Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - magnamentis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: April 19, 2017, 09:06:32 PM »
That is just the 10% above the water!

true, while the base under water is most probably wider similar to tree roots, else it's getting ready to topple :-)

There is no excuse for being this far removed from reality.  Either they are completely incompetent, unaware, overconfident in their supposed knowledge, don't care or are a fifth column element working against the greater good intentionally.

Go hang out at WUWT - you make about as much sense.

I'm very sad for this forum.  I never thought it would degenerate to name-calling respected scientists. It's embarassing. 

I guess I'll just join A-Team and Chris Reynolds and stay away.

IMHO to give those who strongly disagree and IMO are even right the feeling that they destroy a forum is at least as bad as throwing in thoughts about unbelievable things for consideration.

and then to press on the tear glands is typical female behavior, first yell then cry.

however anything that is far from "how it currently looks like" may well be questioned no matter who stands behind the theory, which is how mankind came that far ( far not only equals good but still )

scientist themselves work after the "negative principle" lives from permanent doubts and questioning that hopefully will end up with proof one day before it's too late.

however to take a clear stance, i would bet almost anything that we shall be more or less ice free in summer way before 2060-ies, can't proof but is my personal opinion and a valid one as per my best knowledge. can't see why opposing people with a "name" should not be allowed or do you prefer your surgeon to use a hammer to knock you out for operation LOL. beside the fact that we all make mistakes and at times loose temper or oversight this should never be a lasting and general habit. those who could not deal with things that way are the ones you mentioned, hence no problem here if you join them and rant over there [pun intended]

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 16, 2017, 07:38:15 PM »
once again we can see in what kind of a mentally ill world we're living:

an asshole throws some bombs and in return gets more approval, not much more to add while of course this
sick behaviour corresponds with the fact that such a guy can become POTUS in the first place.

if the turks go with "Erdie's" wishes that would not come as a surprise at all while in case of the U.S. it
always surprises me, no matter what, i.e. GWB second term, still not getting it LOL

thanks @buddy for this thread that provides a lot of insight for us who're overseas and not that close to what's going on and why. ;)

... if we want to have a good understanding while monitoring the comeback of Arctic sea ice. ...
You are joking, right?
We are already committed to the complete and irreversible (on a human time scale) disappearance year round of Arctic sea ice.

That kind of makes me want to shut down the blog and forum, and build a big bunker. And so the narrative I tell myself (and hopefully others once I get back to blogging) is that what we need to fight for, is getting Arctic sea ice back after we lose it. Preferably prevent it from going ice-free all year round.

why would you intentionally attempt to assign a value of 'natural variability' to a dynamic system that is in the process of catastrophic collapse?  Is it because the collapse is not what you expected?

If it is all collapsing, there's not much sense in thinking about what the best way to do research is. Or post on a forum. And what I've said in reply to AndrewB.

neven in absoluter hochform ( neven in high performance mode LOL ) this thread made my day, keep going.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 07, 2017, 05:34:21 PM »
On the contrary, this makes me very unhappy.

It is bad enough that staying on-topic seems to be less and less respected by a very loud minority.

But being criticized for being on-topic but not being political correct in a pure sea ice thread is a step too far. Please discuss that somewhere else, I am not interested.

The subject here is "2017 sea ice area and extent data", how hard is it to stay with that?

I agree, and would like to add: F*** climate risk deniers and how they may twist words on some obscure Forum.

duly noted including the general opinion that it does not matter (ref to f... them) it's a valid possible point of view and hence i'll try to remember. didn't mean to make anyone unhappy ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 06, 2017, 10:28:12 PM »
Uhh-ohh! Looks like this is about to really open up now.
Svalbard on the right.
1st vs 6th

looks like a massive bridge-head directly pointing to the pole, considering recent mobility of the core ice that's boding not well indeed. thanks for the repeating great images, very useful stuff.

@Bill Fothergill
you're welcome, thx for the links, those should be prominently place somewhere on the ASIG page IMO, i wish my english would allow for such great articles. kudos, very exiting content.

EDIT: i assume you allow that i posted those on my facebook profile, else let me know

Policy and solutions / Re: Better Tomorrows
« on: April 06, 2017, 05:19:39 PM »
reading all the leftist unrealistic comments a few earlier comments and reactions become even more understandable. neven made a few good comments as to where the problem lays and what the only
possible approach is, i.e. implementing caps of wealth, while they have to be at a level that keeps
people motivated, else the outcome of no way to prosper has been seen while travelling through all
the warsaw packt countries before the turn-around and even now it's visible.

people need a way to prosper and develop but no-one needs billions to achieve that. another key is to make leaders and top-managers responsible for their doings instead of letting them go with golden parachutes.

unions have vastly proven to have their own agenda and union leaders have proven to be no less power-seeking
and corrupted by money, while too  much union power has mostly caused more widely spread poverty.

last but not least exploitation of third world country, meaning commodities, working power and selling oversupply to them at prices below their self-generating costs and much more has to be banned and prosecuted. again those who represent the powers who do that excessively have to be held responsible.

