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 ... 17
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 ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 13, 2017, 09:24:31 PM »
The simple answer is that the question is bad, because the halocline can only disappear when there is no ice, or a current appears where previously one didn't exist. Extreme storms may mix the upper 60 meters or so, but the salt increase of new forming ice will happen until no new ice forms, and the salt dilution of melting ice will happen until there is no ice to melt all year round, i.e. winter ice free Arctic Ocean as well.

Now, unless a massive current appears which flushes across the Arctic Ocean via input from the Atlantic Ocean, and I don't have any numbers on sverdrups or how many sverdrups go through all the ocean's currents each year, but to me that would seem to me quite impossible and so there will be winter sea ice for a long time.

Here are several maps depicting how deep the mixed layer (that is, the surface layer with identical characteristics throughout its entire depth) is throughout the year:

In the second one, the months are January and July. You can see that melting ice, most visible in the Antarctic, as well as summer heating, decreases the depth of the mixed layer.

Now, there is also the fact that we have sea ice, however thin, formed in the region between FJL and Svalbard, which according to HYCOM is over 34ppt saltiness. The main thing to note about the link is that the salinity rises in winter as brine leaks out of FYI forming and falls in summer as the FYI melts back into the Ocean. This will continue even after the first ice-free Arctic Ocean happens, as ice does not need ice to grow back on the scale of weather. This can be seen in the Baltic Sea, many northern rivers and lakes, and the Sea of Okhotsk.

while i thank you and appreciate your elaborations i want to state a few things as to your post:

a) there are no bad questions which is why they are "questions" from those how don't know to someone who might know

b) the answer is not simple for the uninitiated in that field, stating a fact that is known by experts as simple for everyone is condescending and keeps people from asking.

c) "a" and "b" especially appley in the stupid question thread which is exactly meant for people who are not
professionals or savvy in a specific field to ask ANY question without being bashed and calling out a question as bad is, to say it nicely, not so very nice IMNSHO :-)

this said i repeat that i find your contribution related to the question itself very helpful, thanks again, i learned something ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 13, 2017, 09:05:23 PM »
I got an idea from a post by johnm33 earlier where he referred to the temperature band on worldview. So. I took a look at it from the start of winter til now. February was the only month that didn't see a lot of warmth sneak in under the ice. March was a different story as seen here in the gif. CLICK IMAGE March 1st- 12th
Also, I made a Youtube  video of Dec. 1st til March 12th for the bigger picture. Probably not a huge amount of energy coming in at any one time this way, but remember it can't escape into space as easily as it used to.

could this kind of temperature analyzes be used to at least cross-check on volume claims by the different models?

as it seems the temps correlate well enough with the thickness so that one could at least see wether any claim by the models is possible or out of question. for example that would mean that if a lot of heat dissipates into the atmosphere which will show as higher temps in this image, one could discount the possibility of 5m thick ice in the same area and vice versa.

just a thought to help get to terms with the not yet solved issue with all the thickness models which perhaps at the end are all not correct, but a mix of them.

end of brain storm, may the experts consider and eventually ponder over this, i'm just saying that often mixing/combining skills information and ingredients will finally do the maths. at least the past has shown
that this is often true :-)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 13, 2017, 05:36:48 PM »
Just supposing the ice was so smashed as to be practically liquid, and that every tide that flowed in from the north atlantic displaced ice or water from the upper layer of the arctic,[through CAA Nares, + Fram] how long would it take to flush the ice/top 2m.?

i think no-one can tell because it depends on too many unpredictable variables but then, i'm totally sure, that we shall be able to witness this happening and not so far out and we shall know.

it's not an english saying but it goes about like: it's happening while we're asking when it will happen :-) bad translation perhaps but should be comprehensible at least :-)

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: March 13, 2017, 05:33:42 PM »
President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House back in 1979. (His successor, President Reagan, removed them.  President Obama installed new ones.)

Now, 10 acres of Jimmy Carter's land host solar panels that track the sun and power his hometown of Plains, Georgia.

there is a huge step between someone who does NOT install them and someone who REMOVES them, horrible, didn't know that and even though it's long past it still makes me shaking my head heavily looking at such a
stupid move (by reagan i mean) thanks for the info.

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: March 13, 2017, 05:29:15 PM »
Now if only I could figure out how to motivate decision makers to move beyond greed, materialism and objectification and into working on how to create an environment in which to develop the full human potential; we might start to make progress towards a more sustainable situation.

You need to get a discussion going on how much one person should own. How much is enough? 20 million? 50 million? 100 million? Once there is a limit on how much one person can own, greed won't disappear, but you will have put a brake on its system-altering properties. This is the only way the system can be changed.

Once enough people are convinced that this is the solution to make all other solutions possible, it can be accomplished policy-wise. I don't know how exactly, and I'm not saying it will be easy.

