Well, that's not entirely true. If your anecdotes are plural enough, and if they are selected in certain random ways that constitute a valid sample of a larger population, then you have data.Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
OK, but then you lose that whole anecdote thing.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Global warming implies that people who just barely avoid the worst consequences of heat waves will get them harder. To be sure, this is weather and not climate, and Karachi is one of the last places that I would want to be if I wanted to avoid brutal heat. And I do not refer to Pakistani police!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7634200.htmlKARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — Nearly 150 people have died from heatstroke in the southern Pakistani port city of Karachi in the last two days, officials said Monday.
Hospital reports confirm at least 148 deaths, said the city's health director, Zafar Ejaz.
Hundreds more are being treated for heat-related ailments, including fever and dehydration, said Seemi Jamali, a spokeswoman for Jinnah Hospital. She added that most of the deaths have been among elderly people.
Karachi has been in the grip of a rare heat wave, with temperatures soaring to 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit). A collapse of the local power grid over the weekend made matters worse.
The heat wave is the worst in at least a decade, but the arrival of monsoon rains in the coming days should bring relief, meteorologist Mohammad Hanif said.
Health officials have advised people to stay out of the sun and drink more fluids.
...Coming to a city near you? Like Dallas, Phoenix, Tucson, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Kansas City, or Little Rock?
The record for Dallas is 45C/ 113 F
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Karachi is the worst of both worlds: Not only a hot, arid, climate, but one with peak precipitation/humidity in the summer - sometimes classified as BWhw in the Koppen scheme.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
-You're trying to deny the Medieval Warming event. There is incontrovertible evidence for that. That's several "anecdotes" occuring across the world, simultaneously. Meanwhile, you're putting your faith in climate modles which have a crappy track record.
Whatever.
-Ha ha ha!
With all things things that even YOU are forced to admit create CO2, you're worried about the small amount created by your hooptie?
Thank you for making my point.
-Actually, global cooling alarmists in the 1970s suggested just that for Antarctica (as, looking below, BB seems to confirm). Aren't you glad we didn't listen to the bedwetters?
-Not denying it per se. I'm just pointing out:
1) The "science" is really just some dodgy climate models with a bad track record of predicying anything in the real world;
2) Human impact is minimal; unlike what poor deluded Jenny thinks with her flooding fantasies. It might even be beneficial (as 58 Flat mentions below somewhere). It is certainly not worth marching back to the Bronze Age for.
-Oh, Eric, Eric, Eric:
...two articles that explain how the "overwhelming numbers of climate scientists" are cherry picked, and you miss them. Oh well.
-As I pointed out to Jenny, that idea that Miami is going underwater is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how cold the Arctic ice cap is? Do you realize that even if it did, that its effect on ocean levels would be minimal since the ice is already in the water (think Archimedes)? Do you have any idea how cold Antarctica is? Five degrees is not going to melt the ice caps. You and Jenny are perect examples of homo-global alarmism. Sheesh.
Your problem is that you think that just because someone calls themselves a "climate scientist" that that means that they're using the scientific method. There's no eveidence that these people do.
-So, explain the fraud of Peter Gleick, homo-global-warming alarmist.
-Largely because the CDC is dishonest and biased on the topic (as BB discusses). Obama has had the CDC do research on the topic, and they spent most of their time spinning the evidence, because, as always happens, the facts don't fit the proggie agenda.
-You really believe that?
Explain how a 5 degree increase accomplishes that.
-True.
...So, I'm still waiting for everyone (besides BB) to answer this:
-Yeah. Because I misspell stuff all the time. Oh, I don't, do I? I make a few typos while in a hurry (I was distracted with some other post) and you play "gotcha." Don't be a smug douche.
Sheesh.
1) You mean, like these "doofuses": http://abcnews.go.com/US/charleston-...ry?id=31863489
2) Why "cool"? I never understood the smugness of atheists. In my (pretty broad) experience, atheists are just puke cowards who don't want to admit to themselves that they might not be the end-all-be-all of existence. Atheism is just another faith. The only truly rational answer to the question "is there a god?" is "I don't know," unless you sincerely believe you've made contact. I haven't.
