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 - wili

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: November 20, 2017, 11:50:40 PM »
Thanks for including both perspectives here, Susan. Very refreshing compared to the way many of us get down in our 'trenches'...

I too see a bit of both sides, though I may be a bit closer to Neven's position here than you are.

Practically speaking, it seems like we have to do all we can to get as many Repubs out of power, then (or really at the same time), challenge the Dems to live up to their historical roll as protectors of working people (well, to the extent that they ever really did that very effectively). Can we do both?

Who are  our Tip O'Neill's today? I was happy to be represented by him when I lived in Mass. And am happy to be represented by Keith Ellison.

Most of traditional Dem positions are hugely popular/populist. Not emphasizing those positions enough leave us open to fake demagogues hijacking what should be Dem positions.

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: November 20, 2017, 11:38:29 PM »
Thanks, aslr

Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: November 20, 2017, 09:59:43 PM »
(It's not clear to me why this thread is in the 'Consequences' section, but, oh well.)

The Equatorial Pacific is Going Through its Variable Cool Phase, But 2017 is 94 Percent Likely to be the Second Hottest Year Ever Recorded

Most relevant section for this forum:

Over the past two years, La Ninas (cooling Pacific) appear to have been at least partly off-set by very strong warming in the Arctic and Antarctic. Atmospheric circulation tends to transport more heat into the polar zones as the Pacific cools. This is due to the fact that temperature differential between Equator and poles during La Nina is less and the lower temperature differential causes the upper level winds to slow and meander. Coupled with polar amplification due to human-caused climate change, the result can be some pretty extreme temperature departures. This week is no exception as Arctic temperatures by Thursday through Saturday are expected to be between 4 and 5 degrees Celsius above average for the entire region above the 66 North parallel.

Science / Re: Earthquakes and climate change
« on: November 19, 2017, 12:29:16 AM »
Besides cc effects on earthquakes, it seems that very slight reductions in the speed of the earth's rotation can cause dramatic increases in the number of severe earthquakes globally. This was new to me.

Upsurge in big earthquakes predicted for 2018 as Earth rotation slows
Scientists say number of severe quakes is likely to rise strongly next year because of a periodic slowing of the Earth’s rotation

...They found five periods when there had been significantly higher numbers of large earthquakes compared with other times. “In these periods, there were between 25 to 30 intense earthquakes a year,” said Bilham. “The rest of the time the average figure was around 15 major earthquakes a year.”

The researchers searched to find correlations between these periods of intense seismic activity and other factors and discovered that when Earth’s rotation decreased slightly it was followed by periods of increased numbers of intense earthquakes. “The rotation of the Earth does change slightly – by a millisecond a day sometimes – and that can be measured very accurately by atomic clocks,” said Bilham.

    It is straightforward. The Earth is offering us a five-year heads-up on future earthquakes
    Roger Bilham of the University of Colorado in Boulder

Bilham and Bendick found that there had been periods of around five years when Earth’s rotation slowed by such an amount several times over the past century and a half. Crucially, these periods were followed by periods when the numbers of intense earthquakes increased.

“It is straightforward,” said Bilham. “The Earth is offering us a five-year heads-up on future earthquakes.”

This link is particularly important because Earth’s rotation began one of its periodic slowdowns more than four years ago. “The inference is clear,” said Bilham. “Next year we should see a significant increase in numbers of severe earthquakes...

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: November 16, 2017, 10:14:51 PM »

“‘Political watershed’ as 19 countries pledge to phase out coal

New alliance launched at Bonn climate talks hopes to signal the end of the dirtiest fossil fuel that kills 800,000 people a year with air pollution”

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 09, 2017, 05:27:23 PM »
There is no 'worst.'

However bad things are, we can always make them even worse.

Which is mostly what we have been doing.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: November 08, 2017, 03:32:04 AM »
NJ went Dem, too.

Antarctica / Re: EAIS Contributions to SLR by 2100
« on: November 06, 2017, 10:45:09 PM »
... multi-meter sea level rise this Century is not out of the question

Sleeping Ice Giants Stir — East Antarctica’s Totten Glacier Accelerates Toward Southern Ocean

The rest / Re: The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out
« on: November 05, 2017, 09:05:27 PM »
Berniecrats Issue Report Criticizing the DNC for Failing to Learn Lessons From 2016

...Since the election, the DNC has not made any structural changes to build bridges to the party’s Berniecrats, such as reforming its superdelegate system. In 2017 races like Virginia’s gubernatorial election, the way party leaders haven’t changed their voter outreach strategy is also offputting, Solomon said, because it’s prioritized white centrists and appears to take non-white voters for granted.

