Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and 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 - Neven

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
The rest / Re: Club of Rome World model
« on: April 18, 2019, 11:18:11 PM »
Please, don't open a thread, just to ask a question. In fact, don't open threads for a while.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 18, 2019, 09:51:23 AM »
I had hoped this thread would slowly disappear. I'm going to give the process a nudge by locking it. If anyone wants to see it re-opened for a continuation of this fascinating discussion  ::) , write me a PM.

The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: April 17, 2019, 07:46:24 PM »
Okay, I'll try and find where this can be adjusted in the admin panel.

edit: Found it and disabled it.

The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: April 17, 2019, 06:14:30 PM »
If there is a 120 day limit for old threads, the search results should not jump all over the forums history.

There's no limit, it's just a warning that you don't have to abide.

Try to do what results in the least amount of work for Neven.  ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2019)
« on: April 16, 2019, 11:33:00 PM »
Yes, let's all just shut up until Wip posts the mid-month numbers (I'm also very curious to see those).

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:39:12 AM »
"What is the goal of corporate power?"
To increase corporate power! Corporations are immortal entities which have no interest in human concerns, who attract the worst amongst us to serve them.

No, the main goal of corporations is to create revenue for investors, because that gets the CEOs and managers the biggest rewards. Total revenue of all corporations put together obviously ends up in fewer and fewer hands, as the yearly Oxfam numbers show. In other words: The goal of corporations is to increase and further concentrate wealth.

If you want to change that, you need to put a cap on wealth, ie how much one person can own. You can't reform corporations, because concentrated wealth will find a way around it. Through corporate power.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 07:51:35 PM »
Why? Because wealth needs to get bigger, and the most efficient way for wealth to grow exponentially, is to make it increasingly concentrated.

That seems intuitively obvious at first glance, but I don't think it holds up to analysis.
Does a single billionaire drive more unhealthy growth than a thousand millionaires?  Same billion $.
Does a single billionaire drive more unhealthy growth than a million people with a thousand dollars in the bank?  Or a billion people with zero accumulated wealth?  We're talking about the same billion $, differently distributed.

If we're talking about power - and after a certain point, wealth definitely confers power - then putting that power in more hands, means it's less effective, because more people simply have different ideas, wishes and desires. And when it's less effective, it grows less fast. So, in order to grow faster, it needs to be concentrated as much as possible.

I don't think it's true that the more wealth a person has, the harder they'll push to get more.  I suspect the opposite is true.

I think that for some it's true, but probably not for most. It's very difficult to resist wealth's propensity for more. Think about it. Why are the rich getting richer all the time? Why does it take fewer and fewer billionaires to own as much as half the global population?

After some point, the wealth of an individual person starts to feed off of itself, which is why so many rich people don't work, their 'money works for them', as is often said. But the money actually works for itself, with the owner being nothing more than a name, and the money doesn't care how, as long as it gets bigger. It's a bit like The Blob.

I'll grant that the picture is a bit different when corporations are in the picture, rather than just human beings.  Modern corporations tend to be structured with a single-minded focus on profits and growth.  Bigger corporations have more levers to influence laws and regulations, more levers to shift income and operations to minimize taxes.  Corporations tend to be much more ruthlessly efficient, within their legal limits, than most humans.

Like Lurk already explains, why are corporations single-mindedly focused on profit maximisation? For the shareholders, right? They demand a return on their investments, as high as possible. And whom or what does that serve? Concentrated wealth.

I think tighter global regulation of corporations is more important than fixing wealth inequality among humans.

I'd agree that wealth inequality is a social evil.  It desperately needs to be addressed vigorously.  But I don't see that fixing this problem is a prerequisite for appropriate climate change action.

Just like Archimid in the last paragraph of his last comment, you seem to be confusing inequality and wealth concentration. Inequality is a consequence of limitless wealth concentration. And yes, this consequence is highly dangerous to society, as are many other consequences, like AGW.

You cannot address inequality vigorously, if you don't address the underlying cause. Concentrated wealth will find a way around anything you may try, by corrupting your decision process (aka democracy). The same goes for AGW and all other global problems. And so it needs to be capped and de-concentrated as much as possible.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 07:34:28 PM »
The technologies are already there, but they are in their infancy. They must grow and evolve (and do it extremely fast) to serve as a solution.

