| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
July 28, 2009 - 10:18pm
#1
The Global Warming Blues
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Yesterday was normal with 93 degrees in Roswell NM. Record was 106 in 1995.
Yeah, but that's not chilly Seattle. We can't cope up here. Luxury houses don't have AC.
(and neither does ours, btw)
We went to the gym last night to work out to COOL OFF. That's just wrong.
I would be interested in seeing the highs for your area for the last hundred years or so. For example, when was the last heat wave and was there any before that one or the current one. I remember the summer of 1995. That was a really hot summer for us with almost no rain. This year we are getting plenty of rain. Causing people with "swamp coolers" to suffer a bit because of the humidity.
Well, last night the LOW was a record high. Today the high is pushing very hard for a record, don't know if it's done it.
We have probably set a record for "sequential days above 90" as well.
But this really isn't conclusive in terms of Global Warming, only in "change in pattern".
Weather is great here (SE Asia). Cooler than Seattle. Oh, nobody gives a rat's ass about global warming here either. It's not even on the radar. I suspect the Chinese feel the same way. In fact, aside from US and Europe, nobody seems to give a shit. Western societies love their doomsday scenarios.
I empathize with you. Anything above 80 degrees every day without A/C has got to be uncomfortable. It's supposed to be raining all the time.
Southeast Asia is the influenza capital of the world. I'm more worried about a pandemic than I am about hot weather.
Boise is a nice summer norm of around 94...and dry. I am rereading a survivalist tome 'Life After Doomsday' written in 1980 and it has a few amusing bits about preparing for the coming Ice Age that the consensus of scientific opinion advised was on the way.
The difference was, in 1980 the idea did not rise to the level of a pop religion and they didn't have a fat ex politician making a fortune off the scheme.
Well, you know, you show a serious lack of understanding of the actual evidence when you use words like "religion".
Religion isn't testable. Average surface temperature is. You do know about all the radiosonde mistakes, yes? Wherein the degree of warming was underestimated for 10 years, that is, and the evidence avoided thanks to political administrators?
All weather data is noisy. ALL of it. Pointing to any 3-month trend (including the one we are suffering from right now) as evidence is silly.
No, I base the 'religion' comment on your contention 'testable'...
The problem is, the issue is vastly too complicated for anyone on this forum to comment. It is interdisciplinary and the science is immensely complicated. Lets be honest, there are perhaps a half dozen scientists skilled in more than one discipline who MIGHT make a credible claim to understand this field.
Where does that leave everyone else, folk who simply cannot understand the science or its contradictions? Think 'faith'...they believe in man made global warming because other folk who are better educated in the field but who themselves do not really understand the science tell them it is so.
Sort of like the difference between Steven Hawking, who understands his discipline, the local High School mathematics teacher who tells his class of clueless 8th graders all about Hawking's theories.
Hawking's understands the field, the science teacher understands Hawkings bullet points and the 8th grader understands enough to get him a 'C' on his test.
Now consider that there are at least a dozen fields where one must have a Hawking's understanding and mix the total.
What does that bring us to? We have a dozen fields that normal folk cannot understand, their theories dumbed down so the more modest intellectual with a real science background can begin to understand, further diluted into bullet points that folk who pretend to be informed repeat all the way down to the masses who have trouble reading that thermometer and have no idea how it works.
That, just like the Christian terms of faith, the Global Warming cult has its own terms of faith passed to them by their priesthood.
The fact that you can not imagine a test is not my problem.
This is called the rhetorical fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
You're off by at least a few orders of magnitude, and just in the USA for that. Doesn't matter, though, you're still making a classic fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
The same place it leaves things like tinfoil hat deniers, or alien abduction deniers, etc.
People are subject to whatever they want to actually hear, and it's obvious that the USA (and China, btw) do not want to hear the idea that they might be pissing in their own pot.
I see, so people who disagree with you "do not really understand"? That's the jist of your argument here.
