World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You've been told over and over again what steps are neing taken and how much extraordinary progress has been made.

 

There's a thing called earwax. Too much of it can interfere with hearing.

  Maybe there's also a substance called eyewax?

LOL. I'm still waiting as I've never seen anything on TVF as to practical solutions for all 7 billion and counting. Most solutions are only affordable for rich western countries.

NB rich western countries account for a miniscule portion of the world population.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Yes, that's how all the world's difficult problems get resolved. Can't do anything immediate and easy, I give up. That's fine, just shut up and get out of the way of those of us who haven't given up and are willing to make the sacrifices for our children.

Pray tell us what sacrifices you have made for your children. Given up driving a car and using airplanes perhaps. Not using electricity generated by fossil fuel perhaps. Travelling by horse or sail power only perhaps.

 

BTW, I fail to see how my opinion is in any way stopping you from doing anything. I don't even know you, or you me. Just do it.

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You've been told over and over again what steps are neing taken and how much extraordinary progress has been made.

 

There's a thing called earwax. Too much of it can interfere with hearing.

  Maybe there's also a substance called eyewax?

Face it, all the air went out of the climate crusade several years ago.

 

Lots of political grandstanding over historic agreements which amounted to almost nothing, and no sign of this "collective action" that the alarmists tell us we urgently need.

 

The jig's up. Nobody wants to play with the climate ball any more; it's political poison.

 

But never mind, you'll always have Paris.

[JCauto]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pray tell us what sacrifices you have made for your children. Given up driving a car and using airplanes perhaps. Not using electricity generated by fossil fuel perhaps. Travelling by horse or sail power only perhaps.

 

BTW, I fail to see how my opinion is in any way stopping you from doing anything. I don't even know you, or you me. Just do it.

I do what I can, and am under no illusions that any small (or massive for that matter) changes I make in my life will not affect the climate. It's collective changes that are the only hope. By recognizing that there is a need to change and by changing my own practices, behaviour and rhetoric, I am moving in the right direction towards that individually. In doing so, I positively affect my family, my kids, my kids' future kids, my friends, my acquaintances, etc. This helps push more people in the right direction, such that collectively we can change things a bit. We need some mega-wins, such as alternative no-carbon energy that can only come from research and development, true. But that alone won't fix it, and continuing to accept the destructive practices will only result in more suffering and impacts before any positive things can happen, and they risk knock-on effects such as mass migration and political instability that could well ruin the thing that could save us.

I engage in climate change deniers and skeptics not because I expect to change their minds, but because I believe it is vital to get as many people on board as possible, because I know that this issue will not go away and soon enough even the most skeptical will have to admit that what has been forecast is not only happening, but is happening at a much faster pace than even the models predicted. It is not because I believe you will change your mind that I write back to you, especially as you've already basically indicated you are coming eagerly towards the end of life and have had enough. That's more than a bit sad and I feel for you, that's no fun. But cynicism is contagious and so I will continue to try to convince other more open readers that this is something they should care about in the hopes that they too will start to take the small steps that can lead to greater things. So yes, if you wouldn't mind, please kindly get out of the way while we try to save some lives. And I hope that you might just one day say "fark it", try something different and discover some accidental joy that makes your life a bit happier.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pray tell us what sacrifices you have made for your children. Given up driving a car and using airplanes perhaps. Not using electricity generated by fossil fuel perhaps. Travelling by horse or sail power only perhaps.

 

BTW, I fail to see how my opinion is in any way stopping you from doing anything. I don't even know you, or you me. Just do it.

 

24 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I do what I can, and am under no illusions that any small (or massive for that matter) changes I make in my life will not affect the climate. It's collective changes that are the only hope. By recognizing that there is a need to change and by changing my own practices, behaviour and rhetoric, I am moving in the right direction towards that individually. In doing so, I positively affect my family, my kids, my kids' future kids, my friends, my acquaintances, etc. This helps push more people in the right direction, such that collectively we can change things a bit. We need some mega-wins, such as alternative no-carbon energy that can only come from research and development, true. But that alone won't fix it, and continuing to accept the destructive practices will only result in more suffering and impacts before any positive things can happen, and they risk knock-on effects such as mass migration and political instability that could well ruin the thing that could save us.

