The weather is the news locally. Predictions of snow and sleet today have stirred everyone into a panic. Schools are already closed and yet not a drop of precipitation has fallen yet.
In other (non) news, another tropical storm season has passed with little fanfare and no major storms hitting the US. I am sure Al Gore is upset about this, as he is abroad again blaming the US for things we can't control. After another year of dire predictions, the eastern tropical storm season was, fortunately, another dud.
I recently caught parts of the Weather Channel's 100 Greatest Weather Moments and I take issue with a few rankings. First, they rank Global Warming as number one. Global Warming is climate and not weather and that's like saying the earth's 'climate' is the most significant weather event in history. Well, duh, thank you Mr. Obvious. Additionally, who's to say that in ten or twenty years the warming won't change back to cooling? Secondly, they put Hurricane Katrina at number two but the Johnstown Flood of 1889 at 40. The Johnstown Flood, and ensuing fires, destroyed the city and killed about 20% of the city's population. Katrina killed about 1500 which is terrible, but it could have been worse and it certainly wasn't 20% of the people in her path and it certainly did not destroy New Orleans; she was badly battered and bruised, yes, but not as badly as Johnstown was. Imagine if a flood and fires destroyed a US city today, no matter how small or large, and killed 20% of its residents? It would be a Blame Bush Fest like none that has ever been seen before! In fact, the pollution that would accompany the blame Bush parties would certainly be more damaging to the planet than any hurricane or flood could ever be. The hot air from Al Gore's mouth itself would raise the earth's temperature three degrees C.
As for the flood, some will blame the club members and their negligence for the dam burst but one must blame Mother Nature too. Just like we can blame man for failures in New Orleans, the weather still played a major role. One major difference, though, people were warned about Katrina days in advance. The people in Johnstown got no warning at all.
I would move the Johnstown Flood of 1889 up closer to Katrina with both in the top ten; probably top five but not one and two. I don't think I would include Global Warming at all and that may well leave the weather predictions for early June of 1944 in the English Channel and French coast as the most important weather moment in history.
I still like the Weather Channel and find it informative and useful but I think their 100 weather moments was slanted some.
Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, et al, are all Mother Nature's way of telling us we don't have the influence we think we have.
Additionally, who's to say that in ten or twenty years the warming won't change back to cooling?
The majority of climate scientists, I would guess.
But then, I am talking to someone who refuses to accept very basic physics, so maybe I wasted time typing that in.
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
...
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
That would be the 'liberal MSM' giving you that false impression, by the way.
But then, I am talking to someone who refuses to accept very basic physics, so maybe I wasted time typing that in
...and some in my audience seem to be oblivious to the fact that scientists are wrong more often than not and what is true today isn't guaranteed to be true tomorrow; the latter being the first thing they teach you in philosophy. Scientists once thought the use of ether for surgery was a ridiculous idea. Scientists once thought evolution was impossible. Scientists once thought circular orbits of planets around stars were the norm in space. Scientists once thought the earth revolved around the sun. Scientists once thought the speed of light was instantaneous.
I base my skepticism of the global warming scare not on physics but rather the underlying political machine facilitating it. The earth probably is getting warmer but it's not the first, nor the last, time it will happen.
Scientists once thought evolution was impossible. Scientists once thought the earth revolved around the sun.
Those two examples were actually more due to 'moral majority' religious nuts. Like the kind who control talk radio these days. As a counterexample, the mathematician Aryabhata based his very precise astronomical calculations on the assumption that the Earth revolves about the Sun in sixth century CE. (The point being that when foaming-at-the-mouth 'tradishunal valyews' morons don't control everything, the world is a better place for it.)
Scientists once thought circular orbits of planets around stars were the norm in space.
I hope you understand we have much more sensitive instruments these days.
Anyway, just because scientists have been wrong before, that does not mean they are generally wrong, nor does it mean that they are wrong in this particular case. That's a very weak argument.
I base my skepticism of the global warming scare not on physics but rather the underlying political machine facilitating it. The earth probably is getting warmer but it's not the first, nor the last, time it will happen.