They would have already done so, if it wasn't for concentrated wealth holding them back for the reasons I mentioned (bad things are more profitable, especially if the infrastructure is in place). If a cap had been put on wealth, say 20 years ago, you wouldn't have any Koch brothers do all the stuff they did to thwart AGW mitigation policies.

If you want them to grow and evolve extremely fast, you put a cap on wealth to stop obstructing meaningful measures by corrupting politics. And if enough people agree to it, you can even use all that excess wealth to invest in said technologies to make them grow and evolve even faster.

But it's not going to happen if you don't put a cap on wealth. Because then the system stays the same, people are either made (developing nations) or kept (developed nations) addicted to wasteful lifestyles, meaning that energy demand goes up and renewables can't even cover the year-on-year demand. And that's just an example, there are many other ways that stimulate carbon emissions because wealth needs to grow and be concentrated further.

Regrettably cutting superfluous consumption is not enough.

Does that mean it shouldn't be done? Never mind the fact that superfluous consumption, which is a consequence of wealth concentration, doesn't just cause AGW, but myriads of other global problems.

Of course it can. Money is to people what dog treats are to dogs. Greed can be exploited easily.

Yes, that's how concentrated wealth increases itself, by making the rich mentally and spiritually ill (most of them, some have exceptional character). You think you can beat concentrated wealth in that department? You'd be the first in 15 thousand years.

For example, a Carbon Tax. Carbon taxes makes emitting sources more expensive. Because people are maximizing profits they will switch to less carbon intensive sources to save money.

I'm sorry, but you talk as if it's 1988. After all this time there still isn't anything resembling a Carbon Tax, except for cap-and-trade schemes that are easily gamed (to benefit concentrated wealth). And there won't be, as long as you don't do anything about the underlying issue. Everything you try, will be compromised.

And not by some human conspiracy, some elites that dominate the world, the 0.01% that have it all figured out. No, simply by limitless concentrated wealth as an entity that uses its owners to grow, with an army of inventive lackeys (managers, lawyers, lobbyists, journalists, etc) vying for a small piece of the pie.

Again, you can't solve global problems, while at the same time making Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates trillionaires.

Of course you can.

Archimid, we're going to breeze past 2°C to who knows how high under the current system. Never mind ocean acidification, top soil erosion, resource wars (nuclear?), obesity epidemics, and so on and so forth. How can you expect this current system - that will eventually create trillionaires - to solve the problems it has created? Like Einstein said, that's the definition of insanity.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 11:43:40 AM »
Ok I'll bite.

Let's say a global law is enacted where a ceiling is placed on wealth. Once a person has certain net worth they are no longer allowed to own anything else. 

How does that eliminate the CO2 problem? Why would anyone else emit less just because rich people are less rich?

We will still have cars, concrete buildings, massive industry, massive unsustainable agriculture and 410+ ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Putting a cap on wealth doesn't change things overnight. You could even say it's not a solution in itself, but rather a requirement for making solutions possible. Because right now the incentive is for 'more cars, more concrete buildings, more massive industry, more massive unsustainable agriculture'.

Everything needs to grow, all the time, forever. The economy needs to grow, and so corporations need to maximize profits, doesn't really matter how, by making people sick, by destroying the environment, by starting wars, by circumventing any legal or cultural restrictions through propaganda and corruption.

Why? Because wealth needs to get bigger, and the most efficient way for wealth to grow exponentially, is to make it increasingly concentrated.

So, you need to find a way to take away this incentive that is behind the dynamic of the current system. Once you do that, you make it possible to change your economic system from the pathological fixation on an arbitrary definition of GDP. Once you do that, you make it possible for corporations to put profit maximization on the back-burner and take their social and environmental responsibilities more seriously, without shareholders going nuts and firing CEOs.

Once these things start happening, opportunities come into existence to change consumer culture, which in turn drives down material consumption and thus energy demand. It then becomes much easier for renewable energy to cover said demand, and you set a different example for developing economies, so they don't fall into the same trap the West has fallen into.

I'm not saying accumulated wealth is not a problem. To the contrary, when a few people have much and most people have little, collapse follows. Accumulated wealth is certainly a limit of growth. I just don't see how it has a significant impact on CO2 emissions.

It is the main driver behind the perceived need for perpetual, exponential growth, and that has a very significant impact on CO2 emissions. Eliminate or reduce the driver.

What you then do with the wealth that exceeds the limit, is another discussion entirely. My focus is on eliminating/reducing the driver to make real change possible and break the vicious cycle that humanity has been in since the creation of agriculture (and probably before that as well).

