Hari Sheldon, The Mule, and Global Warming

[degaston]

I find this fascinating. You are trying to determine trends from thirty something data points? With a climate system with cycles measured in centuries?

Here is a better chart using data before the satellite measurements in 1980.

Okay, I'll see your 1.4 century chart, and raise you a 14.5 century chart. (reconstructed from tree ring and sediment layer studies.)

Increasing from 3.91 to 5.62 million square kilometers of ice doesn't seem like much of an improvement in the proper context.

[tzor]

Yes, I have to admit that is an interesting chart. There is something really odd about that chart and something that makes me want to say "crap."

Why "crap?" because the last part makes no sense. You have a flat line right through some of the hottest periods of the Christian Era, aka the Medieval Warm Period (when the Vikings went to northern Canada and found grapes growing).



So what is it? Clearly the problem is not directly correlated to temperature. I have the feeling that the problem is underneath and not above. Under the Arctic ice is the Arctic sea (which makes the Arctic the opposite of the Antarctic) and under that is a thin continental plate. Could it be ... volcanoes?

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths



No no, I said volcanoes, not Satan.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, so we're even now in our debate on global warming!

Listen, all I said is that everyone who was freaking out about the end of the world because the ice cap would melt by 2014 'because of global warming' were dead wrong. And as to the denier you automatically assume I am for pointing that out, I would reread that part about 'I would level with you here and tell you what I think honestly on the topic but you would ignore it and post a silly picture response...' but that's just because of who I was talking to. So think what you want about me being a skeptic, or not.

Either way, mind casting your vote in my Global Warming Poll?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=204236

[notyou2]

Yes, I have to admit that is an interesting chart. There is something really odd about that chart and something that makes me want to say "crap."

Why "crap?" because the last part makes no sense. You have a flat line right through some of the hottest periods of the Christian Era, aka the Medieval Warm Period (when the Vikings went to northern Canada and found grapes growing).



So what is it? Clearly the problem is not directly correlated to temperature. I have the feeling that the problem is underneath and not above. Under the Arctic ice is the Arctic sea (which makes the Arctic the opposite of the Antarctic) and under that is a thin continental plate. Could it be ... volcanoes?

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths



No no, I said volcanoes, not Satan.

This post was sponsored by Universalchiro

[degaston]

A cat and lasers! Man, I wish I had written something that awesome!

My silly image was in response to your silly image from the Daily Mail that implied that a short term increase in the arctic ice extent is proof that global warming is a hoax. I didn't realize that you were just using the link from tzor's OP until later, and I thought about apologizing for crediting/blaming you for it, but... well, you did post it.

If you had read the whole BBC article that you showed the headline for, you would have seen that it quoted another scientists who said:

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.

but saying that doesn't get as many clicks, so the writer will always lede with the more extreme viewpoint. Then, when the worst case scenario does not come to pass, people like you will go "See... SEE! you guys were dead wrong!" as if it somehow disproves the entire premise. As if makes everything better that the ice caps might not melt for another 10 or 20 years. We wouldn't want to start "freaking out" about something like that too soon, right?

I'm not a climatologist, and I assume that you and tzor aren't either, because over 97% of them agree that the earth is warming, the ice caps are melting, humans are most likely the primary cause, and the results will be environmentally and economically devastating. The motivations of global warming deniers seem to be driven by short-term political and personal (at least for the top 1%) economic concerns rather than by science, or long-term views on our environmental, societal and economic well being.

Where are the peer reviewed journals against global warming? The viewpoints of deniers seem to come primarily from far-right talk show hosts and tabloid journalists. They cherry pick small sets of data that support their preconceived notions, and pull stunts like putting Al Gore's book out in a snow storm to "prove" that global warming is a hoax.

Sorry, I'm not really interested in having a "debate" on global warming. What is there to debate, anyway? There's plenty of information out there for those who want to learn about it.


And I don't think it matters whether you think you are a denier or just a skeptic, because you and others like you will continue to vote for the deniers.