“The DNC’s biggest failure has been to largely disregard the base,” he said. “And we can define that as working-class people across the board, young people, people of color, to instead focus a tremendous amount of political framing, of pitching, and of money to try to shake loose votes from Republicans. We have this empirically going on in the past and in Virginia right now. Steve Phillips had that piece that The Nation [“The Obsession With White Voters Could Cost Democrats the Virginia Governor’s Race”]. That’s one huge thing; the idea that the way to Democratic Party victories is through pulling in some Republican votes. I just think it’s been disproven again and again. That’s number one. Stop doubling down on a failed policy.”...

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 04, 2017, 08:12:25 PM »
"Am I the only one here who struggles to listen to Beckwith? There is something about his voice that causes me to grind my molars."

That, and his science is sometimes...sketchy/speculative...

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:56:07 PM »
"I actually thought this site was more scientific than that."

LOL. You are the least scientific poster on here!

And the lambasting the entire site on baseless charges, you've hit a new low here, even for a soulless troll.

The rest / Re: The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:51:52 PM »
"I'm pleased disappointed to see reports that the DNC and Hillary partnered Bernie failed to prevent a non Democrat Republican in everything but name Hillaryfrom ascending to the Democratic Party nomination."

Fixed that for ya, p!  ;D ;D

The rest / Re: The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:36:46 PM »
"The big lesson that the Democrats have learned from last year's election loss is to listen better to what real people think, rather than to their own pre-conceived notions"

But have they, really?? I guess time will tell, but I haven't seen much sign of that from the DNC's actions myself. I do hope they have, or do in time for the next election!

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: November 03, 2017, 12:05:40 AM »
Disparaging a science site to avoid the truth...another well worn denialist ploy.

Keep at it. With every post you are further proving my point.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: November 02, 2017, 09:00:26 PM »
DB is just repeatedly spewing long-debunked standard denialist memes. (I thought we discouraged such trollish behavior on this forum, at least).


Climate myth # 3 "It's not bad"

What the science says: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.


Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: November 02, 2017, 08:46:04 PM »
"No More Zerohedge Links."

Thanks  :)

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: October 31, 2017, 11:50:03 AM »
CC is [already] Bad for your Health

... “Climate change is happening, and it’s a health issue today for millions worldwide,” said Anthony Costello, a co-chairman of the commission that produced the report, called The Lancet Countdown.

...climate change is already affecting human health in serious ways, with harms “far worse than previously understood.” The report argues that the health professions have a responsibility “to communicate the threats and opportunities” of a phenomenon that is “central to human well-being.”

...human-caused global warming “threatens to undermine the past 50 years of gains in public health.” But the report also said that a comprehensive approach to slow the planet’s warming could be “the great health opportunity of the 21st century.”

...outdoor labor capacity in rural areas fell, on average, by 5.3 percent over the past 16 years because of heat stress and other conditions making work more difficult. That is a stunning loss of productivity, and directly attributable to global warming during a period when nine of the 10 of the hottest years on record were recorded.

Productivity fell 2 percent from 2015 to 2016 alone.

In 2015, the Lancet report says, an additional 175 million people over the age of 65 were exposed to heat waves, when compared with broad trends of the past 20 years.

... lower-income countries experience far greater economic loss as a proportion of their gross domestic product because of climate-related disasters when compared to higher-income countries.

...From 1990 to 2016, uninsured losses in low-income countries were equivalent to over 1.5 percent of their G.D.P.

...recent gains in combating the spread of these diseases [are] now being threatened by climate change.

The report shows that transmission of dengue fever by just two types of mosquito has increased 3 percent and 5.9 percent, since 1990, the result of a broad range of factors including climate change...

If the report contained just these findings, it would still be an alert to public health officials. But there are dozens of other examples that clearly show that climate change is no longer a distant, future threat.

It is here, now.

This is now a medical and public health fight, not just an environmental one.

One of the top lobbyists of Democrats for corporate powers that be, Tony Podesta, just resigned from the lobbying firm he created, caught in the web of connections revealed in the Manafort scandal.

The rest / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: October 30, 2017, 05:07:52 AM »
"Iraq in 2003 was a great strategic error..."

Is that all you see it as?

I guess a shortcut would be to just look at which Dems supported Perez for head of the DNC vs which ones supported my representative, Keith Ellison.

Science / Re: Adapting to the Anthropocene
« on: October 27, 2017, 07:09:04 AM »
It sounds like it's more a series of anecdotes than a number-crunching exercise...and also a lot of wishful thinking and dubious philosophizing...but go ahead, get the book, or better, borrow it from a library...and get back to us.

Hotter planets can, eventually, lead to greater speciation, as far as i have read, because it is mostly smaller species that survive, and that means more places for more small critters to specialize...

But that takes some time, and there are many, many factors challenging the success of all such species now and for the foreseeable future...