You can't solve global problems, while at the same time making Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates trillionaires. It can't be done, not without paying a huge price, paid by poor and rich alike.

The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: April 12, 2019, 10:14:14 AM »
I'm afraid this isn't possible, but you may want to try and google a solution. I can install mods on this SMF forum, so if there is a mod that proposes what you want, we can give it a try.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 10, 2019, 04:58:51 PM »
Let's not discuss Sam Carana here. Or anywhere on this Forum, as far as I am concerned.

But we are getting cheated anyway IMHO.

I agree, and Tesla is now participating in the cheat (effectively giving up their USP of being a manufacturer that only produces EVs and no ICEVs). I understand it, it doesn't come as a surprise, but I still find it utterly disappointing.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 08, 2019, 11:39:51 AM »
If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Out of curiosity: Where does the NSIDC say that extent is a better measure than volume/thickness?

“When the ice melts, the polar regions have less of a reflective surface.  More hear is absorbed, which causes more warming.”


“Roughly half of the heat exchange occurs through openings in the ice.”

“Scientists tend to focus on Arctic sea ice extent more closely than other aspects of sea ice because satellites measure extent more accurately than they do other measurements, such as thickness.”

They don't say it's better, they say it's measured more accurately.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 07, 2019, 11:33:27 PM »
If you still have issues, I suggest you read what NSIDC has to say about the issue, and why they feel extent is the better measure.  It is not a matter of belief, but scientific evidence.

Out of curiosity: Where does the NSIDC say that extent is a better measure than volume/thickness?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 07, 2019, 10:11:26 AM »
The pace of JAXA SIE drops is quite stunning, given that it's already so low. And it might continue to stun, as the current forecast points quite simply to a dipole that may cause open water along the Beaufort coasts, and things aren't looking all that great for the ice in the Kara either.

Last year we had a similar situation around this time, and I'll repeat what I said back then: The Arctic is extremely lucky it isn't mid-May yet.

Here's the forecast for the coming days, the high pressure isn't as high as last year, but the direction of the isobars (towards the Atlantic) is much more pronounced:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 05, 2019, 06:26:27 PM »
No need to apologize, you were right that it's too early for melt pond formation. There may be some melt onset here and there, and this may have an effect in a couple of weeks on melt pond formation. You could call it pre-preconditioning.  ;)

But melt onset usually occurs earlier under cloudy conditions.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 05, 2019, 02:33:58 PM »
Melt onset usually occurs under clouds. The snow then refreezes, but its structure has changed, making it easier for melt ponds to form some time later.

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:17:36 AM »
Thank you for comparing Eva Bartlett's piece to David Viner's statement.
Because both were wrong.

Thank you for admitting that you then use that to smear whomever it is you want to smear, just like a climate risk denier.

Let's take the second one I mentioned : Max Blumenthal.

Here is his piece :

"A lot of meat", "we have a lot of meat", "a whole isle". etc etc.

Same at Bartlett : My number 1) Deny that there is a crisis.
and here and there a hint of my number 2) If there is a crisis, it's caused by the US.

Ah, so mainstream media hasn't been exaggerating the crisis, implying that people are starving because there is no food?

And yes, if there's a crisis, it has certainly been made worse by the US, because it serves US corporate interests, and those interests want Venezuela's oil. And they want to destroy socialism because it isn't good for their bottom line (ie squeezing people out).

Seriously, Neven. You are betting on the wrong horse.

I'm not betting on any horse. The point is: You are trying to force me to bet because you are a compulsive gambler yourself.

And you are giving "progressives" a really, really bad name.

And you are hurting Bernie too.

You are concern trolling.

No matter what you want Bernie to do, let me assure you that he knows what he is doing.

Yes, he probably knows that there are many people like you out there, and he needs your votes.

He will NOT object against the sanctions, nor deny (as your "friends" do) the severity of the crisis in Venezuela. Heck even your other favorite : Tulsi Gabbard, does not even object against the sanctions either.

You understand why, right, Neven ?

Yes, because the USA is a sick country, a force for evil.

Face it : Venezuela is BROKE, Neven. And caused by their OWN policies.

Yes, and the point is: Many countries are, but that gets zero attention. This gets so much attention because of oil and socialism. And you play right into it.