I hope this does not look like a copy, will come back to edit should i find a similar comment later on haha....

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: April 06, 2017, 05:06:55 PM »
that had to be expected after my last one, very informative but it's ok, can live with it :-)

just have a look at the time stamp and you'll easily see that it was much later that i was seeing that post, without knowing the later posts, hence when i wrote mine i was not aware of how old the post i replied to was and did not know that there were many replies referring to the moon. it was well meant and by no means silly, can happen, it's called ninja-post for experience multiple forum participants, a totally normal thing to happen.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:53:43 PM »
An intriguing artifact at the top of this webcam image in the dead of night:

that's the moon [just kidding of course]

or, applying knowledge and understanding courtesy of "Stellarium"
the view at 74.25N 103W at 6:30UTC 4. 4. 2017

it was cowerdice LOL and after 16 hours of work i just didn't have to energy to verify, thanks for the link and i hope the "part-quote" was made with a smile and not an evil grin haha.....

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:50:25 PM »
This basin push towards a max can only be characterized as encouraging, not in the long term but for the approaching melt season. What it is telling us is that the peripheral seas are the main contributors to the low numbers and the variability in these seas is typical of today's Arctic.

too much cherry picking IMO, this kind of information is fodder for deniers to interpret it their way. no offense meant, after all it's a simple statement of facts as we know them while i'm not entirely sure whether area and extent still hold too much value as information to describe the state of the ice. the more i read and look at graphs and plots based on old models, based on how it once was, the more i get the feeling that something is not right, i just hope that we won't get too much of a negative surprise if what we got by now wouldn't be bad enough already.

thanks for all the contributions from both of you but still i felt that i have to make that statement, hope it's well taken, because the other side (deniers) are very strategical at times and perhaps we as well need to be a bit smartly using the available input (staying with the borders of truth and/or best knowledge of course)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:43:18 PM »
So a relatively simple question motivated by seeing some new ice form...

Do we know what day is breakeven for heat flux, counting only radiation, at various latitudes? Assume clear skies (though I'd be curious for cloudy too), and open water at 0C for albedo/blackbody purposes.

That is - if we only look at heat gained from the sun and heat lost via longwave to space (ignore atmospheric interaction, upwelling, currents, etc), what day of the solar year does this breakeven occur at various latitudes?

very good question, would be interested to hear some enlightenment too, let's hope that someone knows and is willing to tell us :-)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:31:30 PM »
2011 had similarly high march/ early April temperatures...

there is for every event a point in time that was similar, the point is that we are consistently warmer and if we have a spike it's upward and except one single time not downward temp-wise and the only down spikes never reached the average line. IMO it' makes little sense to sooth the situation by pointing out when in the past it was similarly warm because that year in the past mostly if not always was cold or very cold before and after that event while the last few were not, 2016/17 especially.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:24:31 PM »
I know the EU are the good guys, but any new coal plant built now could last 50 years. Why are the necessary actions always postponed to the future? Why not immediately?
(sorry about the rant...)

because the governments would be sued for compensation payments to the enterprises who in good faith, before being aware of such a new law or before it was implemented, invested huge amounts of money in panning (and lobbying LOL) so the term is "Rechtsicherheit" means translated more or less something like reliability of the law that is in effect when certain processed that take years to finalization were started, this among other things that fall under that "term".

of course there is more to it and not all is "sound" (clean) but then that's the main reason, after all, once again it's either money to earn or money to safe for either side but money it always is.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: April 04, 2017, 11:43:16 PM »
An intriguing artifact at the top of this webcam image in the dead of night:

that's the moon [just kidding of course]

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 04, 2017, 11:41:06 PM »
Pardon the pun, but watching the ease of ice transport in some of the preceding animations is truly chilling. Whilst there are still Freezing Degree Days getting clocked up in the High Arctic, it does seem a case of "too little, too late".

The fact that, purely in terms of extent, the 2017 melt season appears to have somewhat stalled at the moment, simply serves as a reminder of what transpired during 2012. If one ranks the March, April and May NSIDC monthly averages, 2012 currently occupies 14th, 20th and 13th lowest positions respectively. However, the horror show only really began in June of that year. Given that the present extent is nearly 1 million sq kms lower than that recorded for the equivalent date in 2012 should certainly give cause for apprehension.

One of the (many) ways of graphically illustrating what has been happening to Arctic sea ice is to display the number of days in each year that either has been, or indeed still is, amongst the lowest three recorded for the date.

Possibly the best example - certainly the best I can think of - is to show how 2007 has fared. According to the inhabitants of flat-land, that year was supposed to represent the nadir for Arctic sea ice. A major strand of the "logic" - and I use that word very advisedly - behind this hypothesis, was that the September minimum had increased in each of the two following years. Using NSIDC average monthly values, the September figures for Arctic sea ice extent were...

