< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5989 OF 5989 ·
|Jul-29-14|| ||PinnedPiece: <Jim Bartle: Why do people always say 16 years or 18 years? Because there was one extremely warm year, either 1997 or 1998. Otherwise temperatures continue to rise.>|
You have really fixated on this "one year 1998" business. Really, it is not that big a player in this debate. Take a look at this (non-energy-funded) Canadian economist Ross McKitrick speaking earlier this year, who discusses recent warming trends, the weather models that the IPCC relies on, and actual readings--ESPECIALLY FROM THE TROPICAL TOPOSPHERE.
As an explanation of what is going on in the "pause" or hiatus, this does a pretty good job.
It is rather long, but if you completely process the information in this video (first 20 minutes--up to the time he begins discussing economic and productivity effects of the models), you will not be attempting to put much counter-debunking weight on the 1998 El Nino year anymore, I don't think.
Conclusion: "If the pause reaches 20 years, the climate model sensitivities to CO2 are too large." (In other words, CO2 isn't the culprit the models predicted--400ppm and higher have questionable effect other than provide more food for plants.)
|Jul-29-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <You have really fixated on this "one year 1998" business.>|
Because it is true. It's a trick used by deniers again and again.
Look at this from my noaa link:
<Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.>
|Jul-29-14|| ||PinnedPiece: <JB: warmest years> Warmer how? Warmer from satellite data measurements on surface temps? Warmer from thermometer readings on the surface? Warmer sea temperatures? at what depth? Warmer atmospheric temps? At what level? Atmospheric temps are absolutely critical to the models and to the theory in general. |
The actual upper atmosphere temperature measurements required to support the warmest years you mentioned, and the theory, and the predictive models, are falling far short of the temps needed. ("Greenhouse effect" is not supported by data.)
Did you listen to McKitrick? I recommend it for balance, which I know you like to champion.
|Jul-29-14|| ||al wazir: <twinlark>: Be honest now: If you had to choose between living in a country under the control of the "Neo-Nazis" in Kiev or of Igor Bezler, which would you choose? http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...|
|Jul-29-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Global land surface temperature. But ocean temperatures are also up.|
|Jul-29-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Global land surface temperature. But ocean temperatures are also up.>|
Maybe so, but I'm still waiting for some kind of consensus that we can do something about it, and that it's not just an unavoidable side-effect of not living in caves. Since they haven't really begun to address that question much less answer it, I'm not holding my breath. It doesn't matter if it's happening or not if we can't avoid it.
|Jul-29-14|| ||Jim Bartle: This discussion was simply about the temperatures, as I think the "18 years/flatlining" claim is highly deceptive.|
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: <al wazir>
Sorry but the Guardian is not my news bible.
To be honest, I'm glad I'm not near neither area. Donbass is having the crap bombed out of it by the Kiev regime with ballistic missiles, unless CNN is making it up, while there are some severe purges in the West of elements of the previous regime and anyone opposing the regime, including the torture and murder of Communist leader Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Kovshun last week.
Both are extremely dangerous places for a person of my political persuasion. Western Ukraine because of political purges, eastern Ukraine because of rockets, bombing from the air, and a tank, artillery and general military offensive which doesn't seem to care whether it is wiping out citizens and infrastructure.
Or to care about preventing investigators from accessing the site of the downed passenger liner, contrary to the regime's agreement.
|Jul-29-14|| ||Petrosianic: I agree it's misleading. I'm just not sure it matters one way or the other. The point of the whole argument is about whether we should vote more money and power to the government to fight it. And if that would do no good, then the answer is no, we shouldn't. In that peculiar case, the denier's conclusion might be correct, even if the premise was false.|
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: <al wazir>
<Would you buy *human* reasons instead?>
Are there any other?
