Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 141







Post#3501 at 06-26-2013 10:21 PM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
06-26-2013, 10:21 PM #3501
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
How about letting seals bark for red herring?
The SEALS can have anything they want...

Bacon or chocolate, please.







Post#3502 at 06-26-2013 10:30 PM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
06-26-2013, 10:30 PM #3502
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

While everyone else is chasing tales (rrrfrrrf, hehe), I would like to remind you that the Second Law of Thermodynamics hasn't been repealed. Whatever form of inputs we use for energy, there is going to be loss. Electric distribution is easier, especially if someone fixes the grid up with superconductors and better fail-safes. How to generate the electrical power is another problem. Stack scrubbers are better than mufflers. Fewer persons will have personal vehicles. Living spaces get smaller, and geographic population densities go up. Rail gets fixed.

All this occurs due to economics, eventually. Living through it is the problem.







Post#3503 at 06-26-2013 10:53 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
06-26-2013, 10:53 PM #3503
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
So... you posted something completely irrelevant to your point as if it weren't. Are we to be impressed by your lack of attention to detail, or by your poor reading comprehension skill? Both?

In any case, the journal article I linked straight-out contradicts your unbacked assertion that the incidence of drought has been increasing.
The point was that global warming will lead to increased droughts. JDG implied that the future benefits of global warming (no scientific evidence to back such a claim) will outweigh the negatives. I listed increased drought frequency as a future consequence. It was JDG arguing about the past. Your article doesn't refute my point because you are confusing the views of each of us for the other.

It flat says that the apparent increase in droughts over the multidecadal past was no more than an artifact of poor data management. The most recent article whose abstract you quoted argues that the overall mix and location of both drought and flood events can only be clearly correlated to AGHG forcings. It then argues that models based off that correlation suggest that further increasing AGHG will result in increased instance of drought.

That is, it talks about the predictions made by a model. As opposed to actual, historical fact -- which was what you were asserting above, and what the Nature article debunked.
Not quite. I can see how that mistake could be made as we were each arguing about past and future at the same time. JDG is trying to argue that patterns of the past will continue unabated. He purposefully ignores any actual studies of how the climate works and what those studies show is going to happen.

You do recognize the difference between data from reality, and the output of simulations, don't you? Though ideally they track, one is (quite emphatically) epistemologically very much not the other. Arguing that "the models predict" is a very different thing (and very much not what you were doing that I rebutted) from arguing that "this thing happened".
Please show me were I claimed that global warming has already increased the frequency/severity of droughts. You are mistaking JDG's focus on the pre-warming past for my discussion of the peri-warming future.

The fact that you want to argue a point completely unrelated to both what you were saying originally, to the point with which I rebutted you, and to the factual basis for my rebuttal? That's just transparent weasel-tactics. Hardly becoming of a person who claims to value scientific inquiry.

----

-edit-
And then, I see, you continued to post quotes defending the different and wholly unrelated assertion. Are we to take it, then, that you have recognized the error in your initial false claim and retracted it? Or is it just that you give so few fucks about coherency and consistency of thought that you feel comfortable arguing "But it's green!" when the question was "2 + 2 = ?"?
No. I'm showing that your source does not in fact support the assertions that global warming is not happening or that it can't be responsible for droughts. If you are not actually trying to imply such claims then we are in fact talking past each other.
Last edited by Vandal-72; 06-26-2013 at 10:57 PM.







Post#3504 at 06-27-2013 08:11 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-27-2013, 08:11 AM #3504
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
The point was that global warming will lead to increased droughts.
Well.. Looking back more closely at what you wrote, I can see how you may have meant it that way. We were indeed talking past each other. Please accept my tipped hat as I step out of the way and gesture you to carry on.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#3505 at 06-27-2013 08:15 AM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
06-27-2013, 08:15 AM #3505
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Well.. Looking back more closely at what you wrote, I can see how you may have meant it that way. We were indeed talking past each other. Please accept my tipped hat as I step out of the way and gesture you to carry on.
No problem. It happens.