BTW, I answered the question on the issue I think you had in mind (probably the age of the earth, etc.). The Bible is extremely useful for certain topics in the post-1000 BC era.
1) Maybe not as much as you assume. Define "social conservative."
2) Why not?
3) You're not an agnostic, FWICT, but you'd probably describe yourself as a social liberal.
Why?
Last edited by JDG 66; 06-25-2015 at 11:11 AM.
115 is greater than 10?
Between the year 1000 and the US Civil War, CO2 levels bounced between 275 and 285. This era included any number of the shorter term effects I described. (Not all. The continents, for example, didn't shift significantly during this time.)
Since the Civil War, CO2 in ppm have shifted from 285 to 400.
Of course, a denialist's flexible attitude towards facts will make a shift of 115 "small," while other sources that when combined together add to 10 are large.
If you can't distinguish that 115 is larger than 10, by more than an order of magnitude, mind you, you are value locked indeed. Rational conversation seems implausible.
Tipping Points
I don't take my 'facts' from denialists. I look to the scientists. You might as well ask, "Assuming that the temperature isn't going to go up, how much do you think the temperature is going up?" I'm basing my answers more on the science than your trick of rhetoric.
The arctic is already going. Historically, once the arctic goes, the antarctic follows. I have no reason to suppose history won't repeat. The ice caps going is a trigger. A darker arctic ocean and antarctic land mass will cause another jump in temperature above and beyond whatever caused the caps to go. With both gone, the arctic methane will thaw, another trigger, another jump...
But a good deal of the planet's carbon is still underground as fossil fuel. I don't know that the undersea methane will follow the tundra methane, in which case it won't be as bad as The Permian–Triassic extinction event. It will still be a major extinction event, but not one of the worst.
I wonder what deniers like Danilynn or her children and grandchildren are going to do when all the sewage and drinking water of lands along the Mississippi are flooded with salt water and are backed up like a stinking toilet. I wonder if she will be wondering why she went along with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell then, as Mississippi sinks below the rising sea. I wonder what all the deniers who invested in property in Florida are going to do when it's all underwater. It may be too late already to change this. The Republican-caused delays have already doomed us to most of this sea-level rise. Deniers might talk now about moving to Canada, but are they going to like it when it's actually time to move and say goodbye to the lands they knew?
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...e-exponential/
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-25-2015 at 01:22 PM.
All Republicans and Libertarians and all who deny the red/blue polarity should immediately move to Miami. No excuses.
That sinking feeling...
I am dubious. Such people are dominated by economic values. As the sea level rises, land prices in Miami will drop. Thus, the longer they wait to move, the more economically sound the move to Miami becomes.
[/irony]
-I'm sure all sorts of intersting things happened since the ACW. WWII leaps to mind. Post hoc does not neccessarily mean ergo propter hoc.
-Eric, you know that it would take far more than a 5 degree Fahrenheit bump in temp's to melt the ice caps, right?
Countries leading the way toward 100% renewable energy:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/count...ewable-energy/
Worldwide, around 100 gigawatts (GW) of solar and wind power capacity were built in 2014—up from 74 GW in 2013—and nearly during every month the headlines were filled with record generation in cities and countries across the world.
As we kick off 2015—with hopes for an even bigger year for renewable energy—here’s five records that were broken in 2014.
1. Denmark sets world record for wind
Denmark set a new world record for wind production in 2014, getting 39.1 percent of its overall electricity from the clean energy source.
The latest figures put the country well on track to meet its 2020 goal of getting 50 percent of its power from renewables.
Denmark has long been a pioneer in wind power, having installed its first turbines in the mid-1970s, and has even more ambitious aims in sight, including a 100 percent renewable country by 2050.
Last year, onshore wind was also declared the cheapest form of energy in the country.
2. UK wind power smashes annual records
In the UK, wind power also smashed records in 2014, as generation rose 15 percent from 24.5 terawatt-hours (TWh) hours to 28.1 TWh.