<I've been reading Herodotus's _Histories_, an elaborately detailed (and highly mythologized) account of the wars between the Persians and the Greek city states. The thing that strikes me is that the Persians were not the Greeks' worst enemies: other Greeks were. Warfare was not just intermittent, it was incessant. Every little community, about the size of a modern U.S. township, was involved in armed combat with neighboring communities. And this kind of tribal warfare has been almost a constant of history. Europe was like that in the Middle Ages and Renaissance,>
Indeed. Also, the level of interpersonal violence in the world is at historical lows, despite impressions people might have. I can again thank <keypusher> for pointing out this fact to me a few years ago.
<Africa is like that now.>
Not the same thing. Much of Africa's woes are due to the colonial legacy not to the historical reasons cited for ancient Greece.
<Intraspecies aggression and various sorts of tribal rivalry are innate characteristics of _Homo sapiens_. Two things have changed since Paleolithic times: the tribes have gotten bigger (now they're called nations and some of them embrace hundreds of millions of people)>
There is a huge difference between a tribe and a nation. It's not a matter of scale, modern nation states are a qualitatively different kind of beast designed to bring disparate peoples together under the rule of centrally enforced law. There is no real similarity between a tribal set up, which can't grow beyond about 300 without fissioning, and modern civilisation.
That's not to say that tribal loyalties have disappeared, far from it, but that they have generally become subsumed within the greater civilisational structures. Occasionally, tribal loyalties and conflicts can fracture a society, but the modern world forces a re-amalgamation of tribal forces for their own survival. There is safety in numbers. (There are of course tribes larger than 300 in the modern world, but these are factionalised and contained within a larger social structure which encourages cohesion in the face of competition from other similar structures. Stand alone tribes don't grow bigger than 300, as the murder rate usually becomes unacceptably high).
<and the aggression has been weaponized.>
Has been since the first stick was picked up to beat another, or the first rock was used to dash in someone's brains or indeed since one person first struck another with a fist or a foot. Human aggression has not always been about all out war between tribes or states or whatever. There are many examples of aggression and grievances being addressed through champions or through less destructive means than war. In fact, look at everyday life. How is human aggression contained, channeled and resolved? Usually through negotiation, sport or other formal expressions of aggression, or observance of social and legal norms.
<As I see it, we're in a race to see which comes out ahead, the trend toward more and more deadly weapons or the trend toward unifying the world's entire human population into one big tribe, all holding hands and singing Kumbaya. It's not over yet, but right now weaponization is way ahead of Kumbaya.>
I see it differently. It is a race between the common people taking control of their own destiny or allowing their psychopathic leaders to use them for their own purposes, be it for profit or war. Once leaders are genuinely accountable to the average punter, then maybe civilisation will develop along more pacifistic lines.
|Jul-29-14|| ||Petrosianic: Once leaders are genuinely accountable, you say. When and how will that happen?|
|Jul-29-14|| ||Shams: <twinlark> <Indeed. Also, the level of interpersonal violence in the world is at historical lows, despite impressions people might have. I can again thank <keypusher> for pointing out this fact to me a few years ago.>|
Steven Pinker has a TED talk on this subject:
…and a new book out:
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: <Petrosianic: Once leaders are genuinely accountable, you say. When and how will that happen?>|
When we grow up as a species, maybe. When we get sick of being fleeced, denigrated and threatened by psychopaths who live to control others.
What sort of rule do you prefer?
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: <Shams> Thanks, it's interesting. |
I'm kind of glad for that, I'm not sure how I'd survive the level of regular violence that was common back in the day. Many didn't I suppose, and I hazard a guess that untreated diseases weren't the only reasons that life expectancy was shorter back then.
Even sport a few centuries ago was so violent that fatalities on the field were so commonplace it was scarcely worthy of comment. Today's extreme sports like base-jumping, extreme skiing, car racing, etc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrem...) are extremely safe in comparison to some of the regular local sporting events of yesteryear, especially aggressive team sports.