[shickingbrits]

Degaston,

I am not a climatologist either. Can climatologists say how much heat is absorb per unit of CO2? Can they say the saturation point? What suggestions of theirs do you think provides the best solution to counteract this poisonous product?

[degaston]

Degaston,

I am not a climatologist either. Can climatologists say how much heat is absorb per unit of CO2? Can they say the saturation point? What suggestions of theirs do you think provides the best solution to counteract this poisonous product?

So you're asking me to look up climatology facts for you? No thanks.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I think it's probably already too late to do much to change the outcome. In my opinion, it would require a massive global shift in political will, and I see no sign of that happening. There are too many people who are only concerned with their own situation, or figure that God will bail us out, or look forward to the rapture, or just plain won't believe the librul scientists until the water is lapping at their ankles.

The most likely solution? We tear down the wall at the Mexican border and invite all those workers in to build dykes and walls to keep out the seawater.

[patches70]

or just plain won't believe the librul scientists until the water is lapping at their ankles.

Or maybe those librul [sic] scientists can maybe tell the truth instead of exaggerating, misrepresenting and/or outright falsifying data. You know, when people get caught lying a few times other people stop believing them. Not to mention making predictions that don't come true tends to discredit a bit.
The prediction part may not be the scientists so much as it is the self appointed spokespeople who discredit the science through rash and ill advised scare tactics (usually for the purpose of drumming up money).
Just like the nuts who wave the signs on the street corners- "The End is Nigh" discredit churches so these self appointed spokespeople discredit the science.

But meh, I'm all for freedom of religion. If people want climate researchers to be their version of priests, so be it. The earlier poster had me chuckling- "If we don't change now we're all fucked!" Reminded me of a Baptist sermon with hell and damnation waiting for those who don't repent.

In the words of Master Chief- "It's gunna be all right."

But I suppose life isn't fun without any angst. Carry on! But for Goodness sake, if you want people to get on board with your climate change alarmism then it would probably be a good idea to get people like Al Gore to shut the f*ck up. Heh heh.

[shickingbrits]

Degaston,

So you don't even know the very base of the problem and yet you are trying to tell people they should be afraid.

"A political shift in will" to do what? To bring down CO2 emissions? by how much? how?

You lack a beginning and end. Your story sucks.

[BigBallinStalin]

Degaston,

[tzor]

So let's recap everything, for a moment. We stared out with the following ...

"[Climate change] is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and world," Clinton said at the National Clean Energy Summit 7.0 in Nevada on Thursday.

Is she correct? I insist that she is not. We then proceeded to discuss the potential impact of man made CO2 emissions, the melting of the polar ice caps and the overall extremely slow rise of the world's oceans.

None of these discussions even attempted to prove that this is the "most consequential" anything and it's even doubtful that any proposed "solutions" would impact the problem either positively or negatively.

Climate Change is not a religion. Statism is a religion. Climate Change is the "false demon" that the Statists use to get the people to worship the All Powerful Ever Living State.

[shickingbrits]

Science is a religion, check out "Unbelief". Climate change is just one of their arms. Reading the comments that they spread is like watching the Inquisition all over again. You don't deserve to live because you don't believe like us. We hold the truth and you are a danger because you are unable/unwilling to understand.

The Report from Iron Mountain becomes more and more pertinent. f*ck the state. Empower the individual.

They have no solution, their solution is to create disarray and blame it on the people and further disempower them.

[Dukasaur]

So let's recap everything, for a moment. We stared out with the following ...

"[Climate change] is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and world," Clinton said at the National Clean Energy Summit 7.0 in Nevada on Thursday.

Is she correct? I insist that she is not. We then proceeded to discuss the potential impact of man made CO2 emissions, the melting of the polar ice caps and the overall extremely slow rise of the world's oceans.

None of these discussions even attempted to prove that this is the "most consequential" anything and it's even doubtful that any proposed "solutions" would impact the problem either positively or negatively.