2007 = 4.32 millions sq kms
2008 = 4.73 millions sq kms
2009 = 5.39 millions sq kms

So, there is no arguing with the fact that 2009 > 2008 > 2007. The format of that inequality, allied with the fact that there had been anomalously high temperatures recorded in the Arctic during the 40's, had been used to peddle the myth that 2008 and 2009 heralded the fact that the turning point had been passed in an ~ 60 year cycle. This immediately gained uncritical acceptance in flat-land, as the average climate change sceptic wouldn't know what genuine scepticism was if it jumped up and bit them on the arse.

However, the following inequalities between NSIDC average September extents somehow seemed to have been overlooked...

1983 > 1982 > 1981
1992 > 1991 > 1990
2001 > 2000 > 1999

(Incidentally, the increase between 1990 and 1992 was quarter of a million sq kms greater than the much-vaunted 2007 - 2009 "recovery".)

{Of course, things have moved on since them, and their current meme is that the Arctic was effectively ice free nearly 100 years ago. There were so many obvious flaws in the original 60-year cycle meme, that even committee members in the House and the Senate would have had trouble keeping a straight face.}

Anyway, getting back to 2007, according to the JAXA/IJIS/ADS database, by the 31st December that year, it had registered the following daily figures...

153 days were lowest for that date
104 days were second lowest, and
105 days were third lowest. (That adds up to 362, and the other 3 days were 4th lowest.)

However, as at today, the equivalent numbers for 2007 read as follows...

Lowest: 4 days
2nd lowest: 70 days
3rd lowest: 46 days

The demise of 2007 from its position of preeminence can be seen in the attached chart. The first column shows how 2007 stood at year-end, and the subsequent columns show the decline at the end of each of the following years. The final column tracks in near-real-time as 2017 data arrives. So far this year, there have only been 8 "lowest 3" instances remaining from 2007. Each of them has been surpassed in 2017, with 2 dropping to 3rd lowest, and a further 6 dropping to 4th. As the 2017 melt season gets into gear, it will be "interesting" to see how much further 2007 will sink.

As we frequently say in Glasgow...

sic transit gloria mundi

you hit the nail on the head, 1+, seconding every letter, nice read indeed, thanks

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 04, 2017, 11:37:54 PM »
JimboOmega, this year is already objectively different from all other recent years by its winter PIOMAS results. I hope you call this a measurement even though it's mostly a model.
I expect 2017 to reach:
Record low volume with very high probability.
Record low area with high probability.
Record low JAXA extent with 50-50 probability.
Yes the weather can do all sorts of wonders, but at some point it's just average weather that brings the record.

To my mind:
2015 had a big thick chunk of ice in the Beaufort, and warm El Nino weather.

In 2016, the less thick chunk of ice had migrated to the ESS and Laptev, there was still warm El Nino weather, and a strong August storm dispersed a lot of ice to the South.

In 2017, the thick chunks of ice are gone, the El Nino weather is gone, and it seems like there's a 20% to 25% chance of a strong August storm.

I think the El Nino warmth had an effect on the Pacific side, but not much effect elsewhere.  So I'll guess that the minimum extent will probably be near the 2007, 2015, 2016 minimums, with a 20% to 25% chance of a strong August storm setting a new record.

I wonder if dispersal of ice to the South in early April would tend to cool off the southern oceans while leaving time for the CAB to rethicken?

i find it interesting to read through all the different thoughts as to what to expect and it's very legit to share thoughts like yours but to predict storminess in august or chance of such goes a bit far IMO. as far as "weather" is concerned we should just see what will be as long as we cannot even predict more than 3 days and perhaps an idea of 10 days. further the current situation cannot be compared to recent years for many reasons but one is that we are very much in uncharted waters. more open and warmer waters will favour storms like in the recent past and since i as well don't (can't) know i just say, let's concentrate on the parts that we have reliable information that allows at least for some kind of reasonable assumptions and conclusions.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 Melting Season
« on: April 01, 2017, 11:15:24 PM »
Just in time LOL, the high was at around 1.6 Celsius / 36F

( and there is still water to see for weeks now and most of the time it was much more open water than right now )

What does the web cam in Barrow look like now?

quite regular conditions for the time of the year :-)

you find the links on top right corner under "webcams"

Sure, guys.

Now tell us how we make those things happen.  You have a hidden army of super warriors you're going to bring to the fight?  Gulags for compulsive shoppers?

You're going to need a pretty strong dictatorship to bring all that off.  Perhaps model your new world government after Stalin's solution?

Can you take some of your goals (wonderful, some are) and work out practical ways they might be achieved?

that's why things are never happening till now, because immediately jumps in the guy who says it's not feasible. it does not matter, first one hast to know, then to advertise and spread the news what's to do and not talking things to death a minute after sharing the idea(s)

negativism is not helpful and basically an alibi (excuse) for: "i don't want" but i'm getting tired of all those guys and will concentrate and discuss things as well as go forward with those who take tasks on without talking for ever until it's too late.

