Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, January 22. 2013

How academic mobbing happens (h/t Sailer)

Ayn Rand and the criminalization of everyday life

The (So Far) Failed Promise of Electronic Medical Records

Living On Welfare in the U.K.

Mayor of London: Ice Age Coming to Britain?

NASA Warns Earth May Be Entering a Period of “Global Cooling”

We must do something to stop it now before we all die

Giddy CNN Correspondent: ‘I Feel Like I Should Pinch Myself Right Now’

Mr. Obama endorsed the entire liberal agenda as the guiding star of his next four years in the White House

Plus Ça Change… Barack Obama Gives Stirring 1913 Speech

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:15 | Comments (29) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Mayor of London: Ice Age Coming to Britain?

Well, no. It's very difficult to predict the regional effects of climate change, but melting Arctic ice may mean stronger anti-cyclonic systems over the Barents and Kara seas, bringing cold winter weather to much of northern Europe.

Petoukhov & Semenov, A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents, Climate and Dynamics 2010.

Generally, global warming will mean more intense weather for much of the globe.

#1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 09:33 (Reply)

QUOTE:

NASA Warns Earth May Be Entering a Period of “Global Cooling”

Um, no they didn't.

"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global... 'If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.' This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years. "

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

#2 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 09:45 (Reply)

Look, everyone! Two oxymorons in the same link!

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Amazing!

#2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-01-22 10:26 (Reply)

Nope. No science at NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 10:36 (Reply)

you're right. we must invest bajillions of tax dollars in stopping the Comin' Ice Age Global Warmerin Global Coolerin Climate Changerin today's weather fetish.

#2.2 wirraway on 2013-01-22 10:52 (Reply)

wirraway: we must invest bajillions of tax dollars in stopping the Comin' Ice Age Global Warmerin Global Coolerin Climate Changerin today's weather fetish.

Won't cost nearly so much. Humans built the energy infrastructure, and they can rebuild it. Much of it has to be replaced every few decades anyway. They just have to plan ahead.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 11:04 (Reply)

Lets clear up one very important fact; the sun is 100% responsible for 100% of the warming this planet receives/enjoys. Nothing else!! The amount of radiation the sun emits varies dramatically over time and is generally cyclical. The sun can without any other factors warm or cool our planet and it does. Additionally there are physical positioning factors between the earth and the sun that affect the amount of radiation the earth actually receives from the sun. Seasonal variations of course, orbital variations and precession factors. All of these are cyclical and all of these have cycles that are quite different. Because of this there are times when the cycles align and create a colder or warmer earth, the Little Ice Age is an example of this as are the medieval warming and the Roman warming. Both the Medieval and Roman warmings were much warmer then our current warming period is. Further the Little ice age which ended about 1850 or so (have you noticed how the warmies always start their hocky stick charts about 1850?) was colder then previous global coolings so this return to a more acceptable temperature would indeed seem more dramatic then it actually is because of how cold the previous centuries were. We are in fact in the middle of a natual cyclical warming period. Warming periods are good for the flora and fauna and as a result the human polulation exceeds 7 billion and more importantly our food supply is more then adequate to feed the population. Science (real science) is concerned with the inevitable cyclical cooling period that is coming. Some (real climate scientists) think the recent hiatus in warming may in fact signal a coming cooling cycle. A cooling cycle is NOT nice to the flora and fauna and it is likely that we could not support a population any where near as large as 7 billion people. This will be a disaster of biblical proportions and it is inevitable. Since man does not and can not effect the earth warming in any significant way it cannot be stopped. Even if we all bought SUVs and drove them 24 hours a day this natural cyclical warming will end and it will be followed by a natural cyclical cooling. good luck. Ponder the Maunder.

#2.3 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-01-22 11:14 (Reply)

you don't understand how the warmerism works. it doesn't matter if its black or white hot or cold. Man-Made (i.e. Bush or the GOP) Something is to blame for this Gaea-rape, and only a multinational, anti-capitalist organization run by people who have never worked an honest day in their lives and funded by the one-half of US citizens who actually pay taxes, can Save The World.

and we only have a few more minutes to do this, or we're Doomed.

I swear this. al-Bore and NASA told me.

#2.3.1 wirraway on 2013-01-22 11:58 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Lets clear up one very important fact; the sun is 100% responsible for 100% of the warming this planet receives/enjoys. Nothing else!!

It's actually 99.9997%, the balance coming from radioactive decay in the Earth's interior as well as residual energy from its gravitational collapse, but your figure is close enough for most practical purposes.

GoneWithTheWind: The amount of radiation the sun emits varies dramatically over time and is generally cyclical.

Yes, planetologists and climatologists are quite aware of this.