Seriously, if you expect EACH PERSON to understand ALL OF THE MATH THAT THEY USE IN A DAY, you are limiting yourself to a very few people. There is such a thing as distributing knowlege, and "argument from authority" is ONLY a fallacy when the authority isn't.
This is, for instance, why I get to argue from my own POV when talking about sampling or digital signal processing. Yes, I'm relying on authority, but it's legitimate.
Legitimate authority has pointed out what anyone who bothers to do analysis of their own weather pattern can tell you from basic understanding of statistics.
Oh, and the getting colder part? I guess you don't understand what the effects of limiting particulate emissions is.
Actually it is the exact opposite of YOUR logic fallacy, the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)..You are right because folk brighter than you or I say so...This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false)
An argument that relies on the truth of another's argument, when that argument cannot be understood or intellectually challenged, is ....in all other realms, an appeal to faith, religion if you will.
Actually, no...My argument relies on neither of us understanding the issue as neither of us are award winning multidisciplinary scientists so we both rely on dumbed down talking points. The difference is that I recognize the weakness of my position and you seem to rely on it.
You pretend knowledge you cannot possibly have to 'prove' your contention. I recognize the reality that neither of us can understand this and so test its truth so I call it what it is, a religious argument based on faith.
Just as I cannot prove the existence of God you cannot prove tenets of your global warming cult.
Appeal to appropriate authority is not a fallacy.
If you insist that there is no authority, which is in fact what your argument devolves to, then you reject the existance of all knowledge that you personally have not developed.
If so, you can not learn.
Jim does tend to lean towards anarchy more than conservatism. I don't think he realizes this at all. But he is no nihilist in the philosophical department. KBK is our resident nihilist. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But he is Canadian. One thing about Canadians that I do like is that they are great shots with a rifle and they have that hoochie momma, Sandra Rinomato.
Video of Canadian Snipers using .50 cal. rifle. One shot, one kill.
Sandra....
I do not claim there is no authority, just that the body of authority varies from one extreme of belief in the phenomenon to the other. You pretend YOUR priests are authority and all others heretics, another religious tradition.
JIMV,
I think most scientists believe in man made global warming.
Take care.
'Most Scientists' is a very big universe and changes constantly. Also, both sides tend to grant their Priests the infallibility of the Pope and discount all challenge.
My point is simple...the issue is too complex for mere mortals to know what the truth is and to pretend otherwise is hubris.
Religion also seems to attract hubris.
Now throw in the concepts of involuntary tithing (Cap and Tax), Heresy and its punishment (the lack of grants to those who do not play ball) and you sure as hell have tithing...why, they even create a hell, on earth as it is, if their dogma is not followed.
I hate bold risky unsubstantiated difficult to prove statements. Does every single new discovery have to be man made? Does it have to be? They discovered the ozone hole. Great! Then they stated it was man made. One single volcano eruption does more to the atmosphere and subsequently our weather than the combination of man's air pollutants in its entirety. Just imagine most scientists agree that when Krakatoa exploded and could be heard around the world and how it affected weather immediately and over a long course of time. How it could still have a major impact on our weather? That is just one such eruption. Man made weather phenomenon is just that. It is a phenomenon. It's a media story. It's a political platform. It's an industry. Since the discovery of the ozone hole it hasn't changed much. Perhaps it was there all along. In fact, the ozone hole seems to be shrinking. It is currently at its smallest in over a decade and "most scientist agree" that the ozone hole is not materially connected to global warming. God, could you imagine what we would be like iof the Great Dust Bowl was occurring today rather than during the 1930s? People would be committing suicide in New York City. The only thing that was not man made to create the Dust Bowl period was natural drought. Personally, I think the only thing that is not made made with global warming is earth's own warming trend. Sure its going to get hot for a short period of time in Earth's long and tired history. Even the small ice age, which lasted for centuries, is just a speck of time on Earth. The ice pack grew, dependable warm summers were no longer dependable, heavy rains created famine, and none of it was man made. It was Earth doing her own thing. We are acting no different than the population in general behaved during the Black Plague. A bunch of manic bullshit. What keeps some people awake at night is the feeling of unimportance in the grand scheme of things. If global warming ends up wiping out the human race than we wouldn't be the first species to disappear on Earth. Now would we?