That’s more than any other year, and the country now generates enough wind energy to supply the needs of more than 6.7 million UK households.
A combination of grid-connected wind farms and standalone turbines produced 9.3 percent of the UK’s electricity demand in 2014, up from 7.8 percent in 2013 and the latest data follows a string of wind power records announced in the second half of last year.
3. Renewables provide biggest contribution to Germany’s electricity
Renewable energy was the biggest contributor to Germany’s electricity supply in 2014, with nearly 26 percent of the country’s power generation coming from clean sources.
That’s according to Berlin-based think-tank Agora Energiewende.
Electricity output from renewables has grown eightfold in Germany since 1990, and the latest data further highlights the dramatic shift towards clean energy taking place in Europe’s largest economy.
4. Scotland sees “massive year” for renewables
With another record month experienced in December, 2014 was a “massive year” for renewables in Scotland.
Last month, wind turbines alone provided around 1,279 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to the national gird, enough to supply the electrical needs of 164 percent of Scottish households, or 3.96 million homes.
The latest figures further highlight the record year seen for renewables in Scotland, with wind turbines providing an average 746, 510 MWh each month—enough to supply 98 percent of Scottish households electricity needs.
Over six months of the year, wind generated enough power to supply more than 100 percent of Scottish households, while in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness there was enough sunshine to provide 100 percent or more of the electricity needs for an average home in June and July.
With figures like these it is no wonder new research out this week said the country’s power grid could be 100 percent renewable by 2030.
5. Ireland hits new record for wind energy
Windy conditions in Ireland meant the country saw not one but two wind energy records set already this year.
According to figures record by EirGrid on Wednesday (Jan. 7), wind energy had created 1,942 MW of energy, enough to power more than 1.26 million homes.
And while we are still only a week into 2015, this announcement marked the second time this year the country has seen this record broken. On the Jan. 1, wind energy output was at a previous high of 1,872 MW.
Right, and if you watched the video, you'd know that your policies will melt them in a few hundred years, raising the seas by 250 feet. And 6 feet by 2100.-Eric, you know that it would take far more than a 5 degree Fahrenheit bump in temp's to melt the ice caps, right?
Huh?
Do any of these things cause CO2 release in the atmosphere not related to humans? If so, could you name these alleged things? For your argument to make sense, you are aiming to find enough natural sources of CO2 to account for more than a 100 ppm rise.
Until then, the 115 ppm since large scale human burning of fossil fuels started remains much larger than the 10 ppm caused by all natural sources combined. 115 remains much larger than 10.
-Explain how much the world would have to rise to melt the polar ice cap.
The record high in Oklahoma is 120 F.
The record high in Kansas in 121 F.
All of the plains states except Nebraska have record highs at or above 120 F. Some adjacent rocky mountain states have this as well.
The duration of course has a N to S gradient. Below is the weather pattern that makes for very bad heat waves, the omega block. The high pressure system is an area of sinking warming air. The warming drys out the air so very bad droughts are also commonly associated with this weather pattern as well. 2012 was our last hit. The math is easy. Take 120 and add whatever additional temperature rise and add it on.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
But "Fahrenheit" is the problem.
I actually agree with Lincoln Chafee. We're still teaching our kids obsolete weights and measures - just like we're teaching too many of them that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
It's time to join the rest of the world.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
The Artic is rapidly melting now, so not much temperature rise is needed to finish that. I'm not as certain about the Antarctic, but you should remember. The effects of an average global rise of X degrees is much more concentrated at the poles than the equator. The poles could see 2X, and, more to the point, warm winds. Warm winds trigger sublimation and that raises the humidity in the global air, which falls as rain or snow elsewhere.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
There was a half hearted effort in the 1970's. We grade schoolers of the 1970's learned the metric system but nothing else changed. The only place I used my grade school knowledge was in subsequent science classes later on. I agree [again], it's high time we trash this imperial unit nonsense , and yes join the rest of the world. I have no frakking clue as to how many cups are in a pint, or tablespoons per gallon.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
And like the good joneser math wonk I was I faithfully did the calculations in my hear for kilos/miles. and temperatures until the mid to late 80's. Yeah, I never really cared for Imperial measurements either.