I engage in climate change deniers and skeptics not because I expect to change their minds, but because I believe it is vital to get as many people on board as possible, because I know that this issue will not go away and soon enough even the most skeptical will have to admit that what has been forecast is not only happening, but is happening at a much faster pace than even the models predicted. It is not because I believe you will change your mind that I write back to you, especially as you've already basically indicated you are coming eagerly towards the end of life and have had enough. That's more than a bit sad and I feel for you, that's no fun. But cynicism is contagious and so I will continue to try to convince other more open readers that this is something they should care about in the hopes that they too will start to take the small steps that can lead to greater things. So yes, if you wouldn't mind, please kindly get out of the way while we try to save some lives. And I hope that you might just one day say "fark it", try something different and discover some accidental joy that makes your life a bit happier.

 

 

In other words, you haven't actually made any "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed....

 

FWIW, I largely agree with you - but at the end of the day, we are reliant on big business and govts. to take the destruction of our planet seriously - but sadly they are in cahoots and only care about their money and power.  Consequently, the changes made are small - and only benefit those with the money and power to profit from the new, 'clean' energy sources ☹️.

 

To look on the bright side, the 'message' is getting through to a certain extent - as a increasing number of people nowadays make (what I suspect) is the same effort as you (and, to be fair, myself).  i.e. Using as little plastic as possible/reducing energy consumption (but not enough to make us uncomfortable...) etc.

Edited August 8, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[ELVIS123456]

44 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Face it, all the air went out of the climate crusade several years ago.

Lots of political grandstanding over historic agreements which amounted to almost nothing, and no sign of this "collective action" that the alarmists tell us we urgently need.

The jig's up. Nobody wants to play with the climate ball any more; it's political poison.

But never mind, you'll always have Paris.

That the 'Paris Accord' allowed China to increase its pollution by 40% while at the same time mandating that USA Aust UK etc etc must reduce it by 20%, and that they implement penalties and charges to 'tax carbon', all to the cost of average western people, shows how flawed and ridiculous the whole 'solution' is and why it is not accepted by most people.  Add to that the fact that climate scientists have been deliberately exagerating their findings by using flawed climate models (inputs and outputs), and people like Al Gore have become very rich off this 'climate change' sham, and you can see why so many people are so sceptical. 

 

As more and more time goes by and the world doesnt come to an end, more and more people will realise the truth. Climate Change is just another 'Dogma' (religion) demanding that you agree with its rules and demands, otherwise you and your children will be 'punished' in the future. There is just enough truth it was the Dogma says, and just enough to make people think that the Dogma might be right, to suck in the foolish and unwise.  How can you prove them wrong until you are dead or 50 years has passed??  It is the perfect sham, and is atypical of all Dogmas that are all based on the 'Witch Doctor Method'  -  claim everything that happens is evidence of you being 'all powerful and knowledgeable' and keep your own vested interests above question. 

 

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The research for removing CO2 from the atmosphere has been done and is proven. However, governments seem remarkably reticent to develop that technology. Perhaps because they know that just removing CO2 won't achieve anything.

In the meantime it's a great way to add taxes.

Or perhaps it's too expensive still. Or perhaps it uses too much energy so would generate greenhouse gases as well. Or perhaps it's one of any other of hundreds of reasons why new technology doesn't stick. Happens every day.

[JCauto]

39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

In other words, you haven't actually made any "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed....

 

FWIW, I largely agree with you - but at the end of the day, we are reliant on big business and govts. to take the destruction of our planet seriously - but sadly they are in cahoots and only care about their money and power.  Consequently, the changes made are small - and only benefit those with the money and power to profit from the new, 'clean' energy sources ☹️.

 

To look on the bright side, the 'message' is getting through to a certain extent - as a increasing number of people nowadays make (what I suspect) is the same effort as you (and, to be fair, myself).  i.e. Using as little plastic as possible/reducing energy consumption (but not enough to make us uncomfortable...) etc.

