Heraclitusstudent's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 6427 - 6466 of 6,466     Last »

  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 9, 6:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
They claim that less than 2 degrees (manipulated) over 2 centuries is alarming

Not sure again why you talk of 2 degrees.
What I have heard is ASSUMING we limit the CO2 increase to double what it was before the industrial era, i.e. 550ppm, then there is a range of possibilities from +1.5C to +5C in corresponding warming.

+1.5C is maybe even beneficial depending where you live.
+ 5C is a catastrophic event that would destroy the livelihoods of billions around the planet and be massively disruptive. As in Famines, Pestilences and Wars.
Even a 10% chance of that justifies massive policy actions.

But of course, all this only applies ONLY if massive changes are made to limit CO2 to 550ppm, stopping most CO2 emissions.
Otherwise there is no upper range. You can get +10C if you like it.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 10, 3:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
OK. LESS than 2 degrees warming over the last 2 centuries.
Alarmists seldom talk about real numbers.

"Alarmists" are not "alarmists" about the past.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 10, 3:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
Wouldn't you agree that co2 is insignificant compared to h2o as a greenhouse gas?

So what? It's CO2 we add.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 10, 4:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_20fca says
A very little amount.

Water vapor already absorbs outgoing IR radiations for given frequencies. This is part of normal climate.

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Not only that but the extra heat means more water vapor, and even more out going radiation is absorbed.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 10, 4:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

What does that even mean?
The next 200yrs will look like the past 200?
Unlikely. For very obvious reasons.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 11, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_dd91d says
what is the original source of that heat?

Is that some sort of trick question?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 11, 2:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_dd91d says
Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

I've just said it above. So what?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 11, 2:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says

What does that even mean?

Really? Google it.

I doubt Google knows what you mean, in the current discussion context.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 11, 2:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
Anyone trying to predict the future is most likely wrong.

A possible scenario is not a prediction of the future.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 11, 10:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_9ece2 says
So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

No it doesn't.

Water vapor was there before, and, I'll repeat, was always a normal part of the climate. It's regulated by rain.
The only reason for it to change is precisely because more CO2 means more heat means more water vapor.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 12, 11:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_def08 says
There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs

Seriously? pools?
Are you aware that a vast majority of this planet is covered with water, and that water falls regularly from the sky in most places?
Water is water. It's there.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 12, 11:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The level of confusion on this subject is stunning. Here are people who seriously think that scientists in 200 countries could consistently lie about the greenhouse effect of CO2 and something AS OBVIOUS AS the larger effect of water vapor - without being IMMEDIATELY shot down by A LARGE NUMBER of physicists and other scientists .

What we have is people who DON’T WANT to believe the large amount of evidence, for reasons that have nothing to do with science
These are people who DO NOT HAVE A CONSISTENT THEORY of what is happening (that would be easily falsified), but instead they practice rejection for the sake of rejection: This is the kitchen sink approach: let’s throw anything we have at global warming and see what sticks.
One day it’s the sun.
One day the sea levels increase doesn’t match, couldn’t possibly be measured.
Today it’s water vapor vs CO2. "pools" Duhhh...
Fear, Uncertainty, doubt....
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 12, 12:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_10ddb says
What's the surface area of all these pools across the world? How much evaporation takes place every day?

As a percent of the ocean?
I'd say about 0.
With precision of 0.00000001 .
Any other question?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 12, 12:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_10ddb says
It's really very simple, follow the money, who pays these scientists and what's the party line they have to follow to keep getting their paychecks. The ole "peer review" process.

Who pay scientists in 200 countries? The same people?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 12, 1:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Who paid the Economists in 200 countries, almost none of whom predicted the financial crisis?

So it's not the money?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 8:52am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

I don't think there would be much inflation.
- still huge number of people out of labor pool.
- new automation wave in process now.
- still billions of people in poverty though out the world willing to pay for pennies/hours.
- inequalities high and climbing.
- debts increasing (feds notably)
All this means that the "main street wage deflation vs wall street inflation" meme is still in play in spite of all rumors of the contrary.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 8:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Unless Trump starts a trade war and kicks out millions of illegal workers.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_8f378 says
Keep dreaming. Nominal house prices rose during the high inflation of the late 70s/early 80s.

Up to 1997 real home prices were relatively stable. Then madness began...
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 2:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

However you estimate it, home prices are not just linked to interest rates.
There has been a systematic under building as the population grew by tens of millions.
The problem is not just assets inflation: housing is now a luxury item. As in scarce. In CA, a large fraction of the population is now free to go homeless, or surf couches, or live at 4 in their friends garage. Only the wealthiest bid up on housing, and the price reflect that.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 14, 2:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Can inflation just start popping up in an environment that has been deflationary?
No, because raising rates would cause a host of problems and immediately plunge back the system into deflation. It has to be done slowly, eroding debts, in a growing economy. Most likely it takes 10 years to switch to a 70s style inflationary/stagflationary environment.
Even that is probably not what would happen, because today’s fed would not act like the 70s. They would rather strangle the economy, than let inflation run.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 16, 10:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

georgeliberte says

That's right. Women can still do these things to get a man.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 20, 10:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

c0nfused says
When Democrats learn to talk like that, then they'll have a chance of getting back into office.

