for your considered and thoughtful post. It is a real relief to get a calm response to my posts in this thread.

I am also grateful to Dave2042 and AstralTraveller for calmly explaining some of the science, and for explaining some of the uncertainties and sources of error.

Just to clarify my position on Global Climate Change, I completely agree that there will probably continue to be ongoing increases in mean global temperature, as this is just straight physics. (I happened to have a lot of time on my hands at one time, and I read most of the papers that established the reality of Global Climate Change in Science and Nature)

However, the existing global climatic simulation models give a large range of possible output temperatures (for the planet) for each of the next 100 years, and they also yield a large range of predicted timescales for the warming which will occur.

Do have a look at the latest IPCC Report's temperature projections, and also have a look at the global temperature predictions of various well-known numerical models that have been published by accredited scientists who have an impressive citation record;
the large range of output values of these models, for the 'timescale'(duration) parameter of the temperature increase and for the 'predicted temperature' parameter, suggests to me that the models are not, as yet, good enough to tell us whether global warming in the next 100 years is a minor-to-moderate problem or a serious problem.

Given the uncertainty about whether the best case or worst case Climate Change scenario will occur, I do believe that it is prudent to stop pouring ever more anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, but if the technological options do not currently exist to affordably enable 100% replacement of the current fossil-fuel based power generating capacity, then the major current investment of funds should be into research and development of alternative energy sources, and major financial investments in "non CO2 emitting" power generation capacity should be postponed until the alternative technologies are mature.
[What I mean by a 'mature' technology for generating electric power is a technology that can provide power at the same cost as coal-fired power , and one that can provide the same amount of power as coal-fired generation can. Both solar and wind generation fail to do this, at the current level of technology]

In the interim, as I have described at length in a previous post in this thread, there are a number of extremely urgent environmental problems that must be addressed right now.

Best regards, and thanks again for your input,

Robert

P.S.
It was a little much, was it not, for someone in this thread to say that I had been "cutting and pasting" from the "shock jocks" when I had actually been cutting and pasting from peer-reviewed scientific research.

I know of several specific IIS members who refuse to contribute to the IIS Science forum, because of a lack of courtesy and civility on the part of some posters.

[xelasnave]

Robert you are most welcome.
On the news today it was reported that the Rockefeller,s have moved 50 billion of their money out of fossil fuel investment..what that means I have no idea but it will be interesting to hear the various interpretations of their move.
I have studied global warming for over a decade and was indeed a sceptic...not of the science but of the motivations of those presenting the issue..I fear the prospect of a run away situation which is a prospect neither side of the debate entertains strangely..

I doubt if a complete model can be produced given the extreme complexity .
Current models are ridiculed because their predictions have been off the mark and so many want to dismiss the science..but the science will only be able to provide an educated guess really as to timing but the timing is irrelevant.
.what is relevant is we face the prospect of extinction and folk just can not accept such as being possible.
One should remember extinction is the rule not the exception.
Again don't take things personal it matters not what others think about one...folk like you or they don't why worry it has no relevance...Personally I enjoy witnessing folk underestimate me

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

. Tomorrow is a new day, where these issues will be discussed again at the UN, and strangely, I don't think they will be taking any notice of what we say here!

Bob,

Should we leave it to "the great and the good, and the powerful" to discuss these issues?
The main "emissions" in the climate change area, seem to come from the mouths of policy-makers and opinion-makers!

As a student of history, I note that these constant meetings by high-profile and well-paid jetsetting people on a subject of global concern, strongly resemble the activities of the vigorous European peace movement prior to World War 1...... and we know what happened afterwards....

Robert

Looking at the number of views of this thread, I would have to say that a lot of people are enjoying this acrimonious debate!

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

And a comment on the politics / risk side of things. This is actually closer to what I do for a living than the science in some sense.

There seem to be a few problems in the debate about how bad it's going to be and what ought to be done.

Firstly, a lot of noisiest contributors to the debate seem to assume that either it will all be fine, or humanity or even all life will be totally wiped out. In fact a moment's thought should suggest that the result is more likely to be somewhere in between, and that the extremes are just that, extremes, and really not particularly useful contributions to a practical debate.

Secondly, while there is uncertainty in projections of warming and consequences, I'd intuitively suspect that projections are generally on the optimistic side rather than the pessimistic side, for two reasons. First, scientists in my experience are typically very (intellectually) conservative and acutely aware of the problems of 'scaremongering' and getting disregarded as a result. Also, my understanding is that some of the biggest uncertainties are around positive feedbacks, such as melting icecaps changing the earth's reflectiveness (ie less sunlight reflected back into space) and CO2 release from a heating ocean. If that's the case, then any estimate is far more likely to be an underestimate than an overestimate - it's almost inveitable to underestimate a positive feedback.