EDIT: further it's condescending and stupid to assume that people who come up with great (correct) ideas are not able tho think and being aware of the difficulties. it's just that some do things and other talk why it won't work and while fear produces the expected outcome, fear of that it does not work is no exception, the result will be, nothing happens as we can observer over centuries and millenia, just with different tasks at hand but all that worked out only worked out because some brave guys took on the challenge and dealt with the details later.

You are so cool!

A quick addition from here, since party time is soon despite all the trouble:

15  Immediate stop of lignite burning - and coal later, as you mentioned.

16  Manufacturers of machines and goods must guarantee proper functionality for 5 years - increasing to >20 years until 2030. Any repair of low-quality parts must be done free of charge. Planned obsolescence or use of life-time limiting parts is a criminal act.

17  The (energy & ressources) efficiency of the best product in a category is minimum requirement 5 years later.

18  Buyers of things must explain before the purchase, how long they will use it and where to recycle it after use. Without proper proof of recycling a new product of the same category is not allowed.

A nice New Year!

great stuff all

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 24, 2017, 11:23:19 PM »
I believe it to be a good possibility that the  Beaufort ice might be the only ice to offer any resistance to disintegration and melt this year. Everything else is ready to go already.

first time since long that i don't share your thoughts, that's a "dream" IMO, nothing has healed and once spring set on there will no resistance. further i don't believe in any homogenous 2m ice in the beaufort, if at all it's compresse ice sticking up or overlapping at times. i cannot imagine any scenario that exactly beaufort wouldn't melt this year, not that all the MYI is gone elsewhere or for good.

each year in this time when nothing big happens there is are a lot of ideas popping up that never hold a few weeks later. the greyhounds are in the startbox and can't wait to be released LOL

Permafrost / Re: Negative Feedback of Positive Snowfall Anomalies
« on: March 23, 2017, 09:03:31 PM »
The air in the Arctic was dry in the past, but not anymore. There seems to be so much moisture now that it cannot be contained. I am no expert on that subject, and am sure there are others that can clarify.
Correct! But I am not talking about the Arctic re: decreasing/stable moisture, as it is definitely warming & moistening (also due to the loss of albedo); I am referencing land areas that are newly-covered by snow when they usually aren't.

in fact much less land is coverd by snow, i.e. all of nothern europe and big parts of eastern europe remain mostly snowfree or snowpoor as compared to i.e. when i was a child about 55 years ago. taking specific spots that due to warmer and wetter conditions have a bit more snow in some years is not target leading but misleading. i have observed for quite some time that you want to convince us that an ice age lays ahead. ok that's an opinion but so far of IMO (and thats also an opinion LOL) that i won't even enter a discussion. there has never been an ice age at times when i.e. CO levels were so high and still increasing, that alone tells the story but then there is much more that tells a future of warming and not one of cooling (overall, not locally) there will always be local counter effects due to air and water currents as well as shifting vertical air movement areas but the planet earth will get warmer as long as we add heat and heat containing factors. of course the process will not be linear at all times but persistent in the long run.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 23, 2017, 08:55:39 PM »
i think that this russia thing about trump is just a placeholder discussion lack of a proper point of attack which ultimately is as well a dishonest approach. thing is that looking at this guy, speaking moving, attitude as well as content of what he's uttering should simply let people say that this is not the kind of person we want as president, no matter what his connections to putin are.

should they find out that it was a storm in the waterglass this could backfire and fasten hime safely to that saddle where many don't want to see him which is why i consider the possibility that this entire russia thing is exploited by team trump themselves, knowing that many screamers who jumped on that bandwagon will look very bad and trump the better.

IMO there is only one relevant question and i believe the answer is no:

a) is he a trojan horse of Vlad. P. like they place at times agents into other important positions, i say no, probably not

b) does he have any interests in and with foreign establishment that would force him to neglect or torpedo U.S. American interests in favour of his own ( on significant levels of course, not talking about a golf course )
again i think that the answer is no, hence the battle cannot be won because the point of attack does not exist in the manner that would matter.

if those two and a few other questions can be answered with no, it will show sooner or later and he gets stronger and the attackers look bad, hence it would be more honest and target leading to name the horse by it's real name which is: we don't want a Narcissistic, rassistic sociopath who disrespects women as our president and do it the proper way.

thing is, that whenever i see that guy i think, if it were not so sad, it would be funny, it's ridiculous really.

at times it's trouble some to discuss things that seem obvious just because there are people how try to stand out by opposing anything that is based on common sense and try to land a lucky punch that way with a chance to boost their carrier. it wouldn't matter so much if it would not cost us time and energy that would be essential to be used to find solutions, workarounds and damage minimization instead of fighting the trolls.

that said, why did i say that:

a) the speed of warming without obvious natural cause leaves little to no room to believe it's natural  (at least not mainly)

b) the correlation between the development of our climate to the warmer side with the level of civilization, industrialization and wealth ( use of energy consuming technology and comfort tools) leaves no to little room
to assume that the warming at the current speed and exactly during the given period is naturally caused, again at least not mainly,

i' know it's bold and somehow not correct to say so but i think there always is a point where certain discussions and/or doubts should simply be banned due to be provenly wrong.

this what we are facing here is obviously mainly man-made and any energy that goes into convincing the always yesterday people should be gathered for productive thoughs and action instead.