Climate Change is not a religion. Statism is a religion. Climate Change is the "false demon" that the Statists use to get the people to worship the All Powerful Ever Living State.

Colossal strawman.

Climate change is a real thing. The way Gore and Clinton milked it for votes, pretending that giving more power to big government is the solution to this problem, is a fraud. The existence of an expoitive fraud does not in any way negate the existence of the thing being exploited.

By way of analogy, high cholesterol levels are a real thing and something to be genuinely concerned about. The way Quaker Oats milks this to sell their junk food, persuading people that eating oatmeal and granola will cure high cholesterol, based on a misinterpretation of some science, is a multi-billion dollar fraud. The fraudulent way that Quaker Oats exploits this issue in no way negates the fact that high cholesterol is a very genuine health risk.

You cannot disprove climate science by pointing at the fraudulent way governments exploit it, any more than you can disprove biochemistry by pointing at the fraudulent way food processing megacorps exploit it.

[patches70]

Climate change is a real thing. The way Gore and Clinton milked it for votes, pretending that giving more power to big government is the solution to this problem, is a fraud. The existence of an expoitive fraud does not in any way negate the existence of the thing being exploited.

By way of analogy, high cholesterol levels are a real thing and something to be genuinely concerned about. The way Quaker Oats milks this to sell their junk food, persuading people that eating oatmeal and granola will cure high cholesterol, based on a misinterpretation of some science, is a multi-billion dollar fraud. The fraudulent way that Quaker Oats exploits this issue in no way negates the fact that high cholesterol is a very genuine health risk.

You cannot disprove climate science by pointing at the fraudulent way governments exploit it, any more than you can disprove biochemistry by pointing at the fraudulent way food processing megacorps exploit it.

Yeah, but you can't blame people for scoffing at Al Gore can you? And not wanting to go along with those very fraudulent machinations can you? Nor can you blame people for being skeptical because though you say climate change is a real thing and we should be concerned, you can't say with any certainty what the consequences are. No one knows. But if you question that, and there is no reason not to question, why should people be met with- "Earth hater! Baby killer!" etc etc. Do you think that actually helps?

When people like notyou go off on a rant I would think even those who are worried about the issue would at least have the courage to say- "Dude, chill out, you are sounding like a complete nut right now and it doesn't help".

When the Al Gore types of the culture start preaching about how we are all going to die I can't help but roll my eyes. It's not my fault some of the most untrustworthy, lying and greedy individuals have become the spokesmen for the culture. Doom and gloom only work on the weak minded. Hell, Al Gore might be right in some strange alternate universe, but because he's a piece of shit he is just a modern day Cassandra. Forever cursed to know the future but be such an asshole that no one believes him.

Heh heh.

[shickingbrits]

Duk,

Can climatologists say how much heat is absorb per unit of CO2? Can they say the saturation point? What suggestions of theirs do you think provides the best solution to counteract this poisonous product?

[Dukasaur]

Duk,

Can climatologists say how much heat is absorb per unit of CO2? Can they say the saturation point? What suggestions of theirs do you think provides the best solution to counteract this poisonous product?

Greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the absorption of heat by CO2. That's a bit of smoke-and-mirrors that the deniers try to wave around.

Greenhouse effect is about the reflection of heat by CO2. Energy leaving the earth's surface that would normally escape into space is reflected back to earth. The amount of heat stored in the atmosphere is insignificant, so there is nothing to "saturate." All the heat in the atmosphere is basically in transit from one place to another; it's not hanging around.

There's a good introduction to the subject here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

As far as solutions go, ultimately there's no solution but fewer people. The environment is amazingly resilient. If we were at our natural pre-agrarian population density of about 1 person per square mile, there's nothing we do that the planet couldn't handle. We could drive around in Sherman tanks, piss in the river, shit in the lake, and light forest fires just for fun, and the planet would take it all in stride and keep on going. The only reason we are able to poison the planet is that there is just too damn many of us. This breeding instinct that served us well when we had 80% child mortality is now our greatest enemy. We need to make parenthood unfashionable. One child per person has to be an absolute maximum, until we get the population down to a decent level.