#2.3.2 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 12:05 (Reply)

I too enjoyed NASA's PC couching around the most significant term in the equation :) (Nice sig figs Zach). Actually the Russians (and some other western heretics) have been pointing out both the current solar minimum cycle and how we are at the "end" of the warm within the macro cycles of historical warm vs glacial periods. They've been calling out the start of the next regular ice age (not mini). They've been calling it out for at least 5 years now. Seems we are over due for an ice age on a macro cycle, but hey I'm happy to live in the statistical noise of this interglacial (12000 years or so) and within the error bars on the larger cycle.

#2.3.3 Karen on 2013-01-22 17:32 (Reply)

Karen: Actually the Russians (and some other western heretics) have been pointing out both the current solar minimum cycle and how we are at the "end" of the warm within the macro cycles of historical warm vs glacial periods.

Not just Russians. There's a general consensus forming in climatology that, given natural circumstances, the Earth would return to a cooler period within the next few centuries.

Tzedakis et al., Determining the natural length of the
current interglacial, Nature Geoscience 2012.

A few centuries is short on the scale of the Earth's history, but long in terms of current rates of projected anthropogenic climate change.

#2.3.3.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-23 08:05 (Reply)

Aww, Zach tried to cherry pick the qualitiative argument made by the guy studying tree rings. He for get this quote

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific.

Looks like it's manifest in temps to me.

Hard sciences aren't your friend Zach, they're too close to reality.

#2.4 DrTorch on 2013-01-22 11:53 (Reply)

You seem to be the one who is cherry-picking, as that is directly addressed in NASA's report. "The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example."

In any case, the headline was "NASA Warns Earth May Be Entering a Period of 'Global Cooling'", and that is simply not the case.

#2.4.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 12:09 (Reply)

" This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years. "

What is the "correct" temperature of the planet?

#3 Dale on 2013-01-22 10:13 (Reply)

Dale: What is the "correct" temperature of the planet?e

There is no "correct" temperature; however, consistent climate conditions are important to the stability of the ecosystem. Rapid changes will have vast effects on the biosphere, and on human civilization.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 10:26 (Reply)

"There is no "correct" temperature; however, consistent climate conditions are important to the stability of the ecosystem. Rapid changes will have vast effects on the biosphere, and on human civilization.
#3.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 10:26"

=======================================

What are you basing that claim on? Also, it seems to not have any definition.
The 'ecosystem'..like humans, adapt. Its what we have always done. Are you suggesting that a rise or fall of a couple of degrees over hundreds of years will have have us walking around in circles dazed and confused?

Also, is 50 years significant in geological time?

#3.1.1 Dale on 2013-01-22 10:35 (Reply)

Dale: What are you basing that claim on?

Current scientific understanding.

Dale: The 'ecosystem'..like humans, adapt. Its what we have always done.

Of course humans will adapt. That doesn't mean there won't be unwarranted suffering and loss.

Dale: Also, is 50 years significant in geological time?

Not usually, but sometimes. In any case, humans don't live in geological time. Humans live in days and years and generations.

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 10:40 (Reply)

Ah, "suffering". Someone always is someplace, and thus those so dedicated to relieving such, and thus salving their internal guilt at not suffering, will always have a windmill at which to tilt. No matter to hell the rest of us.

So let us pick the most suffering bastard on the earth, no matter his circumstances, and have him/her become the goal of mankind in making their life better.

And actually, that's what we've (those of us who think the USA is the penultimate expression of such) have done.

Yes, I've sorta gone off topic, that such a trivial change as a warmer Earth has such momentous changes so as to make that suffering bastards life even worse. It is/will be his government that makes his life worse, having much more effect on his life than nature ever could. Well, absent a volcano, tsunami, tornado, etc.

#3.1.1.1.1 XRay on 2013-01-22 21:48 (Reply)

XRay: Ah, "suffering". Someone always is someplace

That's very true. People are born to live and die. However, some suffering is unnecessary.

XRay: Yes, I've sorta gone off topic, that such a trivial change as a warmer Earth has such momentous changes so as to make that suffering bastards life even worse.

It is interesting how a very small change can have such far-reaching implications.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-23 08:08 (Reply)

Re: Living on Welfare in UK

The question becomes at what point are we better off joining rather than fighting the parasites? I work hard, and make respectable money, but I think the blend of after tax cash available plus 'work-life balance' is very likely better on welfare than for the vast majority of jobs, probably including my own. It would be more financially modest, but how much is having all of my time available for family, friends, children and those I care about worth? If I waste my time, it is of no moral value, but if I carefully spend my time as opposed to waste it, how precious would that be?