No, it means that I didn't feel obligated to inform you of details of my personal life. I will make a concession though and inform you that I work in forestry in Southeast Asia if that helps you understand and makes you more comfortable. I chose to go into that as I believed it more important and useful than what I had been doing prior. I make less money, and I contribute a lot of my own time and money in order to make things work because that's what is important to me. I also think I should let my kids solve their own problems as much as possible, and that leaving them a great whack of money (had I been in position to do so) would be counter-productive. But these are personal situations and choices, and why I didn't want to get into them in the first place. Everyone has their own reasons, many people like to help others, many would rather do so without blowing their own horn.

 

It's not a competition and whether I do more or less than you is less important to me than that more people recognize the importance of change and doing something to move in the right direction. That you do and take some measures is laudable, and I hope you continue. That you choose to argue against doing things while recognizing that these are important issues and doing you own bit is curious.

 

 

[JCauto]

45 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

That the 'Paris Accord' allowed China to increase its pollution by 40% while at the same time mandating that USA Aust UK etc etc must reduce it by 20%, and that they implement penalties and charges to 'tax carbon', all to the cost of average western people, shows how flawed and ridiculous the whole 'solution' is and why it is not accepted by most people.  Add to that the fact that climate scientists have been deliberately exagerating their findings by using flawed climate models (inputs and outputs), and people like Al Gore have become very rich off this 'climate change' sham, and you can see why so many people are so sceptical. 

 

As more and more time goes by and the world doesnt come to an end, more and more people will realise the truth. Climate Change is just another 'Dogma' (religion) demanding that you agree with its rules and demands, otherwise you and your children will be 'punished' in the future. There is just enough truth it was the Dogma says, and just enough to make people think that the Dogma might be right, to suck in the foolish and unwise.  How can you prove them wrong until you are dead or 50 years has passed??  It is the perfect sham, and is atypical of all Dogmas that are all based on the 'Witch Doctor Method'  -  claim everything that happens is evidence of you being 'all powerful and knowledgeable' and keep your own vested interests above question. 

 

Yes, the predictions and science of climate change just keep getting proven incorrect. They're under-estimates of the speed and impact of the change. This is not debatable, it's proven. You choose to pretend it's something else and then go off on an irrelevant tangent comparing what is science to what is religion. It's an interesting debate strategy - try to make your opponents get stupider by reading what you write so that you can eventually drag them down to your intellectual level. 

 

The reason for the negotiations in Paris was to take account of who got rich and developed while creating the problem and therefore were both more responsible for it and more able to deal with it. But you already knew that, didn't you?

[nauseus]

The climate is changing - it always has - but the present rate of change is high. The average global temperature has risen since the industrial revolution but an argument can be, is industry the prime cause? While CO2 in the atmosphere has also increased with the average temperature, is it really the prime driver of change in both temperature and/or climate?

 

There is so much debate that it is evident that these questions are not fully answered. But while this is the case, then excessive CO2 (and other greenhouse gas emissions) should be curbed as much as possible, in case that they truly are causing, or even partly causing damage.

 

There are many reasons that point to anthropologic-driven climate change, in addition to those that might be attributed to natural earth system cycles and events. The main human factor, I think, is quite basic, in that there are now so many more people on the planet than in 1850, which, with technological "progress", means exponentially more industrial and agricultural activity, but with the associated massive amount of demand for water, food and resources, with the resulting pollution and waste.        

[micmichd]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

That the 'Paris Accord' allowed China to increase its pollution by 40% while at the same time mandating that USA Aust UK etc etc must reduce it by 20%, and that they implement penalties and charges to 'tax carbon', all to the cost of average western people, shows how flawed and ridiculous the whole 'solution' is and why it is not accepted by most people.  Add to that the fact that climate scientists have been deliberately exagerating their findings by using flawed climate models (inputs and outputs), and people like Al Gore have become very rich off this 'climate change' sham, and you can see why so many people are so sceptical. 