You remind me of this line of poetry:

While the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: April 04, 2019, 12:13:13 PM »
Lurk's post of Eva Bartlett's piece above literally says : "I don't see a 'crisis' in Caracas".

Yes, and a certain David Viner once said that kids in the UK would never see snow again. He represents all scientists, and hence AGW is a hoax.

You go dig for one quote by one person, and then you smear a whole group. You engage in the same tactics as climate risk deniers.

And even then, she says 'Caracas', which isn't all of 'Venezuela'.

Name one with more than 1 million percent inflation.
Or name one that is selling the gold from their central bank.

And name one who got there because of US foreign policy.

No two countries are the same. I can name you one with more than 1 million dead people because of US foreign policy. I can name you another one that is completely devastated because of US meddling. And I'm sure that in the past there have been other countries in the past with more than 1 million percent of inflation, selling its gold, more or less enhanced by illegal sanctions.

The point is: The media doesn't make a fuss about those other countries, except when it's about regime change that serves US corporate interests. And you only care when the media tells you to.

If he got Venezuela wrong, why is Bernie your top pick for president of the US, Neven ?
Wouldn't Tulsi Gabbard be a better choice for you ?

Bernie doesn't get Venezuela wrong (stop twisting words like a climate risk denier), he frames it the wrong way, playing into the hands of those who are trying to establish a narrative that manufactures consent, so they can go make money off of other people's misery. Bernie needs to frame it in a different way, by emphasizing that Trump/Pompeo/Bolton/Abrams/Rob Dekker need to stop meddling, that the illegal US sanctions need to be lifted asap, and that only then is there a need for open and fair elections (they aren't fair because of the sanctions) and a way forward where the US and Venezuela work together to decrease Venezuela's dependency on AGW-inducing oil.

What happened to 'resist Trump at every turn'? First you help him with Russiagate, now you help him with his corporate warmongering, so the neoliberal stooges can pump oil more efficiently and put the profits in their own pockets (hence no better than the corrupt system now in place). You're no better than a Putin puppet, Rob.

No, actually, you are better.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2019)
« on: April 03, 2019, 09:42:56 AM »
Thanks, Wip. As for the volume graph, I find it hard to discern the 2019 trend line, because of the 2016 trend line (colours are too similar). But could be my eyes or monitor.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 03, 2019, 09:38:30 AM »
Let's be nice, this isn't the Trump-thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 01, 2019, 09:54:26 AM »
This year had the lowest average daily change in the JAXA SIE 2005-2019 record:

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:12:13 PM »
The problem with that video is that the nice, white, privileged lady is obviously pro-Guaido. And pro-Guaido means pro-Bolton/Pompeo/Trump/Imperialist USA. Cenk Uygur calls her out on it and stresses the fact that all this is about, is oil (something that the nice, white, privileged lady and our own nice, white, privileged neoliberal Rob Dekker simply cannot find in themselves to admit).

Cenk Uygur: John Bolton went out on Fox News and said: We're looking forward to protecting American business interests there, including the American oil companies. Nah, and you know, so they're backing Guaido. I can't have us doing a, you know, an unofficial coup of Maduro, back Guaido, and Guaido comes in and goes: Congratulations, mission accomplished, Exxon-Mobil gets all the oil.
Pilar Marrero: Hihi.
Cenk Uygur: I can't have that, but I can't have the status quo, because Maduro is killing the country. There's extrajudicial killings, a million kids are not going to school anymore, it's an absolute disaster. It's as big a no-win situation as you can almost imagine.
Pilar Marrero: Let me tell you something about the history of oil in Venezuela.

See what she did there? Instead of saying "Absolutely, Guaido is a US Imperialist stooge, as we've seen so many of in Latin America during the past century", she changes the subject to smear Chavismo and complain that oil isn't pumped out as efficiently as could be, because it should be left to the free market (ie Exxon-Mobil).

She then goes on to imply that more than oil being the reason for US meddling, it's because Trump wants to put socialism in the spotlight and then say that the Democrats are just like that. Which, of course, is why it's so monumentally stupid to be pro-Guaido, because you then support that dynamic that is aimed at crippling the true left. Hence, if you're pro-Guaido, you are not a true progressive.