Science / Re: Adapting to the Anthropocene
« on: October 27, 2017, 04:14:09 AM »
sidd, you might want to look at this review of the book:

particularly this:

No bacterium thought about how creating oxygen might affect its fellow early earthlings; nor could it do anything to change that. Cataclysmic seismology or a stray asteroid are even less likely to have thought about the literal impact of their actions. And no matter how ubiquitous the little bird from the Asian steppe has become, no sparrow thinks about its place in the natural order.

People do.

That’s exactly Thomas’s logical flaw. Calling human-caused change “natural” is dangerously reductive. Both in scope and speed, people are altering the planet in ways no other species does. We have changed the very chemistry of the Earth. We’re driving the extinction crisis

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: October 25, 2017, 05:38:06 AM »
"...there is evidence for some of the Great Extinctions being due to greenhouse or hothouse state..."

Thanks, sidd. That's the main point. And I'm sure you have a far better grasp of the relevant science than most others here, including myself.

As you recall, the whole thing came up because some have been downplaying the potential role of ghgs/gw in extinctions. There is, indeed, good evidence that some were indeed due primarily to ghg's build up leading to gw.

So there is very good reason to expect that our current breakneck rate of gw will bring about many extinctions and likely at least greatly exacerbate the current mass extinction event now well underway. Would you agree?

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: October 25, 2017, 03:45:20 AM »

"Viluy magmatism may inject enough CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere to generate a destabilised greenhouse and ecosystem..."

"A recent hypothesis put forward is that the volcanism [from Siberian Traps] was a trigger that led to an explosion of the growth of Methanosarcina, a microbe that then spewed enormous amounts of methane into Earth's atmosphere...

at the peak of the extinction, the Earth underwent lethally hot global warming, in which equatorial ocean temperatures exceeded 40 °C (104 °F)"

... I could go on, but anyone who wants to can look this sh!t up and see the truth, unless they are hell-bent on ignoring it or trying to distract others from it.

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: October 25, 2017, 03:37:45 AM »
And what does 'volcanic activity' produce?

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: October 23, 2017, 10:31:55 PM »
Daniel seems to be ignoring the mass of evidence that most and probably all of the previous mass extinction events were driven primarily by global warming.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: October 23, 2017, 10:25:04 PM »
Sig wrote: "will new diesel buses even be available in 2025? "

Dunno, but these guys seem to be counting on them being available by next year:

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: October 16, 2017, 04:40:56 PM »
Av, read 'Storms of my Grandchildren' by James Hansen.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: October 16, 2017, 04:35:51 AM »
It's gonna take a miracle...

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: October 16, 2017, 04:04:06 AM »
Best of luck to the lucky Irish:

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: October 13, 2017, 12:35:53 AM »
#Ophelia now has 100 mph winds - the strongest an Atlantic hurricane has been this far east (35.5°W) this late in calendar year on record.

How many hurricane-related records does that make that we broke in the last few weeks??

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 09, 2017, 11:19:42 PM »
Thanks for the clarity, g.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: October 05, 2017, 05:48:12 AM »
Thanks for that link, sidd.

Buddy, maybe someone could make it into a song that could become a hit, perhaps:

"Don, Don, Don
Don, Don, Moron"

To the tune of "Barbara Ann" ?

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: October 04, 2017, 05:58:55 AM »
Generally, we need to move away from car culture as quickly as possible, for all sorts of reasons, in an many areas as possible. In the mean time, though, it is important to have low and no emission alternatives to traditional ICE vehicles.

Here's the latest reflections from the scribbler on the latest from Tesla:

Tesla’s Electric Sales Explode Despite Slow Model 3 Production Ramp

During the third quarter of 2017, Tesla sold 26,150 all-electric vehicles. A new quarterly sales record for the company...

Thanks for that piece of (ever more rare, it seems) good news, sig. I was wondering when the Pope's encyclical might start yielding some concrete results in the behavior of the church.

And as the saying goes (sort of), five and a half trillion here, five and a half trillion there...pretty soon you're talkin' real money!  :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: October 03, 2017, 09:37:08 PM »
Great points, Paddy.

The world doesn't have to be 100% vegan or vegetarian to be sustainable. But the norms for levels of meat eating do have to shift far more towards meat and dairy becoming rarer and rarer in most people's diets. For those still eating meat, yes, targeting invasive species is a good idea.

Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:55:40 AM »
Bob, you simply don't get it. There are billions of people who want to move away from a meat-intense diet, for their health, for their budget, for the basic morality of it, and for the environment.

(There, fixed that for ya!  ;D ;D )

Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:43:29 AM »
Bob: Yeah, some people have not eaten meat because of poverty.

Some people have ridden bicycles because of poverty.

