patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 6342 - 6381 of 6,381     Last »

  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 3:37pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

What denialists are rejecting is not complex models of the future. No, they are rejecting DIRECT MEASURES of things observed NOW.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 3:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Yeah. Except global temperatures look like this (not flat since 2000):
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 3:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_13e7f says
You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Malcolm says
1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says
2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.


Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of mankind.

Malcolm says
in no way did the alarmist models come true


I have not heard of any alarming scenario that came before 2100. The range I've heard is 1 foot to 2 meters by 2100. But it doesn't stop there - unless we stop.

Malcolm says
If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model


Except there is no "a model" there are "models" that are not static. They are refined constantly with new knowledge, and what they are saying is ever more certain.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Fyi, sea levels vary at different places. They vary as a function of seasons and tides. And so far there has been very limited sea level rises.
Showing pictures like this is silly.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Malcolm says
It will be a dead horse soon. Enough people are speaking up.


Funny, I've heard denialists make that claim for 20 yrs. But the opposite is happening:
- the science is ever more certain.
- direct measures are showing ever clearer warming, ever thinner ice-sheets , melting glaciers, increased ocean heat-content, etc...
- Russians, China and other countries are investing massively in the arctic.
- Prices of oceanfront properties in Florida are affected.
Effects are more tangible by the year, but some people just don't want to be bothered with reality.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Malcolm says
The whole premise of this is to allow anyone to provide me visual proof at any resolution that sea level has risen.

For example the "marégraphe" in Marseilles, is a tide gauge that kept records of sea level since 1883. It has a sophisticated mechanism to integrate the levels.
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=maregraphe&idStation=1802 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-014-0728-6
You still won't see 20 cm difference on a picture.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Malcolm says
3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

I can see that you think you are not confused.

Malcolm says
theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread? I guess not.
If you don't see a trend, you are either very dishonest or you need new glasses.

You are not certainly not doing predictive science yourself. The "no warming" crowd failed, and is failing ever more as years go by.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Malcolm says
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

This is not an industry and science is generally not making predictions, it models reality. And models get refined.
United Nations... Pentagon.... seriously? Again show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Malcolm says
Well, I'll start caring about sea level rise when you can.


Sure, and in the meantime, put your money where your mouth is and go buy a nice oceanfront property in Miami, since you are so sure it won't be affected.
I hear they sell at a discount.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 12:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic and alarmist models do NOT predict the future.


Why are you talking of 2 degrees?
We will get 3, 4, 5...10 degrees... etc... it doesn't stop until WE stop.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 12:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
Michael Mann s hockey stick.


Did he mention this in a scientific paper? Or while trying to convey the point that this is serious shit that ought to be taken seriously?
And btw it looks more and more hockey-sticky.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 12:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Onvacation says
You do know that chaotic systems like weather are almost impossible to model ?
Don't you?


Now you show how far out of your depth you really are.
Do you know that a 3 bodies system in the gravity theory is already a chaotic system?
By your argument, we can't predict the path of this planet or a satellite in the solar system.
The reality is of course that this is described down to the picosecond by the equations of gravity.

Now if you take the climate, which is supposed to stay constant (quite a chaotic system) at human time scale, and you add large quantities of heat year after year after year, what is the result? You can't tell because "it's chaotic"? What kind of moronic argument is that?

This is the typical type of specious argument that we get from the new obscurantists. "You can't possibly know anything" they tell us. "It's too complex!"
The reality of course is that they don't WANT to know. They want to keep their heads deep in the sand and they want everyone to do the same.
Because - My God - following that train of thoughts is way to painful to contemplate.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 12:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
If the temperature continues to decline will you revisit your ideology or just continue to make excuses?


If the temperature continues to increase will stop denying it increases?










  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 1:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?


Already answered. Repeating the same questions over and over does nothing to reassure us about your mental health.
Since we have proven the greenhouse effect takes place, where do you think the energy is going and what will make it miraculously go away?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 3:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Quigley says
Um nobody is debating whether certain gases help prevent Infrared radiation from the earth traveling to space and thus cooling the planet. Of the gases, water vapor is much MUCH better at providing this affect than CO2. A cloudy winters day is always warmer than a clear winters day, even though the CO2 concentrations are the same on both days.


Except there is no reason for concentrations of water vapor to change - outside, of course, the extra heat coming from CO2, which creates more water vapor and amplifies the warming.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 11:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_1fe2e says
I'm curious why I should watch a near 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field, has no published work on it, and is presumably a self-appointed hobbiest "expert," ..... and from that, you believe I will somehow get all the answers I need. Seriously? What about all the actual scientists working in the field? I can't get the answers from them? They wouldn't be a better source? Yes or no?

Of course he is gonna believe that over 97% of scientists: It confirms his beliefs.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 11:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Shit, even the title sounds religious, like a Chick Tract.

Funny that no one posted this to prove GW.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 3:24pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

See if she can open a self-directed brokerage account for the 401K.
Also complain to management, because not all 401K are like this and the company can certainly choose what they offer employees.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 10:41am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Is that why oil prices are flying?
There is probably still enough to flood the world with supplies.
And renewables will sink that oil ship sometime.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 1:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Logan Mohtashami says
Not even sure why he is even talking about housing in the first place


Isn't that strange? The S&P is producing a return last I checked. A house is a liability.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 5:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
My favorite kind of liability is the one that pays a monthly dividend so large that it covers the rent

First owning a house doesn't cover the rent: you still have to pay for maintenance and taxes. That would be included in the rent.
It doesn't matter that you have to pay for shelter....
It still doesn't produce anything and costs money.
It's still a big widget sitting there doing nothing.
It can still be produced on demand in other places.
So why would its price stay more or less in line with an investment in massively productive assets?