But fortunately, Cenk Uygur, being a good journalist who doesn't push establishment narratives on behalf of money interests and TPTB, doesn't let go:

Cenk Uygur: Pilar, let's keep it real. The Trump administration and all the neocons are on a war path against two countries: Iran and Venezuela. There's only one thing that connects those two countries: oil. Okay? And there's one country we invaded: Iraq. Oil. Okay? North Korea, we ain't gonna invade, okay, because they don't have any oil. So, it's definitely, definitely about the oil.
Pilar Marrero (again deflecting): If you ask a lot of Venezuelans today: Would you mind having the American companies go in instead of having your freedom and a good government that will not torture you and kill you and starve you? A lot of people will say 'yes'.
Cenk Uygur: Yes, but the problem is with the American oil companies come, or even American banana companies, they also bring the torture and the human rights abuses...
Pilar Marrero (interrupting): It's already there. It barely can get any worse than it is now.
Cenk Uygur: Not a great way to solve it.

At the end, Cenk explains why binary thinking, where you think you absolutely need to choose between one of two sides (something that Rob Dekker promotes at every turn), is a dumb thing to do:

This is the Venezuelan people being squeezed between these different power players like Russia and the US. The US does not necessarily have your best interests in mind, but neither does Russia. So, if you're a progressive and you think: No, Putin is a good guy, I agree with George W. Bush who looked into his eyes and said he has a good soul, and he cares about the people of Venezuela. You are officially nuts if you believe that. You are also nuts if you think that's what Trump thinks. Neither one thinks that, okay? So, we gotta find a way to protect the people of Venezuela.

You're also nuts if you think sociopaths like Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Harris, Booker, Biden, Clintons, Obama and the other neoliberal Corporatist Republicans-lite think that.

The only way to protect the Venezuelan people, is to stop being pro-Guaido, to stop pushing polarisation, to lift sanctions and to help Venezuela wherever possible to become less reliant on dirty AGW-inducing, Koch-enriching oil, without meddling to install neoliberal puppets.

It'd be cool if there was some kind of function that automatically converts everything.  ;)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 22, 2019, 03:11:58 PM »
Okay, Off-topic Day is over, folks. Back to posting articles, op-ed, tweets, videos and so on that hint towards either Tesla Glory or Failure.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 17, 2019, 10:44:15 PM »
JAXA SIE total freeze for the 2018/2019 winter was 9,813,869 km2:

The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: March 17, 2019, 12:51:13 PM »
Juan, go to your profile -> profile info -> show posts -> likes given.

That'll give you an overview of everything you have 'liked', and should make it easy to find stuff, unless you 'like' a whole lot.  ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: March 15, 2019, 09:17:13 AM »
Darn you, Arctic. You just had to add that extra 0.02 of SIE, didn't you?  ;D

Arctic sea ice / Re: Null School Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
« on: March 13, 2019, 09:53:53 AM »
Thanks for this, Niall. It seems a spambot has copied that comment of yours and opened a new thread. Had me fooled. I'll try and merge the treads now.

edit: done

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: March 09, 2019, 03:04:40 PM »
Neven, it is just that this issue touches me closer and somebody opened this thread.

Is Maduro/Chaves neo-con (yes yes at least their pockets are). Is Putin neo-con? (maybe). Is Xi? Sí. The Norwegians? (perhaps)

All in common is human greed, just as those far left guys that fly around in private jets.

Yes, it's a systemic problem. Which makes it so stupid to just focus on one little aspect of it. That's exactly what they want you to do.

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: March 04, 2019, 11:48:14 AM »
Serious. You can't make this shit up, even if you wanted to.

Other are making this shit up, because they want to (because they want to get rich off resources), and then you spread it around uncritically, always pushing for war, death and destruction.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 Melting Season
« on: March 03, 2019, 12:00:13 PM »
JAXA has reported another drop, albeit a small one, so this one can stay open.  :)

It looks as though I squeezed past the ASIF proprietor's "melt" filter just in time?

Yup, but you haven't made it to the sticky stage yet!  :D

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: March 03, 2019, 11:12:14 AM »
Here are the temperature graphs for February, hot off the press. Arctic as a whole north of 65N was 9th lowest on record. As for the quadrants, all of them were lower than last year, except for Canadian:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 Melting Season
« on: March 02, 2019, 09:51:47 AM »
Now where's that melt season thread ! Oops sorry Neven !


I'll open it myself if tomorrow if JAXA reports yet another drop.

JAXA has reported another drop, albeit a small one, so this one can stay open.  :)

I'll sticky it once I'm 100% sure the max has been hit.

Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: February 25, 2019, 09:44:11 AM »
I’m calling max

Let us know if he says anything interesting.  ;)

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: February 24, 2019, 12:35:36 PM »
Yet there are some claiming nothing is wrong in Venezuela, and if it is, it's all the US's fault anyway.

There are hundreds of place around the world where the same or even worse things are happening, that get zero attention. That's because those places don't have resources that are worth stealing. Venezuela needs to be left alone, sanctions need to be lifted, and neolib/neocon war machine propaganda needs to be fought at every step. So, stop spreading it here, Rob. 98% of the media and internet landscape is already on your side.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 24, 2019, 12:28:14 PM »
Oh my god, someone has created AI bots with multiple names like Zizek, GoSouthYoungins, Lurk ... just not sure whether funded by Tesla shorts or by FF interests trying to ruin the signal to noise ratio here on Neven's blog by posts and by deliberate flailing wind up attempts.

How is this sort of post contributing anything?

No I don't really think so, but it feels like it sometimes.

Now how can I be as nasty, as dismissive, as big a liar, as delusional, as presumptuous, as rude, as insulting and as abusive as this poster has just been without getting my comment edited or deleted? Let me think about that a while and I'll get back to you.

Crandles was being sarcastic, holding up a mirror to zizek.

Look, I don't mind the anger, it's understandable, but short comments containing snark only (like zizek's comment that started this shit avalanche, though containing a pearl of peace by Bruce), is a waste of everyone's time and thus a sure way to moderation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 22, 2019, 05:16:26 PM »
Travelling right now, couldn't release this earlier, sorry:

Feb 20:           14,085,455
Increase of            73,253
9th lowest on record
Might soon surpass 2012 to move into 10th place

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 15, 2019, 10:18:05 AM »
And then I read this thread. Sigmetnow has a particular knack for posting only positive news about Tesla. And obsessively.

That's the whole idea of this thread! How often do I need to repeat it?

It drowns everything out while making Musk look like Our Only Savior. It's tiring and annoying. People who digest a lot of information through these boards will get the wrong idea.

Then instead of ranting, post Tesla bear stuff! Or have your say, wait and see, and then go TYS.

We should be building guillotines not cars.

I know you don't mean this literally, but try to keep in mind - it's hard, I know - that rich people are just as much victims as we are. They are concentrated wealth junkies, nothing more than puppets. They should be pitied, not hated.

Take the rants elsewhere (preferably a Green BAU thread) or create your own thread. I've been very clear about what this thread is about: Tesla's survival/demise. Not the consequences of its survival/demise, or the moral implications. Next rant will be snipped.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January)
« on: February 10, 2019, 10:58:41 PM »
PIOMAS February 2019 is up on the ASIB.

The rest / Re: US intervention in foreign lands
« on: February 10, 2019, 07:27:23 PM »
American hero:

Arctic sea ice / Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« on: February 10, 2019, 07:17:02 PM »
Maybe something interesting is going on again on this front. CryoSat-2 has ice thicker than 2011-2018 baseline north of Greenland and CAA, PIOMAS has it thinner.

I'll write about this in the next ASIB PIOMAS update. Anyone have any ideas what could be causing this? Another snow issue?

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM »
The reality, just like Lurk is saying, is that all these cuts are made to benefit concentrated wealth, under the guise of climate accords or whatever. A carbon tax would work perfectly well, if you would transparently distribute all of the tax revenues to the population on a per capita basis.

If you use that tax money to either benefit concentrated wealth or bureaucracy, yes, people will get mad. And rightly so. But the system demands it. If you don't (want to) change the system, don't expect AGW to be solved any time soon.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January)
« on: February 05, 2019, 01:13:57 PM »
I've taken the liberty of uploading it to YouTube (let me know if that's not okay with you, Wip):

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: February 03, 2019, 02:21:59 PM »
More data, SAT for January. Second lowest Arctic-wide for the last 15 years, all sectors down compared to last three years:

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: February 01, 2019, 09:53:31 PM »
This is much better than the average Russiagate-New-Cold-War-McCarthyite hysteria.

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: January 28, 2019, 10:14:52 AM »
What a waste of resources, but I guess this is what makes us human.  :)

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 26, 2019, 04:35:07 PM »

Consequences / Re: Ocean Temps
« on: January 23, 2019, 10:11:19 AM »
Zeke Hausfather on his paper showing that oceans are warming faster that thought:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6