But Carl Sagan and others very accurately predicted the current situation back in the seventies, years before anyone else knew what 'global warming' was, and years before there was anything like An Inconvenient Truth or Captain Planet. Hell, I'm not even sure if Earth Day was around then. He speculated that an increase in industrial carbon emissions would cause polar ice to melt away, leading into a positive feedback cycle of decreasing albedo. And surely enough...
Anyway, just because scientists have been wrong before, that does not mean they are generally wrong, nor does it mean that they are wrong in this particular case. That's a very weak argument.
Let me correct that, I should clarify that being wrong on something doesn't imply always being wrong about it. Generally, scientists get it right after a while, or a least a lot closer to being right than they were before; like you said, there are better instruments now, just as the instruments in 10-20 years will be better than those today.
And, yes, I know about the religion angle. I remember reading something years ago that the Vatican didn't concede that the earth orbits the sun until well into the 19th century. Just because religion is wrong, even if it is a lot of the time, doesn't mean they are always wrong. That's a very weak argument.
I remember predictions from as early as 1979 about CO2 emission and the possibility of the earth warming because of it. A blurb about it is in the 1980 Reader's Digest Almanac, which I still have.
"The truth is not always the same as the majority decision."
- Pope Jean Paul
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth."
- Niels Bohr
And, yes, I know about the religion angle. I remember reading something years ago that the Vatican didn't concede that the earth orbits the sun until well into the 19th century. Just because religion is wrong, even if it is a lot of the time, doesn't mean they are always wrong. That's a very weak argument.
I didn't blame religion in general. The mathematician I mentioned was most likely religious himself. I secretly even like many aspects of (modern) Catholicism. I blamed religious nuts, who are always wrong, by their very nature.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth."
But "they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
In light of the mountain of evidence that supports global warming and, specifically AGW (caused by humans), what exactly is it that causes you to doubt it besides disdain for the environment when profits might fall short?
In light of the mountain of evidence that supports global warming and, specifically AGW (caused by humans), what exactly is it that causes you to doubt it besides disdain for the environment when profits might fall short?
1. I am old enough to believe it when I see it. Doom and gloom predicting is not new nor is it always right. The fact that we can't predict the weather accurately more than two days out makes me skeptical that we can predict the climate 10-20 years down the road.
1a. I am a believer in a Malthusian-type theory in that no matter what we do prevent bad things from happening, bad things will still happen. No matter how many diseases we can cure or eradicate, more always develop. Same goes for the earth, no matter how hard we try to affect the weather and climate, even if we make personal consumption changes that, on paper, should be more earth-friendly, climate will still be one big variable and the planet will still give us droughts, hurricanes, blizzards, etc. I think we have less control over the planet than we think we do. To believe otherwise is arrogant.
2. I don't need my life regulated by blowhards who can't control their habits. For example, I don't like a/c and nor do I use it much. As you may know, I took the plastic of the a/c in my house in August. I run the thing 3-5 days a year at most and that is mostly due to my wife's request. I don't use a/c in the car. Imagine if everyone else did the same? Nowadays, people piss and moan about it being hot at 80, turn on the a/c, and then bitch about AGW. Then, they drive three blocks to the convenience store to buy a bottle of water, with the a/c on in the car, and bitch more about AGW. Maybe it's a small thing but it does add up.
3. I can't believe anything Al Gore says. Until he starts practicing what he preaches, at least.
Oops, I didn't address the 'profits' part. If you ever get to know me, you'll discover I am not a very good consumer, at least as far as businesses are concerned. My wife and I have a saying - "It's not what you make, it's what you don't spend." I let others fuel companies' profits and while we don't do a good job of that myself (we are also deadbeats), I defend others' rights to do so. Although what scares me is that in twenty years we'll be the ones bailing out those who spent foolishly and didn't plan for retirement (relying on SS only) when they were in their 30's. When the choice is $500 monthly car payment today or IRA for tomorrow, most people seem to opt for the former.
It's almost a lose-lose, though. I want businesses to make money so my retirement funds grow. However, that often tends to be at the expense of the fools who think they need a new car every couple of years and plasma TV's and Xbox's and thus, accrue CC debt at an alarming pace. Of course, if you can afford it, by all means, buy it if you want it. But in twenty years, we will all pay for the malfeasance of today's American consumer.