[rant end LOL]


See Tamino's Analysis from October 2015. -snip-

To the proposed slowdown of the trend I say that extent is not a good measure for how much ice has been lost. I shouldn't used the monthly extent myself. Volume is a better measure of ice loss. Attached maximum and minimum Arctic Sea ice volume according to PIOMAS. I don't see a slowdown. I'm looking forward to Tamino's next look into the matter.

seconding that while the stats should be in percent in addition to just numbers because once we shall reach volumes below the current range between min and max the numbers will have to slow down while the percentage will accelerate. I hope that i was able to explain the thought in a comprehensive manner while perhaps someone else, a native english speaker, can/will do that better.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 20, 2017, 10:54:36 PM »
"we've pretty much declared max"?
You mean not yet?

It looks like it was March the 7th by this measure.  You can post some other measure with a date on it.
I wouldn't want to post this information in the melting season. It would not be relevant there, and I have not seen this specific information posted anywhere else.

of the two major measures it's either 6th of march or 7th of march and the max was called with a tiny bit of caution but it was called.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 20, 2017, 10:53:14 PM »
..... unless we humans get our act together, the rest of the earths systems are going to change so much that the normal will not be as it was even 20 years ago.

i mean this serious and just adding without wanting to be negative more than what i really believe, that said, we're beyond that already. even if we could stop pollution NOW immediately, the sh....t is already hitting the fan, it's too late to avoid it while we can and should reduce the worst to the unavoidable bad which means that there is good reason to make any effort we can ( has to start on individual level, person by person changing life style, priorities and attitude ) to reduce our environmental footprints, else it could be worse than even we believe.

so to make this clear, i agree with what you're heading at, it's just important to call things by their real name and in this case the real name is that we cannot revert the process in time, not in theory and by no means in practice but we can do our best which of course we as mankind are lightyears away of doing unfortunately.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: March 20, 2017, 10:41:40 PM »
It's Icepacman!  :o

hehe.... good that i saw your post before writing the same :-) uhhh.... just remembering 45 years ago sitting in front of those machines for hours each day :-)

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:35:06 PM »

Thanks.  I added the word 'collapse', and only time will tell when and how bad the collapse will be/occur.

absolutely, can happen any time, only thing i'm sure about is that it will happen, we're already a lucky generation to enjoy 70 years without major disruption on home soils, this side and that side of the big pond :-)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:28:09 PM »
dosibl, the most telling areas will be the Beaufort

this is based on the past while it's exactly possible that the final attack on sea-ice from now on can (will) come from any (unexpected) side and chances are high that we're in for more surprises.

what i'm trying to say, sorry if i got that wrong, is, that even should the beaufort be ice-coverd in may for once (not saying it will) most ice can be eliminated from the the atlantic side and exported down fram while at he same time a bit of garlic press down CAA et voilà, almost nothing left while the rest (in this example that would be beaufort) will melt out between may and september anyways. so the key is the CAB all above 80 degrees north, the more of that goes, the lower the minimum. IMO there is no doubt that we wont' even see any kind of "ARMS" or other significant reminders below 75 degrees north this year. game on, let's see.

this is just my take on it, not saying it will or has to be, just drawing a picture (like every year) and after all
a lot became true in the past ;)

i'm looking forward to the extreme takes of "BBR" LOL.

the season will be (already is) very interesting in any case

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:16:00 PM »
looks like that we deal with "dizygotic twins" talking about "Niños"  ;)

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: March 20, 2017, 02:22:22 AM »
Due to the Peter Principle, I am not confident that the coming (circa 2045 to 2060) socioeconomic can be avoided.

assuming you mean "collapse" as the missing word i agree with the principle but think you are quite optimistic with the time frame, i have been eyeballing the years between 2025-2030 ;)

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 19, 2017, 10:07:04 PM »
this should about have been the outcome of the election, no clue what (probably nothing) people think when they vote

They vote for what they WANT the person to do.  Not what they really THINK he will do.  They (we humans) don't really deal in a reality much of the time.  We deal in hope.

It's like when a guy dates a girl.  We (guys) have a tendency to read into WHAT WE WANT TO THINK the girl is thinking about us.....rather than REALLY OBSERVING what she is saying, how she is saying it, and drawing a conclusion from those REAL OBSERVATIONS.

Same is true of global warming......or the ice melt.   There are a LOT of people that DON'T WANT the ice to go they WANT TO BELIEVE the folks that are lying to them (they don't KNOW that FOX is lying to them).  That is why....I is important to be A DISCIPLINED OBSERVER IN LIFE.