The fact that the welfare state is not sustainable does not mean that the correct course of action is to pull like an abused draught mule. When the system does collapse, will it be better to be broken and exhausted from your labors pulling the weight of so many others riding in the wagon, or will it be better to hop off the wagon, fresh, rested and prepared to start anew? What if you spend your time on the wagon preparing for when the wagon inevitably stops rather than idly wasting away like so many on the wagon do?

I could be disabled. Why not? I cannot count the times I have watched the person in front of me at the grocery store buying expensive steaks and expensive branded packaged foods while pulling out an EBT card to pay, and I look down at my generics and whatever cut of meat is on sale, and think, I am paying for both, why are they getting better than me? I would bet there is a way to put a house in a trust in an LLC or some such structure and end up getting paid section 8 rent to live in my own house. I could probably get assistance with the utility bills to boot. After housing, utilites and food are paid for, how much cash is left over when working?

I haven't gone on vacation to Spain, but Natalija and the Obamas both have.

More money is better than less, but time is the most precious thing we have. How wonderful would it be to get to spend every moment with our children? When on our death beds, wishing for more time with family is far more likely to be in our thoughts than to have worked more.

At what point do we stop trying to fight the system and accept it as it is, as absurd as it is, like the subject of the article, and milk it? If the time is not past, it is coming soon.

#4 Daedalus Mugged on 2013-01-22 10:17 (Reply)

You have put your finger on the problem. There is one more thing however that you should include. Most of us who work are driven to some extent to get up everyday and be self sufficient. We do it because we want to and we enjoy it. One of my biggest complaints about getting old (I'm 69) is I can't work a full day anymore. Cutting trees into firewood is strenuous work. Very satisfying but at the end of about four hours I'm tired. My point is I don't have to work but I want to. Those on welfare don't want to work and will work hard everyday to avoid it. This isn't going to change. The politicians have figured out that they can court the lazy indolent among us to vote for them and they can divide and conquer the workers out here with race and moral issues and they can garner enough votes to be elected every year. Whose fault is it? The lazy for being what they are? The politicians for being lying cheating fraudulent scum? Or the workers who allow themselves to be divided and distracted? Sadly I don't think the working class are going to figure this out anytime soon and the future does not look pretty.

#4.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-01-22 10:50 (Reply)

All that, and more, is embedded within the statement that the welfare state is not sustainable. It is not a question of it, but when, and how best to adjust ourselves to the fact that what cannot go on forever, will stop.

#4.1.1 Daedalus Mugged on 2013-01-22 12:59 (Reply)

"How academic mobbing happens (h/t Sailer)" Boy, that explains a lot. We're in a heap of trouble!

#5 Larry Geiger on 2013-01-22 10:36 (Reply)

Dale: What are you basing that claim on?

Current scientific understanding.
======================

You mean Current TV?..just kinding.
I was more interested in what the claim of "stability of the ecosystem". What does that mean?
-------------------------------------------

"Dale: The 'ecosystem'..like humans, adapt. Its what we have always done.

Of course humans will adapt. That doesn't mean there won't be unwarranted suffering and loss. "
==========================

The words "unwarranted", "suffering", and "loss" need context and definition.
Most suffering and loss are unwarranted. Do you mean that there will be no suffering and loss if "we"...umm..what?

----------------------------------------------

"Dale: Also, is 50 years significant in geological time?

Not usually, but sometimes. In any case, humans don't live in geological time. Humans live in days and years and generations.
#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 10:40 "
=====================

But as far as climate goes, that IS relative to geological time. So does the "ecosystem".

#6 Dale on 2013-01-22 11:35 (Reply)

Dale: I was more interested in what the claim of "stability of the ecosystem". What does that mean?

Here's a basic overview.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ecosystems.html

Dale: The words "unwarranted", "suffering", and "loss" need context and definition.

Unwarranted, in the sense of being avoidable. Loss in the sense of losing much of the natural inheritance, such as through extinction.

Dale: But as far as climate goes, that IS relative to geological time.

Humans are causing changes much faster than is usual in the natural climate system.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2013-01-22 12:17 (Reply)

by Executive Order ve vill be returning to ze ideal climate, last achieved on May 5, 1957, at Noon.

that is all.

#7 wirraway on 2013-01-22 14:16 (Reply)

Why, why, why, when I saw 20-plus responses to Tuesday's list of topics, did I know that Zach had assumed "discussion leader" for the day?

By Executive Order, I....

#8 jma on 2013-01-22 14:49 (Reply)

The trool ate his Wheaties this morning.

#9 Sam L. on 2013-01-22 16:28 (Reply)

Re:Global Cooling, Can't we just burn Al Gore? Surely he contains enough carbon to maintain warmer temps, given that "settled science" says more carbon in the atmosphere=higher temps.

#10 JD(not the one with the picture) on 2013-01-22 18:17 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, January 22. 2013

Tuesday morning links