This may not be relevant to the topic at hand but I think it may tell you a little about how I think: a steel mill is more beautiful than a casino or an Abercrombie and Fitch; a producing steel mill, that is.
I am old enough to believe it when I see it. Doom and gloom predicting is not new nor is it always right. The fact that we can't predict the weather accurately more than two days out makes me skeptical that we can predict the climate 10-20 years down the road.
Most of the scientists on the IPCC are probably advanced in their years, but that's besides the point. General predictions are usually more precise than specific ones. It's easier to determine the complexity of an algorithm than it is to determine the complexity for any old random case. All one can really do is provide best case, average case and worst case. A Leslie matrix will give a good estimate of population growth over long periods of time, but is probably worthless for periods of a few days (maybe unless the researcher is dealing with mayflies...). In the same way, it's easier to project long term general trends in climate than in short term specific changes.
Look at it this way: it would be hard to predict the temperature in the car for any given day. However, I know that if I have a car with a black interior (representing decreased polar albedo) and rolled-up windows (representing greenhouse gases), and then leave it out in the sun on a hot day, the car will be a slag hotter than a car with a white interior and opened windows. That's easy. Likewise, pumping a lot of gases into the atmosphere that retain heat will most likely cause an increase in global average temperature.
I am a believer in a Malthusian-type theory in that no matter what we do prevent bad things from happening, bad things will still happen. No matter how many diseases we can cure or eradicate, more always develop.
That reminds me of Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes: "Why should I bathe? I'm just going to get dirty again." I guess you're opposed to that smallpox vaccination fad as well. While we're on the subject, why bother upgrading to the latest version of my distro? It'll only get outdated anyway. I'm fine with Vector Linux 1.8 with the top-of-the-line Netscape 4.7 browser. Besides, I have no time left over after my pro-active involvement in the ultra-important War on Christmas.
I think we have less control over the planet than we think we do. To believe otherwise is arrogant.
Why? You've demonstrated that you're not very informed on these issues. You're going on gut feeling alone. At no point in time did you invoke any factual data to back up your conclusion.
In short, it's like listening to an MCSE who goes on and on about how much Linux sucks like a bag of Richards when he has not actually used Linux and can't really cite any papers, studies or even decent anecdotes to support his claims. The Microsoft bias is obvious. He doesn't hate Linux because it actually sucks, he hates Linux because the idea that anyone uses anything other than the latest MICROS~1 dross is abhorrent. If protecting the environment didn't imply negative effects on oil industry profits, you probably wouldn't have anything to say about it.
I can't believe anything Al Gore says. Until he starts practicing what he preaches, at least.
Well, brah, I think Al Gore is a hypocrite, too. But compare Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Just because he was a total hypocrite about drug addicts despite having gotten addicted to Oxycontin doesn't mean I intend to take up prescription painkillers anytime soon. ;)
This may not be relevant to the topic at hand but I think it may tell you a little about how I think: a steel mill is more beautiful than a casino or an Abercrombie and Fitch; a producing steel mill, that is.
Well, I am morally opposed to gambling and I find Abercrombie and Fitch stores incredibly fake. (Besides, shopping at a thrift store with a European woman results in good taste at a much lower price.) Plus, it is in my nature to be fascinated with machinery and electronic devices of all kinds. To that extent, a steel mill is more beautiful than both of the two. However, I am interested preserving the beauty of the Earth, because there is an evolved function in our appreciation of its form. I found it ironic that (former ;)) senator Rick Santorum compared the Iraq War to Lord of the Rings when he didn't mind at all that US oil companies were in Ecuador, turning the land into rent, stinking pits and leaving pools of carcinogenic slime for the people to drink from. Because if you read the Quenta Silmarillion, the first thing Morgoth (for perspective, Sauron was Morgoth's gofer) did when he came into Arda was to destroy everything beautiful that the other Valar created, to promote his own domination over the whole world. The rhetoric of right-wing ideologues in that respect is remarkably similar to Morgoth's attitude: they like to see ruin and waste because it represents 'progress' for them. Caring about the environment? Only a tree-shagging Elf would do that. I have come to the conclusion that Tolkien's Ents, the animate trees conceived by Yavanna Kementári as guardians of the otherwise defenseless olvar, were a good idea after all...