But at some point the rich have to stop getting richer. It's better for them too. Not many people can handle being rich.

on of the better reads for long, mainly because of two things, it contains the root cause and the only possible "direction" where a solution can eventually be found one day in the future.

thing is that such changes only ever came after huge distructions, mostly wars and it will happen again unfortunately, peace times are already over, matter of factly we are in full battle already just not a hot one yet, while all the ingredients and signs are there. things how they appear now are already rotten underneath a layer of mediocre fixes ( printing money, increase controls, lowering freedom, increasing envy levels and the likes )

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.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 10, 2017, 09:48:13 PM »
Bill McKibben:  Ocean temperatures off the charts--note especially the Gulf of Mexico, setting new records for this time of year

Crossposting from the Consequences thread, as it neatly ties in with your post:

Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015

We found that changes in OHC are relatively small before about 1980; since then, OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal time scales. All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean. This new look at OHC and EEI changes over time provides greater confidence than previously possible, and the data sets produced are a valuable resource for further study.

One of the co-authors of the study also wrote a piece for the Guardian:

Earth's oceans are warming 13% faster than thought, and accelerating

First, we corrected past data for known biases in measurements. Second, we related the temperature measurements to results calculated from advanced climate computer models. Third, we applied temperature knowledge to larger areas so that a single measurement was representative of a large space around the measurement site. Finally, we used their knowledge of recent and well-observed temperatures to show that the method produced excellent results.

We were able to extend our techniques back to the late1950s and show that the rate of global warming has changed significantly in the past 60 years. One main outcome of the study is that it shows we are warming about 13% faster than we previously thought. Not only that but the warming has accelerated. The warming rate from 1992 is almost twice as great as the warming rate from 1960. Moreover, it is only since about 1990 that the warming has penetrated to depths below about 700 meters.

always good to see this mentioned, thanks. the fact that most of the surplus heat is and will be stored in the oceans up to a certain extent, will be one key factor that will cause an abrupt climate change at one point and this includes a relatively abrupt sea-level-rise. since nobody knows that tipping point we should keep all our sensors wide open and be prepared.

Consequences / Re: Effects of Climate Change on the biosphere
« on: March 10, 2017, 09:44:20 PM »
A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system

The Amazon rainforest has been proposed as a tipping element of the earth system, with the possibility of a dieback of the entire ecosystem due to deforestation only of parts of the rainforest. Possible physical mechanisms behind such a transition are still subject to ongoing debates. Here, we use a specifically designed model to analyse the nonlinear couplings between the Amazon rainforest and the atmospheric moisture transport from the Atlantic to the South American continent. These couplings are associated with a westward cascade of precipitation and evapotranspiration across the Amazon. We investigate impacts of deforestation on the South American monsoonal circulation with particular focus on a previously neglected positive feedback related to condensational latent heating over the rainforest, which strongly enhances atmospheric moisture inflow from the Atlantic. Our results indicate the existence of a tipping point. In our model setup, crossing the tipping point causes precipitation reductions of up to 40% in non-deforested parts of the western Amazon and regions further downstream. The responsible mechanism is the breakdown of the aforementioned feedback, which occurs when deforestation reduces transpiration to a point where the available atmospheric moisture does not suffice anymore to release the latent heat needed to maintain the feedback.

a very important point here IMO, i believe that deforestation, hence a reduction in CO2 "consuming" forest, adds a significant amount to the raising CO2 level while the general public almost exclusively speaks and thinks in terms of CO2 release.

the mention of deforestation's impact is neglect and should be increased throughout the media.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 08, 2017, 07:50:52 PM »
Extent might go up due to export, but these drift arrows spell death to a lot of thick ice swimming on the top of Greenland, and if it materializes it should increase the probability of a new record min.

The weather sites all seem to say there are significant westerlies and northerlies over the next 5 days or so, resulting in a load of thick ice going down the Fram. If things then go quiet, is it still cold enough for that sea ice loss to be replenished ?

At this time of year the battle between warmth advancing and cold resisting is both fascinating and in my view sets the scene for the summer.

possibly in terms of extent, but certainly not the volume. should any 3-5m thick ice be flushed down the fram or elsewhere it cannot be re-plenished within a  month and not even within a year's time.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 08, 2017, 12:17:07 AM »
as it happens mostly things did exactly NOT develop like to so called experts said throughout as much time back as i can think (read) with very few exceptions.

in this case as to slowdown or not i clearly lean out of the window and say (to read back later) LOL

it will accelerate and not slow down. the last 1.5 million will vanish within only few years due to feedbacks, like
some kind of devils circle if you excuse the the term (spiral of death)

i'm not trying to convince anyone or argue here, it's my opinion and i shall reserve the right to remind the experts once they have proven wrong to the umpteenth time. experts often (not all) have a narrow focus on their field of work and too often forget or refuse to consider all the other factors from "competing" fields of expertise.

this is agains no-one, just stating an observation (conclusion) from many years of studying stuff like this as a whole, not specifically limited to one or two fields.

let's see what will happen, i'd gladly be wrong in favour of a slower change that would be better than any abrupt changes. i strongly believe that we're in for very unpleasant surprises, not only to polar ice development but especially as far as sea-level rise is concerned, i smell acceleration there as well.

i hope you will take this as what it is, a second opinion, open to see how things go :-) 

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 07, 2017, 10:33:18 PM »
The formula for energy needed to melt 1980 ice must be different then that needed for melting 2017 ice.