It's even more simple: they just need to say they will abandon corporatism and the rampant corruption to focus on the need of the people.
And mean it....

Ok well... we would see after electing them if they meant it.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 20, 3:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Trillions dollars deficits are about to become routine and we'll probably see 2 trillions+ deficits in the next recession.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 20, 4:00pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Republicans who condone Trump lost the right to complain about debt - forever.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 20, 9:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_cf6c6 says
Heraclitusstudent says
Republicans who condone Trump lost the right to complain about debt - forever.

Except the OP happened on Obama's watch, not Trump's.

You don't get it.
Add tax cuts and extra spending, the $ trillion deficit is already baked in - even before the next recession starts.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 20, 9:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

willywonka says
Why can’t this continue? If the so-called bond vigilantes existed, interest rates would never have remained so low in the USA. Folks continually incorrectly apply the analogy of a business or household when talking about governement finances.

Yeah the government can print money or tax it back, except it could end up in a situation where all options would cause a depression. (cutting spending, taxing, printing money, continuing with deficit spending).
Printing money is not a recipe for economic prosperity.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 20, 9:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

lostand confused says
I am a little scared. Bush added 5 trillon, Obama added 10 trillion and looks like Trump will add another 10 trillion more or less?

Project the exponential trend... Trump will add $20 trillions in 8 yrs. Or close to that. Or we will end up in a radically different economic regime.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 21, 10:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_a9a72 says
Under what circumstances would governement debt cause a depression?

- if the interest rates soar to high levels from current low levels.
- if inflation soars to high levels
- if the government cuts spending drastically
- if the government raises taxes by a large amount
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 21, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Exactly. Technology causes productivity gains, but in the past wages tracked productivity gains.
So technology is not the cause of the current wage stagnation, though it's always presented as such.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 21, 1:54pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

It's doing what capitalism does: optimize life time profits on customers. In this case without much competition.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 21, 1:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_9f75b says
I believe globalization was inevitable, that is if you want to advocate for free and open global capitalism. That is if you want to say that what's good for us is good for the world. It was probably the biggest cause.

What was not inevitable was the way it was done: i.e. let your companies take their technology and their capital and leave the US for other countries. Just replacing Americans with Chinese workers.

This was not trade between countries, or letting countries specialize on what they good at. It was just replacing workers with cheaper workers.

The result is we built China into a super power in a record time. Great job!
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 21, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Trump late stage stimulus may shake the coconut tree and unlock new found productivity growth.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 22, 11:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_0c33d says
Sure, but what is the connection to trillion dollar government debt? As stated above, in spite of the level of US govt debt, interest rates have been at historic lows. Asset inflation has been the norm for quite a while, related to low rates. Raising taxes has not been a required action of debt issuance. Drastic spending cuts by the gov in the absence of counter-acting growth in spending by other sectors would be troubling, but nowhere in the four scenarios you offer is there any connection to growing trillion dollar debt.

The connection is obvious. Debt levels have been relatively low so far, but as debt rises, options become more limited.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 22, 11:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_cf6c6 says
You're OK with the factual detail of Obama tacking on 10 Trillion, that wasn't a problem

I'm not ok with that, but at least Obama had the excuse of fighting a recession then reducing the deficit from there.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 22, 5:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_cf6c6 says
So when the next recession hits under Trump (which it probably will, since we're due), you'll be OK with him printing Trillions to fight it too?

I was not ok with Obama going down $1 Trillion, and won't be when Trump goes down $2 Trillions (since he is already down 1) if he is still president when the recession hits him. (we can't be too sure whether he is here for 2 yrs, 4 yrs, or 8yrs).

I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between borrowing a trillions to fight a recession and borrowing a trillion to make the masses feel better in an already good economy.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 23, 10:15am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

They're all hiding on patnet.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 23, 10:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Booger says
This is a Family Guy reference:

I think you took a leftist meme intended to be sarcastic, and ran with it without the sarcasm.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 23, 10:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
Occams razor - they're simply too far away even for advanced travel.

They don't leak radio waves, because they have fiber-optic Internet.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 23, 12:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Independently of whether we see them, which require interstellar travel, we should be able to detect their radios, which we don't.
But we are leaking less and less radio ourselves.

Next is to observe exoplanets and measure things like oxygen, which could betray a presence of life.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 23, 2:06pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says

* Meeting or surpassing the Speed of Light is impossible (which doesn't make interstellar exploration/colonization impossible, just slower)
* Intelligent Life is rare (we're the only ones in ~3B years of Life, or at least the only ones to prosper)
* FTL Communications are impossible, also.

I would say given a planet with water, carbon, and minerals and stable enough conditions, life will happen.
Given stable enough conditions, it will evolve toward intelligence.
Stability is the key. One asteroid and we're gone.

As it turns out most stars have planets, many in liquid water zone.