Scientists once thought the earth revolved around the sun.
Yeah, I remember that lie from my textbooks in the 1970's.
What do they believe now?
You've demonstrated that you're not very informed on these issues. You're going on gut feeling alone. At no point in time did you invoke any factual data to back up your conclusion
What conclusion did I make? I said I was skeptical and implied that if global warming is sooooooo serious, why doesn't Al Gore practice what he preaches?
Al Gore's decadent lifestyle would be akin to Iron Eyes Cody being arrested for littering. However, they do have one thing in common - acting. Iron Eyes acted in movies and commercials and Al Gore acts like he gives a damn.
Fact: thirty years ago, a coming Ice Age was predicted.
Fact: the hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1930's. Why did it happen then and not in the 1990's? Lot more cars on the road in 1999. Three and quarter times the people too.
Fact: The hottest decade of the 21st century is the 00's.
Unknown: Whether the 00's will be the warmest, coolest, or somewhere in the middle for the 21st century.
Unknown: whether the 21st century will be cooler or warmer than the 20th.
Fact: floods, tornadoes, heat waves, et al, all were happening long before anyone termed the phrase global warming.
The doom du jour years ago was killer bees coming to the US. Then it was Radon. Then it was ebola. Then it was swine flu. SARS came next. Then bird flu. Yes, they all are bad but they never panned out like the media had hoped. Now it's global warming. I've been hearing for 30 years about how we are destroying the planet and, subsequently we've made some amends and I sure we can do better. The concept doesn't change, only the headline in the message does.
As you get older, gut feelings become a central part of the reasoning process. Laugh all you want, but no matter how smart you are trust me when I say there are things you can't possibly understand at 20 that become clear when you are 35 or 40. Just as someone at 75 will say the same to a 55 year old and someone at 55 will say to a 35 year old. Some things truly never do change. The packaging may look different but it's all the same inside. Marketing isn't just used as a tool for capitalists to sell products.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
-George S. Patton, Jr.
Well, Dickie, er, Nickie, for one, Pluto isn't a planet anymore. Mars is warming despite its long ban on SUV's, coal burning, jets, and people. Hey, maybe that big ball in the sky does work, after all. It's complete entropy out there, if you ask me.
Scientists once thought the earth revolved around the sun.
Yeah, I remember that lie from my textbooks in the 1970's.
What do they believe now?
LOLOL
Fact: thirty years ago, a coming Ice Age was predicted.
That was never taken seriously by mainstream science. Never. How many times do I have to tell you?
Fact: the hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1930's.
Maybe the hottest decade in the United States, but not in the whole world. For your information, there are other continents (kŏn'tə-nənts) with other countries (kŭn'trēz) where different weather patterns prevail. One of the first things you learn in any basic statistics text is that you have to be careful with your sample, otherwise you'll end up with a bad result. Selecting the climate conditions of part of one physical landmass and saying that it somehow represents the climate of the entire Earth is a textbook BAD example of how NOT to gather and study data.
Fact: floods, tornadoes, heat waves, et al, all were happening long before anyone termed the phrase global warming.
Ju helt irrelevant...
The doom du jour years ago was killer bees coming to the US. Then it was Radon. Then it was ebola. Then it was swine flu. SARS came next. Then bird flu. Yes, they all are bad but they never panned out like the media had hoped.
Which is of course irrelevant because the if-it-bleeds-it-leads media were responsible, not respectable scientists. You keep throwing this smokescreen about 'the MSM', which is irrelevant because I don't give a damn about 'the MSM' and don't pay attention to it, because mainstream everything in this country is usually crap. Fox News is worse than Aftonbladet and I have no idea how anyone could like Hannah Montana or 50 Cent more than the epic Argentinian metal band Rata Blanca.
But As an example of the scientific view of things, a Google (or Goebbels) search on 'site:ucsusa.org' (Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA) for avian flu yields only a few paltry results. So the response was actually commensurate with the threat. Would that our response to tay-rurr-ism were the same: actually reflecting on the hard statistical threat, not some crocodile tears tripe.