I can't see why. It's true that of course all the other dynamics you mentioned may be different - more (or less) dark ice as a result of particulates, physically more dispersed ice as a result of it being thinner and subject to wave action, etc. And obviously less of it to start with.

But in the end, other than perhaps slight differences in salinity (especially between MYI and FYI), ice is ice and it takes the same amount of energy to melt. Things like waves and particulates change how the energy is delivered and how much, but it still the same amount is energy.

It'll be very interesting to see how the melt season progresses from such a lower starting point; especially one that implies the ice really is a lot thinner (and should melt faster)
Ice with holes in it (or ice cubes) melts faster than a solid block of ice.  It's a simple matter of geometry -- and surface area verses volume.

again that changes how the energy is and/or can be applied according to for example the amount of surface exposed to energy but the amount of energy remains the same. so to melt 1 square meter of ice the amount of energy does not change, while the amount and speed of energy appliance at a given or during a given period of time will change if more surface is exposed, be it to warm waters, warm air or insolation.

this alone was his point, about the amount of energy needed and the factors that could have an impact were mentioned as well.

last but not least a square meter of ice is not always the same amount of ice. ice that has been under high pressure in a glacier will probably be more compact than first year sea ice, with more air pockets bubbles or what ever it might be.

howerver i think that in general, without measuring the smallest differences and going too much into details, the assumption that the same amount of ice will take the same amount of energy, i.e. in joule, to melt.

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: March 06, 2017, 06:53:48 PM »
Re: Huxley and Orwell
2) To go along with your Hegelian dialectic, why not both ?

My point in presenting the Hegelian dialectic is that both currently exist and will continue to exist in the future due to society's increasing polarity; which in my opinion will lead to a socio-economic collapse in the 2045 to 2060 timeframe, because people insist on misinterpreting Hegel's goal of reducing "-isms" (Scientism, Buddhism, Totalitarianism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.); which I believe can best be achieved by the application of atapi sanpajano satima.  Unfortunately, most people are too lazy (or have too much mental impurity) to think rationally and to avoid "magic" thinking.  Too many people magically think that controlling/owning objectified things is the path to happiness; when in fact the opposite is true.  To many people magically think that skills are the ability to gain control/ownership of objectified things; when is actuality skill is the ability to rationally see that such behavior leads to continuing suffering.  Too many people magically think that their cravings/aversions are expressions of their "free will", when a rational interpretation of free will means that you accept other peoples free will and thus that you do not crave objectifying them nor do you fear being objectified by them (because your true free will is your own (within a free will information network) and cannot be controlled by others but only misdirected by your own mental impurities).


hat off ( hut ab )

a real pleasure like most of your posts but this one gets quite close to the roots where should there ever be, would lay the solutions as well. sorry that my relatively poor english skills do no allow for better wording but
i just wanted to submit my genuine compliments. for me it's a rare thing and a great pleasure to read so much from one person in various fields without feeling the urge to either relativate and/or add something LOL

keep goin'

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: March 05, 2017, 06:07:47 PM »
One other thing to note about "bottoms" in general....both the Arctic AND that at some point.....maybe within 5 years....those bottoms will "broaden".  And they will broaden because they will BOTH start earlier AND end later.  And as we "run out of ice".....that "flat bottom" HAS to occur.

What will Joe Bastardi say then?  Inquiring minds want to know...  Poor little Joe... :o

"NOMEN EST OMEN" (referring to bastardi LOL)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: 2017 PIOMAS Maximum Monthly Figure
« on: March 04, 2017, 08:35:26 PM »

finallly an overlapping poll, well observed and much easier to choose :-) thx

i'm here: 20.50 - 21.00 K km^3

i'm a bit surprised how pessimistic the majority is, i'm in for a new lowest "high" of course, chances are huge, but by such a margin ? i dunno, hence game on once more :-)

enjoy the weekend @all

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 04, 2017, 08:07:00 PM »
I think the folk making fag packet calcs on final figures are not allowing for how much faster the end ice will go compared to mid season melt?
"When it finally goes it will go fast"

+1  _ once again to the point "kurz und knackig" LOL

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 10:02:53 PM »
I miss A-Team. I reeaaaallly miss A-Team.

then you have never been the victim of one of those rude outbrakes, lucky you ;)

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 01, 2017, 11:32:38 PM »
No cutting down of trees
I humbly request, your majesty.
Would it be ok if someone cut down the thousands and thousands of dead ones that died last year across the street from my home? I mean, they are dead already.

we have to change the thread title into: "Totally Open" hehe....

it seems that the two found each other LOL

like with all dictatorships decrees only cause people to suffer and let everything rot to unusable state and in the process poison the earth. whoever has been in eastern europe during "cold war times" knows exactly what that means.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 01, 2017, 06:50:07 PM »
>I agree it's a mistake to think of evolution as a goal: evolution is purely a process, but it undoubtedly is responsible for [almost] everything we are as animals.

Although CRISPR has the potential to change all that!

we came on terms, all clear :-) thanks for feedback

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17