In all good faith, I suggest a book for you ... The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. I was impressed by her collection of what seemed like fairly good science. The concatenation of which is pretty worrisome.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Something for our next prophets or "green bioneers" to handle, methinks.
If everyone lived in an ‘ecovillage’, the Earth would still be in trouble
June 26, 2015 12.59pm AEST
Author
Samuel Alexander
Research fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at University of Melbourne
https://theconversation.com/if-every...-trouble-43905
We are used to hearing that if everyone lived in the same way as North Americans or Australians, we would need four or five planet Earths to sustain us.
This sort of analysis is known as the “ecological footprint” and shows that even the so-called “green” western European nations, with their more progressive approaches to renewable energy, energy efficiency and public transport, would require more than three planets.
How can we live within the means of our planet? When we delve seriously into this question it becomes clear that almost all environmental literature grossly underestimates what is needed for our civilisation to become sustainable.
Only the brave should read on.
The ‘ecological footprint’ analysis
In order to explore the question of what “one planet living” would look like, let us turn to what is arguably the world’s most prominent metric for environmental accounting – the ecological footprint analysis. This was developed by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, then at the University of British Columbia, and is now institutionalised by the scientific body, The Global Footprint Network, of which Wackernagel is president.
This method of environmental accounting attempts to measure the amount of productive land and water a given population has available to it, and then evaluates the demands that population makes upon those ecosystems. A sustainable society is one that operates within the carrying capacity of its dependent ecosystems.
While this form of accounting is not without its critics – it is certainly not an exact science – the worrying thing is that many of its critics actually claim that it underestimates humanity’s environmental impact. Even Wackernagel, the concept’s co-originator, is convinced the numbers are underestimates.
According to the most recent data from the Global Footprint Network, humanity as a whole is currently in ecological overshoot, demanding one and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. As the global population continues its trend toward 11 billion people, and while the growth fetish continues to shape the global economy, the extent of overshoot is only going to increase.
Every year this worsening state of ecological overshoot persists, the biophysical foundations of our existence, and that of other species, are undermined.
The footprint of an ecovillage
As I have noted, the basic contours of environmental degradation are relatively well known. What is far less widely known, however, is that even the world’s most successful and long-lasting ecovillages have yet to attain a “fair share” ecological footprint.
Take the Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland, for example, probably the most famous ecovillage in the world. An ecovillage can be broadly understood as an “intentional community” that forms with the explicit aim of living more lightly on the planet. Among other things, the Findhorn community has adopted an almost exclusively vegetarian diet, produces renewable energy and makes many of their houses out of mud or reclaimed materials.
An ecological footprint analysis was undertaken of this community. It was discovered that even the committed efforts of this ecovillage still left the Findhorn community consuming resources and emitting waste far in excess of what could be sustained if everyone lived in this way. (Part of the problem is that the community tends to fly as often as the ordinary Westerner, increasing their otherwise small footprint.)
Put otherwise, based on my calculations, if the whole world came to look like one of our most successful ecovillages, we would still need one and a half planet’s worth of Earth’s biocapacity. Dwell on that for a moment.
I do not share this conclusion to provoke despair, although I admit that it conveys the magnitude of our ecological predicament with disarming clarity. Nor do I share this to criticise the noble and necessary efforts of the ecovillage movement, which clearly is doing far more than most to push the frontiers of environmental practice.
Rather, I share this in the hope of shaking the environmental movement, and the broader public, awake. With our eyes open, let us begin by acknowledging that tinkering around the edges of consumer capitalism is utterly inadequate.
In a full world of seven billion people and counting, a “fair share” ecological footprint means reducing our impacts to a small fraction of what they are today. Such fundamental change to our ways of living is incompatible with a growth-oriented civilisation.
Some people may find this this position too “radical” to digest, but I would argue that this position is merely shaped by an honest review of the evidence.
What would ‘one planet’ living look like?
Even after five or six decades of the modern environmental movement, it seems we still do not have an example of how to thrive within the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet.