The packaging may look different but it's all the same inside. Marketing isn't just used as a tool for capitalists to sell products.
Bwa ha ha, but you forgot that I'm immune to marketing.
De med Asperger syndrom som har lyckats i livet och känner självtillit ser ofta sin personlighet som en tillgång - man ger sig inte förrän något är precis som man vill ha det, har ofta okonventionella idéer, är principfast och är smart nog att lära sig nya metoder med lätthet. Man är även oemottaglig för subliminala budskap i reklam och subtilt manipulativa människor.
"Those with AS who have succeeded in life and feel self-confident often regard their personality as an asset - they don't surrender until something is exactly as they will have it, often have unconventional ideas, are fast in principle and are quick enough to learn new methods with ease. They are also impervious to subliminal messages in advertisement and subtly manipulative people."
- from the susning.nu article on Asperger syndrome
I am a son of the North. Because I rarely try to deceive people, I am not easily deceived myself.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
...or Occam's Razor suggests that maybe all the people who are actually informed are right...
Yeah, you're right about the hottest decade thing, my goof. I guess that explains why that no matter how much I drive around my block or let my lawn mower idle until it's out of gas, the temperature never increases in my township.
I am a skeptic on this.
Immune to marketing? Good for you. So am I.
Have a merry Christmas.
I will sum up my thinking with a quote that may slightly sound like something a great modern philosopher would say:
"If there is a 50% chance that A is going to happen and a 50% that B is going to happen, there is also a 50% chance that C is going to happen."
Admit it, you know that's true.
Yeah, you're right about the hottest decade thing, my goof. I guess that explains why that no matter how much I drive around my block or let my lawn mower idle until it's out of gas, the temperature never increases in my township.
It could be because Palmer Township doesn't have a screen of heat-retaining gases around it and the (relatively minuscule) heat generated by your lawnmower will dissipate into the surrounding area. (The physical definition of) 'entropy' plays a role here.
Now if you ran your lawnmower inside a confined area*, such as a greenhouse, that would be a horse of a different color, eh? Same with the Earth's atmosphere. As a less extreme example, crowded theater halls in the olden days tended to get very stuffy, so people fainted because they were not well-ventilated. The Earth's atmosphere today is quite similar. So, when you use phrases like 'township warming' and 'township cooling', you show your ignorance greatly.
* - I don't recommend you do that, by the way. I'm not sure I'll be able to explain why, but let's just say it's a bad idea.
Immune to marketing? Good for you. So am I.
Have a merry Christmas.
Io, Saturnalia laeta tibi! May my immunity to marketing continue to give me the strength to continue to deprive cruel Chinese factory-lords of their yearly sales quotas in the coming new year. I'll be damned if I'm responsible for that.
"If there is a 50% chance that A is going to happen and a 50% that B is going to happen, there is also a 50% chance that C is going to happen."
Admit it, you know that's true.
That 'yogiism' violates the second Kolmorogov axiom. P(omega) =/= 1.5. It cannot be. I don't believe a baseball player who says funny stuff from time to time undermined the life work of Andrei Kolmogorov, one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century. Especially since you look very badly down on poor students: Berra dropped out of school in the eighth grade. According to you, students like him the reason we are "falling behind". (I could point out the many faults of the rival education systems in East Asia including first-hand experience from a friend in Vietnam, but, meh, whatever.) In any case, I'm not quite sure how to raise the pitiful numeracy levels of American students, but it sure as hell isn't through baseball blurbs.
It was supposed to be funny. You need to relax.
It was supposed to be funny. You need to relax.
I won. Do I get a medal now or what?
- from the susning.nu article on Asperger syndrome "Those with AS who have succeeded in life and feel self-confident often regard their personality as an asset - they don't surrender until something is exactly as they will have it, often have unconventional ideas, are fast in principle and are quick enough to learn new methods with ease. They are also impervious to subliminal messages in advertisement and subtly manipulative people."
- from the susning.nu article on Asperger syndrome
huh huh, Ass-burger. huh huh huh huh......
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 21 days.
BRIAN'S BLOG
Archives