Post#3506 at 07-01-2013 07:10 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-01-2013, 07:10 PM #3506
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Global warming has killed 19 firefighters in unique and record-setting fires and heat/wind waves in drought-striken AZ. They are just the latest victims of folks who don't want to regulate energy companies and convert to renewable energy sources, because they don't want the government to act or raise any taxes.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3507 at 07-01-2013 07:13 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-01-2013, 07:13 PM #3507
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Would they not have died if the government had raised taxes?







Post#3508 at 07-01-2013 07:15 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-01-2013, 07:15 PM #3508
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
Would they not have died if the government had raised taxes?
If the government had raised taxes on carbon pollution, and conversion to renewable energy had begun a few years or a few decades ago, as it could have, helped along by investment in renewable energy companies financed in part by higher taxes, as it could have, NO, those 19 men would not have died.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3509 at 07-01-2013 07:20 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-01-2013, 07:20 PM #3509
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Yeah, don't think you know that. Natural disasters would still have happened. People would have died.These sorts of sloppy, ill-reasoned arguments really do the global warming fight an injustice.







Post#3510 at 07-01-2013 08:48 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-01-2013, 08:48 PM #3510
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Scott Pelley reported tonight from the fire lines, interviewing the chief of US fire fighters. No-one out here doesn't believe in climate change, said the chief. We live it! A 100,000 acre fire used to be a rare thing, he said. In the last 15 years, 200,000 acre fires are commonplace.

Give it up, libertarians! Your policy has failed. We need government action on climate change. Your policies of inaction over the last 30 years have caused the climate crisis. How many more will die so you don't have to pay taxes or accept regulations on your rich friends?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3511 at 07-01-2013 08:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-01-2013, 08:49 PM #3511
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
Yeah, don't think you know that. Natural disasters would still have happened. People would have died. These sorts of sloppy, ill-reasoned arguments really do the global warming fight an injustice.
Yeah, I think I know that. The only injustice comes from you, in your stubborn, ill-conceived unwillingness to see the facts, and to understand that your ideology is wrong, that taxes must be paid, and the government must act.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3512 at 07-01-2013 09:17 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
07-01-2013, 09:17 PM #3512
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Scott Pelley reported tonight from the fire lines, interviewing the chief of US fire fighters. No-one out here doesn't believe in climate change, said the chief. We live it! A 100,000 acre fire used to be a rare thing, he said. In the last 15 years, 200,000 acre fires are commonplace.

Give it up, libertarians! Your policy has failed. We need government action on climate change. Your policies of inaction over the last 30 years have caused the climate crisis. How many more will die so you don't have to pay taxes or accept regulations on your rich friends?
You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?

Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.
Last edited by Copperfield; 07-01-2013 at 09:21 PM.







Post#3513 at 07-01-2013 09:41 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-01-2013, 09:41 PM #3513
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right? You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.
Hear Hear!!PSssst, technically, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that many of those fires were set by Indians in order to manage their environment better. Otherwise, Huzzah! Eric,It continues to baffle me that you don't seem to realize that there are actually lots of issues on which we have some agreement, agreement ruined by your continued insistence on pontificating about subjects on which you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge, and turning them into culture wars battlegrounds. Like energy storage, for one.
Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 07-01-2013 at 10:40 PM.







Post#3514 at 07-01-2013 09:42 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
07-01-2013, 09:42 PM #3514
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Global warming has killed 19 firefighters in unique and record-setting fires and heat/wind waves in drought-striken AZ. They are just the latest victims of folks who don't want to regulate energy companies and convert to renewable energy sources, because they don't want the government to act or raise any taxes.
Please don't try to help.







Post#3515 at 07-01-2013 10:36 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
07-01-2013, 10:36 PM #3515
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
PSssst, technically, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that many of those fires were set by Indians in order to manage their environment better. Otherwise, Huzzah!
Absolutely. And where do you suppose those Indians got the idea from?

* Controlled burning is part of any serious agriculture operation (organic anyway). For the family farm, burning the fields in the fall every 5 years was the norm (kids were allowed to sit on the barn roof and shoot the rats as they came running out to escape the fire). It was a community event.