I'd venture to guess as the risk management regime is a lot more advanced, as is the technology, training and preparation extreme sportspeople engage with.
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: CNN report that Ukrainian government is using short range ballistic missiles: http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...|
|Jul-29-14|| ||schweigzwang: Every person I have ever met who has offered a vision of how we can transform into a "grown-up species" has been one of those psychopaths who live to control others. Mostly these have been extreme leftists, but that imbalance/bias is due only to the company I keep.|
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: <schwweigzwang>
So what's your vision of how the place should be run?
btw, by "extreme leftists", I assume you refer to the <authoritarian left> (eg: Stalin) rather than the libertarian left (eg: Gandhi).
If you're interested in the distinction and where you sit in this scheme take a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org/
|Jul-29-14|| ||schweigzwang: Ummm ... public shaming of the dishonest. After a couple months of that I'll be ready to try YOUR vision, whatever it may be.|
|Jul-29-14|| ||schweigzwang: Oh yeah, the compass. I think I saw that some decades before--this is the device that admits that a one-dimensional political spectrum is nigh unto useless? I liked it very much for that aspect.|
|Jul-29-14|| ||twinlark: <Ummm ... public shaming of the dishonest.>|
I'd have thought that would make people bitter and twisted and probably vindictive. No one likes to be humiliated.
I think it's more a matter of a cultural sea change. That we gradually realise through education that we're better off being masters of our own destiny as far as possible. That includes taking measures that are inculcated into every individual to ensure we're not being ripped off and manipulated.
Education is the key. For instance we could prescribe that leaders of towns, cities, states and countries, and businesses with employees (especially large businesses like walmart) should be allowed to work under sufferance, recallable at any time, but the experience of recall elections shows that generally the faction with the most resources to advertise and spruik will win more often than the faction that has less.
How do we get past the spin? Much more difficult to do this in an age where the media is effectively a corporate behemoth that most assuredly does not act in the interests of the average punter but in the interests of musical chairmanships, and in fact spends much of its time spinning an image of the world that at many levels tells us we're powerless to do much except spend out money and entertain ourselves.
Rome had bread and circuses. These days, it amounts to circuses, as long as we can earn our bread. An increasingly iffy proposition.
Unfortunately also, education is as much about irrelevant academia, productivity based inculcation of skills and knowledge, and lots of propaganda and misinformation. It's not about learning about life and society except in terms of pre-approved concepts hatched by elite policy makers. I have a great deal of sympathy for genuine home schooling. Having seen my children's education, I wish I had taken that option.
My guess, is that it will take a global cataclysm to wake us up, if then. Maybe its too late as it will still be the elites that survive in their fortresses.
I certainly hope not.
|Jul-29-14|| ||Check It Out: Not sure if you guys are on to this yet, but you can link to a specific post now by simply right clicking on the post's date and do a copy link/past. So easy!
|Jul-29-14|| ||cormier: nite nite gs ...ths G|
|Jul-29-14|| ||johnlspouge: < <twinlark> wrote: How do we get past the spin? Much more difficult to do this in an age where the media is effectively a corporate behemoth that most assuredly does not act in the interests of the average punter but in the interests of musical chairmanships, and in fact spends much of its time spinning an image of the world that at many levels tells us we're powerless to do much except spend out money and entertain ourselves. >|
You might find the following link pertinent.
[ http://www.votermedia.org/ ]
|Jul-29-14|| ||schweigzwang: <No one likes to be humiliated.> Well, right, that's why it couldn't last long and we'd have to try something else.|
Your dismal views about the current "education" system are, sadly, pretty much on the mark (from one who is in the business).
|Jul-29-14|| ||Everett: <btw, by "extreme leftists", I assume you refer to the <authoritarian left> (eg: Stalin) rather than the libertarian left (eg: Gandhi).>|
It was my (false?) impression that Gandhi was quite keen on the village life, and seemed libertarian only after one decided to live such a life.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5989 OF 5989 ·