 

As more and more time goes by and the world doesnt come to an end, more and more people will realise the truth. Climate Change is just another 'Dogma' (religion) demanding that you agree with its rules and demands, otherwise you and your children will be 'punished' in the future. There is just enough truth it was the Dogma says, and just enough to make people think that the Dogma might be right, to suck in the foolish and unwise.  How can you prove them wrong until you are dead or 50 years has passed??  It is the perfect sham, and is atypical of all Dogmas that are all based on the 'Witch Doctor Method'  -  claim everything that happens is evidence of you being 'all powerful and knowledgeable' and keep your own vested interests above question. 

 

It's based on cybernetics, natural-sciences and maths.

Neither nature nor the majority of the world's population give a f*** about the feeling of the average inhabitant in these countries you mention. Like you never gave a f*** about the feelings of the natives in the South and the East of the world. So stop whining now. And don't forget who produced what you consume.

[ELVIS123456]

8 minutes ago, micmichd said:

It's based on cybernetics, natural-sciences and maths.

Neither nature nor the majority of the world's population give a f*** about the feeling of the average inhabitant in these countries you mention. Like you never gave a f*** about the feelings of the natives in the South and the East of the world. So stop whining now. And don't forget who produced what you consume.

What are you talking about?  cybernetics??  who produced what I consume???

Calm down and think rationally - then write clearly and logically and coherently, and then I might understand you.

Right now I have no idea what you were talking about.

[Small Joke]

On 8/7/2018 at 6:34 AM, Lungstib said:

A recent Youtube that I watched mentioned the extreme long life of carbon in the atmosphere and suggested it was far more resilient than radiation in that over 1000 years it would still exist even though diminishes by a factor of 2 or 3. In effect everything we add in the next hundred years stays on top of what we already have. If that is so I see no escape, earth is doomed.

You're right, but we're all gonna die anyway. 20 years from now most of this forums readership will be ash or worm food. 

The kids?

Well, everytime they protest, the cops bash em, and the oldies tut tut, and then go off to bridge sessions in a gas guzzler, you get got what you deserve(d), planet earth.

[ELVIS123456]

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The climate is changing - it always has - but the present rate of change is high. The average global temperature has risen since the industrial revolution but an argument can be, is industry the prime cause? While CO2 in the atmosphere has also increased with the average temperature, is it really the prime driver of change in both temperature and/or climate?

 

There is so much debate that it is evident that these questions are not fully answered. But while this is the case, then excessive CO2 (and other greenhouse gas emissions) should be curbed as much as possible, in case that they truly are causing, or even partly causing damage.

 

There are many reasons that point to anthropologic-driven climate change, in addition to those that might be attributed to natural earth system cycles and events. The main human factor, I think, is quite basic, in that there are now so many more people on the planet than in 1850, which, with technological "progress", means exponentially more industrial and agricultural activity, but with the associated massive amount of demand for water, food and resources, with the resulting pollution and waste.        

If only such a rational analysis was being undertaken by the UN and other climate change proponents, then more poeple would support the issue. As it is, there is nothing coming from proponents other than abuse and attack if anyone questions the validity of their 'science'. And there is nothing coming from UN and Govts than demands that people pay more for using fossil fuels and the sky is going to fall unless we impose more taxes on 'carbon'.  Speed cameras save lives and that is why we install them - no the millions we get in fines has nothing to do with it - honest ?   What did Reagan say about Govt - they are like a baby - a huge appetite at one end and total unaccountability at the other.  Climate Change is just another excuse for Govts to impose another tax/fine and get more money that they invariably waste. 

 

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

In other words, you haven't actually made any "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed....

 

FWIW, I largely agree with you - but at the end of the day, we are reliant on big business and govts. to take the destruction of our planet seriously - but sadly they are in cahoots and only care about their money and power.  Consequently, the changes made are small - and only benefit those with the money and power to profit from the new, 'clean' energy sources ☹️.

 

To look on the bright side, the 'message' is getting through to a certain extent - as a increasing number of people nowadays make (what I suspect) is the same effort as you (and, to be fair, myself).  i.e. Using as little plastic as possible/reducing energy consumption (but not enough to make us uncomfortable...) etc.