I also have to pay for food, and toothpaste. By your logic why can't I buy and store a lifetime supply of THESE and have it increase in price just like financials assets?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 9:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says


Hmm, I’m no meteorologist, but I’m pretty sure that things like:
1)rain
2)snow
3)evaporation
4)sublimation
All change the atmospheric water concentration.

They do and always did, so no change.

Quigley says
Can you explain the mechanism by which CO2 (alone) changes the water vapor in our air?


Because it increases temperature - which wasn't the case before it was added in the atmosphere.
Warmer means the air can contain more water vapor.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 4:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Again, soap and water are the greatest drugs ever conceived.

You don't get rid of fleas with soap and water.
Cats/dogs fleas can move to humans when hungry. They can hide for months in a mattress, a carpet, or a crack in the hardwood, and then jump you.
In the middle ages there was probably not much you could do against them.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 4:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Quigley says
If you really believe humans are going to devastate the planet with CO2, best get to fucking work on cold fusion or some other source of limitless energy because people are not going to stop making fires. They’re just not.

Stop making fire? what do you mean? Like burning wood? Or you think we can't stop burning fossil fuels? Why?
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 5:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Harsh Ice Ages AND Ice-Free Poles for millions of years, long before humans but well after advanced life.


Oh Please.
You are not TPB. You know full well that the entire human civilization took place after the ice age in a period of very stable climate.
You probably know that minor variations of climate caused major civilizations collapses in the past.
The end of the bronze age circa 1200BC (drought, sea people).
The end of the Roman empire (variability of third century, climate displaced Huns, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-and-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-42171285/ , https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/30/16568716/six-ways-climate-change-disease-toppled-roman-empire )
The French revolution: https://hubpages.com/education/Effects-of-Climate-on-the-Origins-of-the-French-Revolution
These were minor variations.

On what legs could one stand to claim our civilization is so strong it won't be affected by the more important climate instability that are foreseen, I don't know. I see Europe already thrown in disarray by 1 million Syrian migrants. A joke compared to what could happen.

The argument that "Yeah, it's been warmer before" is silly at best.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 5:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

They say 16B capex this year. Possible but not so huge at Apple scale.

  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 6:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

They are talking of 20,000 new jobs. x 200K that's $4 billions.
The rest is bonuses for execs.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 6:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
once homo sapiens (not Lucy from 4 mya) walked across the North Sea and/or Channel without getting their feet wet

Sure it didn't bother humans too much back then. But imagine the same thousands of meters thick glaciers over north America and Europe. This is what severe climate change means and I'm not sure you can count on the opposite warming to be beneficial. At the very least it won't be for everyone.
And you can make it as large as you wish because it won't stop until we stop.

TwoScoopsPlissken says
The climate changes that ruined societies generally happened when they were at their maximum population load relative to their pre-science production

And you wouldn't say we are there at 7 billions going toward 9 billions in the next 30 yrs? With most of the increase in the warmest areas?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Even an 8C change in global temperatures isn't going to destroy human civilization at this point.

We will get 8C eventually if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. And I don't see where this number came from. The episodes I mentioned before were much more mild and still had huge impacts.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 17, 6:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

A simple property of bell curves is that the probabilities of extreme events increase rapidly if you move even a little in the tail end toward the center.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
People got matches and want to stay warm.

Burning wood alone wouldn't cause global warming.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 10:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_10ddb says
Cancel the Alarm, nothing to see here.


Keep burning fossil fuel: the change may not be fast but will get you eventually. 200, 300 yrs? A blink in the history of mankind.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 10:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Apple Inc. announced a series of plans Wednesday that were celebrated as promises to hire thousands of workers and bring home all of its overseas cash.

Well, not necessarily.

Apple AAPL, +0.28% said in its release that the company planned to “create over 20,000 new jobs through hiring at existing campuses and opening a new one.” The key word there is “create,” which Apple really likes to use when discussing jobs: The company even has a portion of its website dedicated to “job creation” that claims it is “responsible for 2 million jobs” in the United States, most of which are jobs “attributable to the App Store ecosystem.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-didnt-say-it-was-hiring-20000-new-workers-nor-bringing-back-its-overseas-cash-2018-01-17?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
Time may not change the minds of the holdouts, but time has and will continue to refute their apocalyptic predictions of exponential temperature and sea rise.


There won't be anything dramatic in the near term. No one says there will be. It's just catastrophic in the longer term, which clearly you won't see and you don't care about.
So it's not worth discussing with people who don't believe in the laws of physics. We just need to continue doing the changes what we are doing now: replacing fossil fuels with renewables, building better solar panels and batteries, etc... and ignore the barking dogs.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 12:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
What I'm saying is, the path to getting off fossil fuels is Nuclear power.

Arguing about the solution means accepting that there is a problem.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 12:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Solar and wind power are poised to become the cheapest forms of new electricity across large swaths of the globe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/tipping-point-seen-for-clean-energy-as-monster-turbines-arrive
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 4:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d58f8 says


" However, many other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide; although the amounts may be small (200 g of CO2 equivalent per kg of wood burnt), the gas is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and lasts 120 years in the atmosphere."
https://www.transitionculture.org/2008/05/19/is-burning-wood-really-a-long-term-energy-descent-strategy/


I didn't say that it is a replacement energy, or that it is a good idea to burn wood. No one is trying to power the world by burning wood. I know very few people heating their homes by burning wood.
Nonetheless the carbon in the wood is taken from the atmosphere. No extra CO2 in the atmosphere from burning wood.
  Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 18, 4:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d58f8 says
Does the process of manufacturing them give off pollution and greenhouse gases?

So we should reject any solution if it's not perfect?
I know some people don't like change - any kind of change - but too bad... change happens. Deal with it.