Nevertheless, just as the basic problems can be sufficiently well understood, the nature of an appropriate response is also sufficiently clear, even if the truth is sometimes confronting.
We must swiftly transition to systems of renewable energy, recognising that the feasibility and affordability of this transition will demand that we consume significantly less energy than we have become accustomed to in the developed nations. Less energy means less producing and consuming.
We must grow our food organically and locally, and eat considerably less (or no) meat. We must ride our bikes more and fly less, mend our clothes, share resources, radically reduce our waste streams and creatively “retrofit the suburbs” to turn our homes and communities into places of sustainable production, not unsustainable consumption. In doing so, we must challenge ourselves to journey beyond the ecovillage movement and explore an even deeper green shade of sustainability.
Among other things, this means living lives of frugality, moderation and material sufficiency. Unpopular though it is to say, we must also have fewer children, or else our species will grow itself into a catastrophe.
But personal action is not enough. We must restructure our societies to support and promote these “simpler” ways of living. Appropriate technology must also assist us on the transition to one planet living. Some argue that technology will allow us to continue living in the same way while also greatly reducing our footprint.
However, the extent of “dematerialisation” required to make our ways of living sustainable is simply too great. As well as improving efficiency, we also need to live more simply in a material sense, and re-imagine the good life beyond consumer culture.
First and foremost, what is needed for one planet living is for the richest nations, including Australia, to initiate a “degrowth” process of planned economic contraction.
I do not claim that this is likely or that I have a detailed blueprint for how it should transpire. I only claim that, based on the ecological footprint analysis, degrowth is the most logical framework for understanding the radical implications of sustainability.
Can the descent from consumerism and growth be prosperous? Can we turn our overlapping crises into opportunities?
These are the defining questions of our time.
Our planet's only chance, it seems to me, is a drastic decrease in the number of homo sapien. Like a 90% decrease. And soon.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
I guess the Earth's chance lies with "Don't Fear The Reaper".
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
...because it's not relevant. It didn't pick up until long after the Medieval Warming, the end of the Ice Age, or any other warming periods, which means that CO2 is not likely the end-all-be-all of warming. It also doesn't explain why the 1960s and 1970s were cooler than previous periods, even though the use of fossil fuels had been increasing steadily since, well, the Middle Ages. Perhaps you'd like to argue that we used fewer fossil fuels in the period preceding the 1960s?
Sigh.
Let's start from the beginning. You, Eric, et al keep claiming to have "SCIENCE" on your side. Do you know what that means? Sience isn't what a self-proclaimed scientist says. It's a method. That method requires making a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and then adjusting your hypothesis based on the results of the experiment. Fine.
Now, there are plenty of alarmist climate models. Each is based on their own premises (frequently CO2). The problem comes with the testing in the real world. They tend to be ridiculously wrong. That's to be expected. Even the modellers admit it. At that point, they should check their premise (CO2) and readjust. But these people never seem to be really willing to readjust their premise regarding HGW. Why not? By not doing that, they are not using the scientific method. Get it?
You may remember this alarmist embarrassment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-ice-2016-melt
(...going back to one of my original points, I consider a clear Northwest passage to be a good thing, but maybe that's just me
...but we keep hearing the same crap over and over again, with Wonkette talking about Miami becoming part of Okochobee Bay.
So far, the only decent attempt to respond to this:
...is this:
...I don't have the time, but I took an online peek.
1) Doesn't really say much about Homo Global Warming;
2) Doesn't really seem to predict the end of humanity, as I see it. The Neanderthals would exist if not for us? Who cares. The latest DNA research suggest that part of Homo Sapiens' ancestry is Neanderthal, so even that's not strictly true. AS for other species, any way we could wipe out flies, ticks or misquitoes?
3) The last time I checked, there's a theory that the reason we think that current extinctions are abnormally high is that we simply know of the existence of far more modern species than we do about those of previous eras (i.e., a statistical bias based on incomplete sampling from previous eras). Maybe, maybe not.
Still waiting for PBR to cover this:
-Are you volunteering?