Thirdly, a lot of the optimistic contributions are on the theme that humans are ingenious, and all the problems look practically addressable. How hard can it be to relocate people to higher land? Surely we can throw more research efforts at tropical diseases! I agree that we are ingenious and probably can address any given problem if we are organised about it, however this is a very different problem to, say, finding a more efficient way of using a commodity. It involves large-scale population movements in search of very fundamental geographical needs - land, fresh water. The idea that we actually will do this in an organised fashion across national divides strikes me as astonishingly optimistic given a quick look at history - I suspect it will be chaos, and bloody.

Finally, I don't think the optimism factors in that we are talking about multiple problems likely to be occurring simultaneously. Population movements - changes in fresh water availability - rises in tropical diseases - potential food-chain problems from ocean acidification. One thing I've learnt in the commercial frame is that two problems can look easy to deal with individually, but when they arrive at the same time everything goes off the rails.

I confess myself somewhat uninterested in what to do about the problem. I think we've already decided (as a globe) that we simply going to muddle through as it happens without a plan. I don't think this is going to wipe humanity out or anything close to it, but I think it's going to be quite a wild ride.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

"foolish people"

I put a lot of work and thought into my last post in this thread, so I do not appreciate being called a scientific ignoramus.
As such, my last post in this thread deserves a considered response.

You have a basic problem in that you are scientific ignoramus, it's okay so am I. Science is hard and takes a lot of training, you and others show utter contempt for that training. If you wan to join the "debate" about climate change then go get a suitable science degree and get a research job and slave away for 10 20 years.
You can always do what I do and watch with interest and support them. I fact you started this tread on a Astronomy site points to you having a strong opinion, and trying to bait for "discussion".

your comment about my grammar lol your argument is invalid because you missed a comma. If only Fred Hoyle had of thought of that the steady state theory would be on a whole new footing.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Bob,

Should we leave it to "the great and the good, and the powerful" to discuss these issues?
The main "emissions" in the climate change area, seem to come from the mouths of policy-makers and opinion-makers!

!

Looks like some action is comming from those that madbadgalaxyman derides:-

From the ABC News Website yesterday:-

Country commitments

• Barbados: 29 per cent of electricity will be green by 2029
• Denmark: Aims to be fossil fuel free by 2050
• Georgia: Aiming to be carbon neutral by 2050
• Ireland: Reduce greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050
• Mexico: More than one third of electricity-generating capacity
• Ethiopia: Zero net emissions by 2025
• France: One billion USD to the green climate fund over the next few years
• Iceland: Commitment to become an entirely fossil free economy
• Korea: Next year it will become the first Asian country with a national carbon trading scheme
• Chile: 45 per cent of energy to be green by 2025
• Finland: Phasing out coal in power stations by 2025
• Monaco: Goal to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050
• Costa Rica: 100 per cent of energy to be green
• Indonesia: Will cut emissions by 26 per cent by 2020 and says that will rise to 40 per cent with international help
• Brunei: 63 per cent reduction in energy consumption by 2035
• EU: Committed to cutting emissions by 80 to 95 per cent by 2050
• UK: On track to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050
• China: Reiterated commitment to cut carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020, committed $US6 million to advance South-South cooperation on climate change

And from the same Website today:-
Barack Obama to announce world's largest marine sanctuary in Pacific Ocean

Posted 31 minutes agoThu 25 Sep 2014, 3:01pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/562...x2-340x227.jpg Photo: The marine sanctuary will help protect animals with long migratory ranges such as sea turtles. (R.D Kirkby & B.S Kirkby)
Related Story: Climate change biggest ever threat to humanity: UN
Related Story: DiCaprio urges climate action at key summit

Map: Pacific

United States president Barack Obama will create the world's largest marine sanctuary in the Pacific Ocean in a bid to protect sea life from climate change.
Mr Obama will sign a proclamation designating the marine reserve in the south-central Pacific Ocean, thereby making it off-limits to development and commercial fishing, according to a statement from the White House.
"The administration identified expanding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument as an area of particular interest because science has shown that large marine protected areas can help rebuild biodiversity, support fish populations, and improve overall ecosystem resilience," the statement said.
Such areas are under threat from climate change because carbon pollution is causing the oceans to acidify, which can damage marine life including corals and harm ocean ecosystems, the statement added.
The proclamation will expand the reserve to six times its current size, resulting in 1,269,094 square kilometres of protected area.
Mr Obama is using his executive powers to make the designation, bypassing the US legislature.
He ordered his administration in June to chart a way to expand the existing sea reserve.
The White House said the move would protect many animals including those with long migratory ranges such as sea turtles, marine mammals and manta rays.
The area "is also home to millions of seabirds that forage over hundreds of miles and bring food back to their rookeries on the islands and atolls," the statement said.
Recreational and traditional fishing will still be allowed.
Mr Obama is able to designate the marine reserve using the country's Antiquities Act, which has been used by 16 presidents since 1906 to protect natural and historic features in America, the White House said.


However, I could not find what Australia is doing!!!

[Solitarian]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

However, I could not find what Australia is doing!!!

Increasing coal production of course.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

I love these threads. If confirmation were ever needed of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

I's loves you all.