Do you think it is a bad idea to encourage people to use bicycles just because some people have been forced to use them instead of bikes in the past??

Personal anecdotes tell us approximately nothing about the issue, of course.

But if you really personally think that not eating animals is a good thing, why not join me in promoting it, rather than reaching for shaky arguments why it can't happen?? :)


Sig: Nice point. My favorite odd looking meat forms:

 ;D ;D ;D

Sleep tight all, and stay away from gunfire if possible!! :-[

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: October 03, 2017, 02:56:42 AM »
Thanks for the explanation (and cool graphs) ASLR.

Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: October 03, 2017, 02:54:59 AM »
mag, you can do fine on a vegan or vegetarian diet without corn or wheat.

Lots and lots and lots of people have gone vegetarian or vegan and are doing fine, actually usually with great improvements in health. It is the rare exception that gets all the press, of course.

And of course, it is perfectly possible to eat a totally sh!tty veg diet, just as is true with any other broad diet definition...marshmallows are, after all, vegan!

Good idea to stay away from processed foods though, generally.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: October 03, 2017, 12:11:40 AM »
Those last two graphs differ rather dramatically.

Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: October 02, 2017, 11:51:37 PM »
 I hope you don't mind the introduction of facts into the discussion.

In 1971, only 1% of Americans (US) were vegetarians or vegans. As of 2013 it was 13%, with much of that increase coming in just the previous few years.

In the UK, vegetarianism and veganism has also increased dramatically, now up to 11% by some estimates. And of course, reducing greatly the amount of meat eaten can also have big effects, and Brits are doing that, too: "one survey identifying 23% of the population as "meat-reducers", and 10% as "meat-avoiders"".

I'm pretty sure that none of those people were 'forced' into this diet. Wouldn't you want to be on the side of those encouraging these trends?

Yours is the kind of defeatism you are always quick to point out and attack in other posters comments on other issues.

And if we are discussing China and India, in the quite recent past the diet of most of their citizens could best be described as essentially vegan with occasional lapses (as many vegetarians and vegans have...but for survival purposes, purity is not the point).

For a wide variety of reasons, lost of people can change their dietary practices fundamentally and quickly. Look at the sudden popularity of the Atkins diet a few years ago, when millions of people decided to turn away from what had been considered for millennia 'the staff of life,' bread.

Archeologists tell us that the Jewish prohibition against pork eating seemed to occur quite suddenly in response to a need to set themselves apart from the newcomers on the Gaza strip in ~1200 bce, the Peleset (thought to be the term that evolved into Palestinians).

I'm not against meat substitutes of various sorts. But clearly anything that requires that much processing is going to be more energy, and so carbon, intensive than the straight forward, nutritious fruits of the earth.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: October 02, 2017, 11:18:08 PM »
Bangladesh birth rate (Now 2.14) has dropped dramatically and is now below India's and is below replacement levels (for third world countries).

This was the result mostly of programs aimed intentionally to reduce birthrates mostly through improving the lives of women. If that can be done in Bangladesh, presumably it can also be done in Pakistan and in many countries in Africa. There is nothing inevitable about it. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:39:43 PM »
Ummm, why not just eat vegetables, grains, legumes and fruits...?

Trump is truly horrific. But so far he has not done what baby bush up an entire new war (Iraq) against a country that basically had not directly attacked us in any way.

But he has lots of time to do so...we'll see...

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: October 01, 2017, 10:43:08 PM »
Or it's savior? Since many Euro nations show negative population growth...

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: October 01, 2017, 10:41:40 PM »
"wort craziness"

Good term for the Wort In Chief ::) ::)

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 29, 2017, 11:47:58 PM »
...Why Trump’s Response to Maria’s Monumental Strike on Puerto Rico is, Thus Far, Vastly Inadequate

As a veteran of the U.S. Army National Guard, I’ve responded to my fair share of natural disasters. And having responded to some of the costliest and most devastating storms to strike the U.S. in the 90s, I know what it means when damage estimates, as they do now with Maria, hit a range of 30-95 billion dollars. When you get reports that evacuees are fleeing Puerto Rico with many saying they will never return.

It means total devastation of infrastructure requiring an equally unprecedented level of response to effectively manage a disaster of a class that we are not presently used to dealing with. And without an effective response, you get exactly what we are seeing now — refugees fleeing what has become, through neglect, a sacrifice zone.

The present response to Maria by the Trump Administration is comparable to the level of response to Hurricane Opal. Opal was a devastating storm in its own right. But the damage inflicted by Opal was more than an order of magnitude less than the damage inflicted by Maria. Our response, therefore, must be equal to the level of harm and dislocation inflicted by the disaster.

5,000 troops and FEMA responders for Maria is, therefore, about 45,000 short of the mark.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41