All this crap about carbon credits and harm mitigation is all just plowing furrows in the sea. We can trim the production of pollutants per person, but there are practical limits below which there's nothing to trim. Ultimately there's no salvation but a massive, massive reduction in the birth rate. This is why the politicians are full of shit. The only honest thing they could be telling people is "STOP BREEDING, ASSHOLES!" Instead they push bogus nonsense like recycling plants and wind farms, which create huge costs for the taxpayers, some windfall profits for cronies with good connections to their local government, a massive hassle for a lot of people and in the end will make exactly zero difference.

[shickingbrits]

'The only honest thing they could be telling people is "STOP BREEDING, ASSHOLES!"'

Stop breeding, assholes.

Well it would seem that you are the biggest asshole around. "CO2 doesn't absorb heat just reflects it. There is no saturation point of this reflection."

Water absorbs heat. And there is more than a shit ton of it. It absorbs heat as it enters our atmosphere, in the oceans, as it exits. Humidity here gets to the 80% almost every night. What are a hundred parts per million more or less of CO2 going to add to to the heat absorbed by the water that is all around me?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/03/n ... cientists/

Don't hear you citing this. Who'd of thought that water was so important?

You have a cracker jack story that only makes sense in the most abstract mind frame possible. Stop breeding? Go for it.

As for me, climate has changed and will continue to change and I think people have the intelligence and willingness to make the world better, but not in your psychotic view. Breed on, say I.

Kind of strange how close climate change is to eugenics. They just want to depopulate the world starting with the unscientific like those in Liberia whose unscientificness deserves ebola.

And ya wonder why I don't trust ya?

[patches70]

. Ultimately there's no salvation but a massive, massive reduction in the birth rate. This is why the politicians are full of shit. The only honest thing they could be telling people is "STOP BREEDING, ASSHOLES!"

Hey, Duk, you have to understand that this is not a solution, it's just a trade off. Let's say you are the totalitarian ruler of the world and you pass a law that says only one child per couple or whatever. Maybe you help this climate change, maybe not, but you will encounter a whole host of new problems not very far down that road that will certainly distract your attention from climate change.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't see how reducing population growth is the best option. With more people, we get more innovations; with less people, we get less innovations. I'm not sure why we want to reduce the most valuable resource in the world.

[Dukasaur]

. Ultimately there's no salvation but a massive, massive reduction in the birth rate. This is why the politicians are full of shit. The only honest thing they could be telling people is "STOP BREEDING, ASSHOLES!"

Hey, Duk, you have to understand that this is not a solution, it's just a trade off. Let's say you are the totalitarian ruler of the world and you pass a law that says only one child per couple or whatever. Maybe you help this climate change, maybe not, but you will encounter a whole host of new problems not very far down that road that will certainly distract your attention from climate change.

Well, for starters, I wouldn't want to impose such a thing through law. Totalitarian laws breed resistance, and a whole load of unpleasant side-effects. I think it has to be a spontaneous thing. At some point people will get tired of needing to be shovelled into the subway trains and realize that maybe they want to live in a world where they can go out to the park and smell the roses without having to trip over 642,000 people on the path.

I think we need to make parenthood unfashionable. Voluntarily.

I don't see how reducing population growth is the best option. With more people, we get more innovations; with less people, we get less innovations. I'm not sure why we want to reduce the most valuable resource in the world.

There's so many ways to answer that.

1. How many more innovations do we need? The economy already produces more goods than anyone objectively needs. The only reason we keep grinding away is that people have this completely irrational need to compare their possessions to the possessions of others, instead of evaluating them in absolute terms. People who have five wide-screen TVs in their rec room and three ATVs in their garage consider themselves poor because their neighbour has seven wide-screen TVs and six ATVs. It's a psychosis, plain and simple. You don't need more than one TV, and unless you're farming a thousand-acre spread, you don't need any ATVs at all.