Post#3516 at 07-01-2013 10:40 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
07-01-2013, 10:40 PM #3516
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically.
Are you really going to confuse the difference between weather (single fire events) with climate (long term trends on fire numbers and sizes)?

Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century
Not at all true.

and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past).

You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?

Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.







Post#3517 at 07-01-2013 10:47 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
07-01-2013, 10:47 PM #3517
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
Are you really going to confuse the difference between weather (single fire events) with climate (long term trends on fire numbers and sizes)?
I wasn't comparing wildfires with climate at all. Indeed had I sought to make that link I would had said so. Comprende? You may also notice that the chart in your article starts at 1960, whereas the list in the wiki I linked has fires going back as far as 1825 (I explicitly stated last century and the century before that which you carefully edited out), so your chart is missing some real monsters.
Last edited by Copperfield; 07-01-2013 at 10:58 PM.







Post#3518 at 07-01-2013 10:55 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
07-01-2013, 10:55 PM #3518
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
I wasn't comparing wildfires with climate at all. Indeed had I sought to make that link I would had said so. Comprende?
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Pointing out that there have been large fires in the past is ignoring the fact that large fires are far more common than they used to be. A single event compared to the trend for such events.







Post#3519 at 07-01-2013 10:59 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
07-01-2013, 10:59 PM #3519
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
I wasn't comparing wildfires with climate at all. Indeed had I sought to make that link I would had said so. Comprende? You may also notice that the chart in your article starts at 1960, whereas the list in the wiki I linked has fires going back as far as 1825 (which is why I explicitly stated last century and the century before that), so your chart is missing some real monsters.
The chart I linked to is from one continuous data set. You are trying to compare results from two different data sets without showing that one is an appropriate proxy for the other.

I am not denying that very large wildfires occurred in the past. I am denying your implication that today's fire regime is the same as the fire regimes of the past. No fire ecologists that I've read about have ever made such a claim.

Are you really going to try and keep ignoring the trend from the link I supplied?
Last edited by Vandal-72; 07-01-2013 at 11:01 PM.







Post#3520 at 07-01-2013 10:59 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
07-01-2013, 10:59 PM #3520
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Pointing out that there have been large fires in the past is ignoring the fact that large fires are far more common than they used to be. A single event compared to the trend for such events.
Nope, you are very clearly misunderstanding me, but that's quite alright.







Post#3521 at 07-01-2013 11:03 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-01-2013, 11:03 PM #3521
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Well, before this shin kicking contest gets any further, I would like to take this time to rejoice that, whatever our differences, at least we can all agree that Eric is wrong.







Post#3522 at 07-01-2013 11:08 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
07-01-2013, 11:08 PM #3522
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
Well, before this shin kicking contest gets any further, I would like to take this time to rejoice that, whatever our differences, at least we can all agree that Eric is wrong.
Is that ever really in doubt?







Post#3523 at 07-01-2013 11:26 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-01-2013, 11:26 PM #3523
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

I try to keep an open mind, and at least allow for the possibility that he might be correct on something at some point. By accident, of course.







Post#3524 at 07-01-2013 11:35 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
07-01-2013, 11:35 PM #3524
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
The chart I linked to is from one continuous data set. You are trying to compare results from two different data sets without showing that one is an appropriate proxy for the other.

I am not denying that very large wildfires occurred in the past. I am denying your implication that today's fire regime is the same as the fire regimes of the past. No fire ecologists that I've read about have ever made such a claim.

Are you really going to try and keep ignoring the trend from the link I supplied?
Did you have any data trends going back into the early 1800's or perhaps even further back?







Post#3525 at 07-02-2013 12:00 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-02-2013, 12:00 AM #3525
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.
I just posted the testimony of one who knows. Fires are getting bigger and more common due to climate change; that's the fact.
You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?
Because too many people are allowed to live and build houses in places too close to wilderness and subject to fires, so people try to put them out.
You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?
But hotter, drier, more-overgrown, and windier conditions.
Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.
You might know a bit more, if you pay attention to the facts that don't support your ideology of no government.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------