Of course if you and JIMV are wrong, then one day the irreversible will happen with catastrophic results. Not only from CO2, but Methane etc. See this link for more quick information about the problems with Methane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
I think the question is are we prepared to take the risk if what you suggest is wrong, and it is man made?
Take care.
Nobody claimed the ozone hole was related to global warming. On the other hand, the world has substantially reduced its release of CFC's in the last 20 years, which are pretty clearly determined to affect ozone stability in the upper atmosphere.
Oh, AND, effectively the whole state of Washington west of the cascades had record temperatures yesterday. Seattle and area a new all-time, all-days, ever-seen record.
When Mt. St. Helens blew up it put more shit in the atmosphere than all-time, all-days, ever-seen total spray cans of deodorant.
Sorry about your heat wave. Yesterday high was 89. It was a nice relief. But last night we got a severe thunderstorm with gusts up to 70 mph. I think a tornado may have went through Midway. I'll know more once I get to work this morning.
I'm referring to media hysteria that is contagious. The media will claim anything is related to global warming.
AS the result of a full out effort by the USA with all is economy crippling effects is a drop in expected global warming of about 1/2 if one degree over a century, I'm willing to take the chance.
All "shit" is not the same, Dude.
Yeah, I know. The shit out of the volcano wasn't as deadly as a can of deodorant.
Specifically, chlorides and flourides are not generally very common in volcanic debris. Sulphides, sulphates, sulphites, bisulphites ... yeah.
Yeah, sulfuric acid in the air is great for the immune system. I think the term "volcanic aerosal gases" beats paper. Or rather a can of RightGaurd. BTW, flourine and chlorine and their respective family trees are quite abundant in volcanic eruptions.
Halides? As mineral, not as gas. And bringing up the immune system has nothing to do with ozone problems.
I can see we're about to do the old "whoops, I got caught let me change the subject" dance just like Sasaudio did with Kuncher's mistakes about digital audio.
Wow. Is this some sort of joke. You want to prove your false deflamatory accusation against me with specifics and evidence.
By the way, Dr. Kunchur corrected you, and his papers were "blessed" by three national mainstream scientific organizations (besides PhDs from other colleges, anonymous referees etc). All third party. So is your problem that I agreed with Dr. Kunchur and mainstream science. Or is it your multiple conflicts of interest that were brought to everyone's attention.
WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY
Here's what Gallup found: The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.
What's more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008. Global warming placed last among eight environmental concerns Gallup asked respondents to rank, with water pollution landing the top spot.
Another recent Gallup study found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people surveyed said the environment takes precedence over growth, while 51 percent asserted expansion carries more weight. That reverses results from 2008, when 49 percent of respondents said the environment was paramount and 42 percent said economic growth came first. In 1985, the poll's first year, 61 percent placed a bigger priority on the environment, while 28 percent ranked economic growth highest.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/52828402.html
I guess the economic downturn has produced some positive signs. People are starting to do a cost vs benefit analysis of their own.
The Internet will destroy all future presidents.
Indeed, with your help.
The left is in big trouble when Americans learn to do math...
People get real good at math when they lose their jobs and start getting those "insufficient funds" notices. I suspect their 201K statements help with subtraction.
Life is a shit sandwich and everyday we take another bite. Only when people participated, even remotely, in their own demise, do they start to pay attention. Sort of like working at a liquor store believing that you will never have a gun stuck in your face. I'm sort of glad the unemployment is running out on a lot of these people. Maybe they will actually and seriously go to a job interview. You people treat these bums better than you do your own pets.