Just as our obsessive breeding impulse was once a valuable instinct when we had a child mortality rate of 80%, so our obsessive acquisitiveness was once a valuable instinct in the days of regular famines and shortages. It's equally obsolete in modern times.

(Yes, I realize that there's real poverty in some areas of the world, but in the G7 nations everyone except maybe the bottom 2% has a lot more materialistic claptrap than anyone objectively needs.)

2. Well, because that resource is a destructive force that bulldozes everything beautiful to make room for its settlements, covers every surface with its excrement, has an insatiable desire to continue consuming and producing more goods long after its real needs have been satisfied, and ruthlessly exterminates species after species.

3. What percentage of humans are involved in this alleged innovation? I'll bet you couldn't fill a decent-sized fishing village with the humans that are involved in creating anything genuinely new at any given moment. An average population density of one person per square mile is a world population of 50 million. That's far more than the number that are currently involved in anything more than rote performance of essentially uncreative tasks.

4. We're not far now from the point where humans are obsolete. Already the robots can perform any regular task better than we can. They fly planes and drive cars and repair their own circuits with a lower error rate than any humans in those jobs. All that remains is the creative tasks, but even there we're on the verge of being outperformed. Computers are writing music and painting pictures, and it won't be long before computer-controlled animated actors are indistinguishable from real humans in movies.

We're not far now from Eloi. More and more, humans are being kept in jobs that they are no longer the optimal candidates for, only out of nostalgia and resistance to change. If we don't see Eloi status in our lifetime, our grandchildren will. How much of a valuable resource will your humans be when the computers are doing all the thinking and robots are doing all the work? The future of humanity is loafing and comparing cat videos, and maybe occassionally launching some foray into actual work, purely as a nostalgia thing.

It becomes increasingly difficult to justify allowing humans to breed like rabbits when they are no longer needed for any useful work.

[shickingbrits]

My bad Duk, thought I was talking to a human.

The fucked up thing is, when I talk about Bill Gates, who shares your ideas and is actively engaged in carrying them out, people say I am insane. The Rockefeller Foundation has been working for more than fifty years on vaccines to control population, the last forty in a joint effort with the UN. Bill Gates was born to a eugenicist.

You are saying we are taking up too much of their space. My father says the same, he has 10 grandchildren with one on the way next month. Do you think he means us when he says this?

Well, I own more than a square mile of land, and when Duk gets to hunting, you are all welcome. Eat a dick, Duk.

[AndyDufresne]

My bad Duk, thought I was talking to a human.

The fucked up thing is, when I talk about Bill Gates, who shares your ideas and is actively engaged in carrying them out, people say I am insane. The Rockefeller Foundation has been working for more than fifty years on vaccines to control population, the last forty in a joint effort with the UN. Bill Gates was born to a eugenicist.

You are saying we are taking up too much of their space. My father says the same, he has 10 grandchildren with one on the way next month. Do you think he means us when he says this?

Well, I own more than a square mile of land, and when Duk gets to hunting, you are all welcome. Eat a dick, Duk.

--Andy

[BoganGod]

My bad Duk, thought I was talking to a human.

The fucked up thing is, when I talk about Bill Gates, who shares your ideas and is actively engaged in carrying them out, people say I am insane. The Rockefeller Foundation has been working for more than fifty years on vaccines to control population, the last forty in a joint effort with the UN. Bill Gates was born to a eugenicist.

You are saying we are taking up too much of their space. My father says the same, he has 10 grandchildren with one on the way next month. Do you think he means us when he says this?

Well, I own more than a square mile of land, and when Duk gets to hunting, you are all welcome. Eat a dick, Duk.

So to sum up shickingbrits's position, "I'm alright thanks Jack, f*ck the rest of you"

[shickingbrits]

No, to sum up my position:

We are all alright, so f*ck those of you who would destroy the world to save it.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, to sum up my position:

We are all alright, so f*ck those of you who would destroy the world to save it.

So, there's this thing called "marginalism." You should look into it.