Speaking of relationships.....I wonder what this guy's wife is thinking right now:

sure :-)

for many years a ponder of a phenomenon that does not make sense to me while it's common. how can people elect a person as their leader, especially those people where such a person is given big power, on a day to day basis. i.e. if i find a person suitable i can of course say that one or another move was great or not after my gusto but i would never ever change my mind from day to day or week to week depending on media headlines or similar. if the person is good he/she is allowed to make mistakes and as well opt for things i think different.

what i'm trying to say is that if the motives to elect a leader are wrong or shortsighted the outcome can't be good except by accident :-)

for many years i'm pondering over solutions and at the end i always end up with IQ or similar criteria based voting rights. something like a "voting license" everyone would have to pass some kind of test to achieve voting rights while the test cannot be related to any topics but only to brainpower.

i mean if the majority is stupid how can we believe that the system will work in the long run. and the majority is stupid (average at best) and the system (democracy) is struggling increasingly and it has to be fine tuned. i only doubt that this will happen without bloodshed on a large scale as it has most of the time if not always been in the past.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 19, 2017, 07:15:41 PM »
And since it is SUCH a pretty graphic.....why not post the picture itself:

this should about have been the outcome of the election, no clue what (probably nothing) people think when they vote and it's not US only, looking at hungary, poland, turkey and the likes.

not that i'm believing in the old man with the beard but still it is as jesus said, they don't know what they're doing" only that i do not see this as an excuse but more as an accusation. people should start to use their brain for other things than saving 5% on their next purchase and find the best way to screw their "friends" wife.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: March 19, 2017, 07:05:55 PM »
No mine was a fluke

At one stage I thought it was headed for 14m

The melt could be impossible to get a bin for.

Where to begin or end?
Fluke, beginner's luck, sensitive insticnt, lucky shot, call it what you will, but get three in a row as close people will take note... ;) I still remember when my second shot with a bow hit a 9 and the next 10 went right off the target :).

If you get many guesses on any poll someone is bound to be nearest and very close to correct. Or at least among nearest two. Add to that, most of the 127 voters did not announce their exact guess so saying some exact number in correct bin increases the chances to be nearest one.

In this sort of net poll, someone would have to do a list of the exact guesses and calculate the stats from those to get a more fair representation of the chances. Some people said specific descriptions of their guesses like 'low 14-14.25', but the calculation above doesn't note these at all. I just took the midpoints of each category and multiplied by number of votes to get the ASIF average.

IMO who is best should not even be a topic seriously because based on the situation and all know factors we can make a guess in a range while even trying to show up with specific precise numbers is "a game" at best and useless for sure because it's like playing lottery, sooner or later someone wins while most others loose and then the motivation to make a precise guess is nothing else than speculating to hit home once in a while and looking good in the aftermath.

this kind of ego-driven play is one of the reasons why we (mankind) face(s) environmental as well as other unnecessary serious trouble. what we should learn (all of us) is to analyze the facts and the impact of our doing as good and as soon as possible and act accordingly.

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: March 19, 2017, 06:44:41 PM »
The most interesting thing right now is how much impact the sun have had on the SSTs around the continent given the exceptionally low levels of SIE that have prevailed since the middle of November last year. The SIE maximum around Antarctica should most likely be quite normal by late summer/early fall but we might have a long period with SIE much below average.

since antarctica is not surrounded by land i predict that in the not so far future the austral winter numbers in antarctic sea-ice extent will drop significantly while in the arctic it will take some more time until the basin won't be more or less filled with ice.

last but not least land and ice-masses together keep that part cold in winter while warmer oceans will have their inmpact in the south rather directly.

this is not meant to happen under all circumstances already now (but it could) while i'm quite sure that the described scenario is not too far ahead if at all :-)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 19, 2017, 06:39:56 PM »
I like the export graphs though, really top notch and worth peer review in my book.  just saying that for a year on year predictive value it would be better to have it graphed as a percent of total current volume.  I believe that this would show this year being slightly higher than previous years.

significantly higher IMO but i understand that you wanted to stay careful LOL :D ;)

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 18, 2017, 04:49:04 PM »
Magnamentis .. All the food I eat is recycled .. composted it becomes nutrients for food production . Human waste is a badly managed precious resource . This too needs to change for humanity to progress .

yeah but you don't eat that product. for me recycling was meant (in the context of the post) that from plastic waste one gets new plastic and from iron wast one gets new iron products while food has to be grown and produced 100% newly as far as the footprint is concerned. the topic was about the footprint and not about the term "recycling" and its various iterations.

beside that you're right of course LOL and do thought crossed my mind while writing the post, just that in that context i thought it's ok to call it non-recyling :-)

i know that the old greek townfathers when they met to make decisions they were 7 hours seeking agreement on terms and once they got that they made their decsions within the hour.

enjoy the weekend and thanks for the input.


Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: March 18, 2017, 04:33:23 PM »

My plants are eaten each year the same way, I though it was by mice, but I talked about it with somebody who tolb me that mice eat mainly roots.

Does any body has an idea what animal eats plants that way ?

The plant is sorrel, so I should have big leaves.

Later in the year, the same animal prefers other plants, so the problem moves on the other vegetables.



Escargots ?

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 18, 2017, 12:11:38 AM »
The optimist in me reminds us that the sun always starts shining in the Arctic at this time of year.  Also, that peak ice is not statistically predictive of September minimums.

you're totally right of course while i think that those who expect a low minimum have the bad state of the ice, including the lack of very thick ice. converting ice volume into energy needed to melt it we are more sooner than later reaching a state where ANY weather and ANY summer condition will do the job, simply because the energy needed is so low due to the small amount of ice (volume) to melt.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 18, 2017, 12:08:14 AM »
Could start to happen locally on the periphery, like the Kara Sea, ESS, and Beaufort, if the ice there goes early enough in the season. Would that then set up some significant temperature differentials with the ice covered areas?

as long as there is ice, temps won't go much above zero in that region, it's the laws of physics at play here and it has been well explained in this forum while i don't remember exactly where it was, perhaps you gonna find it with the help of the search function, else google is your friend :-)

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 17, 2017, 11:56:42 PM »
: magnamentis link=topic=473.msg106460#msg106460

not saying it's not correct but still, without too many consumers consumption would not be an issue, hence ultimately it's down to overpopulation which is a known fact for many decades, just that everyone has to grow in every aspect, including population, to fill the voids from the current exploiting generation.

I have the same response as Wili. I'd also like to mention ecological footprint among the global middle class.

and the same reply, the greatest ecological footprint is produced by food, especially meat production. most people think about cars and other tech. while it's true, the impact of tech is huge (adds significantly) to the footprint but nothing like food especially meat and then food that is eaten cannot be recycled LOL. further read the rest of my previous reply. 1 careless guy in an underdeveloped place can have the greater environmental impact than a caring and responsible user of technology and gadgets. again this is not meant as a now but, just mentioning that things are not so black and white as they seem on first glance.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: March 17, 2017, 05:45:56 PM »
Conveniently, 13.878 is virtually half way between 13.75 and 14, so 'nobody' can claim their bin was almost right.

haha.... true that but still someone recently and finally made a poll with overlapping values which is the real and long term solution, but yes at times i was tempted to make that claim while being 0.0xxx off only but then it's too obviously ego-based behaviour LOL

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 17, 2017, 05:41:59 PM »
the graphs need to be normalized to current total volume, as a percent of total volume, not absolute numbers.  otherwise they give a false indicator.

absolutely, very much self evident but can easily be overseen, 50% of volume exported of 25% of volume left is double the loss or something like that LOL

thanks for hinting

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 16, 2017, 10:20:57 PM »
" ...  the 80% with the much smaller consumption pollute the globe much more ... "

The pollution that 80% of the world poor generate is at the behest of an economic system that has exported pollution generation to poor areas from those better off.

true but that was not the question, nevertheless it's a fact worth (needed) to be mentioned on each opportunity.


Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 16, 2017, 01:33:51 AM »
Not really.

About 20% of the population do about 80% of the consumption. So you could get rid of (hypothetically) 80% of the population and not make much of a dent in consumption/pollution.

And it is of course entirely possible for an even smaller number of people to consume at even higher rates.

So ultimately it's down to consumption  :)

one can see it like that while the 80% with the much smaller consumption pollute the globe much more. just visit any african big city like i.e. "LAGOS" and compare the air and water quality with that of a 10 times greater city of the first world and you'll see that i.e. tokyo or any other huge city, including the needed heating, pollutes less than a much smaller third world city. it's not that simple and then the most damaging consumption is "FOOD" especially meet and those 80% eat not much less, except certain regions of course.

however i see what you're heading at and it would take huge resources and numbers of studies to narrow this down, it's just not as simple as your statement sounded to my understanding while at the end we agree, both
factors count a lot and it's probably useless to know exactly which more, hence i'm with you in general :-)


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 16, 2017, 01:23:58 AM »
No doubt about movement in the Fram.

this looks like the output of a rock grinder, except for the white instead of grey :-( those big floes must be quite thick from the locks and considering they were not yet entirely grinded.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 15, 2017, 09:58:34 PM »
Two enemies: overpopulation and overconsumption. The latter is seen in higher footprints for the global middle class.

not saying it's not correct but still, without too many consumers consumption would not be an issue, hence ultimately it's down to overpopulation which is a known fact for many decades, just that everyone has to grow in every aspect, including population, to fill the voids from the current exploiting generation.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: March 14, 2017, 07:09:27 PM »
I read Tom Clancy does not climate change present a "Clear and Present Danger"? Would those lying about it and covering up the truth not be liable to prosecution? Just curious. I'm not American.

while i dunno the U.S. Law, you're touching a (pointing at a) very important and great systemic flaw that is the "collective irresponsibility" of the political class, of course made possible by themselves through all kinds of "immunities" and blocking of sharp toothed law that would change that.

in one of my books that is currently in the making more responsibility plays a major role. because it's a long story it just try to describe it shortly:

politicians, all their promises and speaches should be recorded, brought to paper and they only should enter office after having signed that paper and there should be specific sentences for breaking that "contract" with the public.

penalties should range from monetary penalties up to death sentence for being responsible for the death of people by breaking the contract they signed while they always would have the option to alter contract with public assent by means of referendum. for example, one guy runs for president by promising that he will not send troups aproad (start a war) if for any reason he things he has to change that he would hold a referendum to get
peoples assent. if he does without he goes to jail and if soldiers were killed to the gallow. it's not that easy but as i said, it's too long of a story for this platform and polititians will never inflict such a thing on themselves, hence it will ultimately take some kind of revolution to implement more responsibility and enforcement through punishments that really hurts.

EDIT: just imagine what happens to impeached or ousted politicians and managers:

"Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind dann leben sie heute noch in luxus und anerkennung"

(and they have not passed away yet they are continuously living in luxury and public recognition)

this would be the typical end of fairy tails which is exactly what it is, a fairy tail for them, a nightmare for the average people and a big big "JOKE"

In fact i have nothing agains people having a "very" good live, but as @Neven wrote elsewhere in this forum, there should be an upper limit, which, of course can be high enough to make it worthwhile to do a great job, make a great carrier, pay for extra work and efforts and so on, but it does not have to be enough to make dozens of next generations rich, spoiled brats and arrogant a'holes just because grand grand grand dad had successfully stolen from the aborigines, other natives or from planet earth.

just take the example of arms dealers, when i was young they were in every newspaper and magazine, mentioned and covered as respectable (honorable) people, just because they had lots of money. after that they got more or less outlawed and criminalized (rightly so) and who took over their entire business after that?????

RIGHT, OUR DEAR GOVERNMENTS, HIDING BEHIND THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY (MILITARY INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL COMPLEX) Don't trust any politician who does not stop arms sales which is more or less ZERO of all those who currently have a say.

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: March 13, 2017, 09:38:28 PM »
as to the thread title, interestingly i have a (very thick) book in the making on that topic and i'm very convinced that there will never be a single truth and "once and for all" solutions, for that humans are too different and too numerous, but i believe that we can, from history and experience, map out one after another of the definitely bad things, those which have proven leading to doom and why over and over again. by doing so, following the "negative principle" we sooner or later have to end up in the "good range" means that by avoiding wrongdoing to the highest possible extent, we should shift slowly towards to good side, which, BTW, we are doing already.

with all due respect to all the things mankind is doing wrong, we've definitely raised our ethical standards over the centuries and millenia and will probably continue on that path until we reach a bearable point, at least provided that we do not self-extinct ourselves before getting there ;)

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: March 13, 2017, 09:31:49 PM »
but as we know this is a huge topic that is filling entire libraries, basically just wanted to express my pleasure about each individual that is able to see behind the curtains and willing to name it.

It took me a while to get there. I though I was there when focussing on economic growth and how nothing can grow forever in a finite system, etc. That insight came rather suddenly, having read about it in many places, of course. I even wrote a blog post about it somewhere else: Infinite Growth and the Crisis Cocktail.

I was nearly there, but then slowly it dawned on me that the problem isn't the economic system, but why it is the way it is. And for whom. It's to make the rich richer at an exponential rate.

So, to return on the title of this thread: If not Capitalism... then What?  And, How?

I think the What? is largely irrelevant, or at least less important than the How?. It's about creating a system(and thus an economy and culture)  in which power never gets concentrated to the point that it starts to violate limits.

I'm still working on this, but I know that this is as deep as you can go with this. If you go any deeper, you enter the realm of the spiritual and the embedded genetic flaws in the make-up of homo sapiens. I don't want to go that deep, because it makes it harder to explain and thus less convincing to others.

My wife says that's a fundamental mistake. I think I agree. But as much as I like philosophy and spiritual teachers, the food has to come from somewhere and someone needs to clean the toilet. And Jiddu Krishnamurti himself says that the inner and the outer transformation go hand in hand. That's my usual reply to my wife. ;)

extremely well said, and nothing else to add without going deeper which is not helpful without having the solution ready :-)

BTW a general thing, the day we get there we know that we never get there which is why our brain, from a certain point onward is (has to) turn in circles, which brings as back to the food and the toilet, we have to set priorities and deal with daily and real-life, philosophy for me is a tool to develop/discover ethics and find
conviction to apply those findings (ethics) over all other interests, perhaps with the exception of self-defence
in which on can hardly expect a lot of consideration and pondering before getting down to action LOL ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18