 

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

No, it means that I didn't feel obligated to inform you of details of my personal life. I will make a concession though and inform you that I work in forestry in Southeast Asia if that helps you understand and makes you more comfortable. I chose to go into that as I believed it more important and useful than what I had been doing prior. I make less money, and I contribute a lot of my own time and money in order to make things work because that's what is important to me. I also think I should let my kids solve their own problems as much as possible, and that leaving them a great whack of money (had I been in position to do so) would be counter-productive. But these are personal situations and choices, and why I didn't want to get into them in the first place. Everyone has their own reasons, many people like to help others, many would rather do so without blowing their own horn.

 

It's not a competition and whether I do more or less than you is less important to me than that more people recognize the importance of change and doing something to move in the right direction. That you do and take some measures is laudable, and I hope you continue. That you choose to argue against doing things while recognizing that these are important issues and doing you own bit is curious.

 

 

That means precisely zero when it comes to making " "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed...

 

I too happily gave up a well-paid job to move into a job paying far less - but admit  that I'd had enough of the stress and making even more money for already extremely wealthy people.  So it suited ME to finally be able to move into a far lower paid, but 'socially justified' job. I suspect (but obviously don't know) that your reasons were similar.

 

I apologise for labouring the point, but I dislike people that pretend they have 'sacrificed' - when in reality they've done nothing of the sort.

[micmichd]

46 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

What are you talking about?  cybernetics??  who produced what I consume???

Calm down and think rationally - then write clearly and logically and coherently, and then I might understand you.

Right now I have no idea what you were talking about.

This is cybernetics: 

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cybernetics

And the device you use right now for Internet is most probably produced in East Asia. Who produced your clothes, your food, etc ?"

[ELVIS123456]

2 minutes ago, micmichd said:

This is cybernetics: 

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cybernetics

And the device you use right now for Internet is most probably produced in East Asia. Who produced your clothes, your food, etc ?"

This is nondeterministic algorithm 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm

You are not the only 'smart' person in the world - or this debate - but you used to think that didnt you??

Explanation:  There are so many non-computable varients (and unknown variables) in models that make predictions of future climate that it is a nondeterministic algorithm.

The classic example of a nondeterministic algorithm would be to ask a computer something like:  Does she really love me?

Some things cannot be computed - there are too many unknowns and too many unknown unknowns.

 

And what has the fact the the device I am using was produced in SEAsia (or not) have to do with the price of sugar?

 

[nauseus]

33 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If only such a rational analysis was being undertaken by the UN and other climate change proponents, then more poeple would support the issue. As it is, there is nothing coming from proponents other than abuse and attack if anyone questions the validity of their 'science'. And there is nothing coming from UN and Govts than demands that people pay more for using fossil fuels and the sky is going to fall unless we impose more taxes on 'carbon'.  Speed cameras save lives and that is why we install them - no the millions we get in fines has nothing to do with it - honest ?   What did Reagan say about Govt - they are like a baby - a huge appetite at one end and total unaccountability at the other.  Climate Change is just another excuse for Govts to impose another tax/fine and get more money that they invariably waste. 

 

Thanks. Yes, I agree that carbon tax is not a real solution, more like another justification to rob people. Serious problems need serious solutions but gaining the consensus for serious action is probably the biggest problem of all.  

[JCauto]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

That means precisely zero when it comes to making " "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed...

 

I too happily gave up a well-paid job to move into a job paying far less - but admit  that I'd had enough of the stress and making even more money for already extremely wealthy people.  So it suited ME to finally be able to move into a far lower paid, but 'socially justified' job. I suspect (but obviously don't know) that your reasons were similar.

 

I apologise for labouring the point, but I dislike people that pretend they have 'sacrificed' - when in reality they've done nothing of the sort.

I have revealed what I am comfortable revealing; I have made a career choice that had a number of different components to it, and yes, one of those was "how does this help improve things in the future and how can I maximize my impact by doing it". One of those was not "will I be able to make as much or more than I did in the past and thereby provide more for my children". I have noted that I also think giving more to your kids doesn't necessarily help them, and can even harm them, so I would question the entire basis of the discussion - is "sacrificing" for your kids actually a good thing? I also am not particularly materialistic. Does my making less money count as a "sacrifice" then? Essentially I think the question a silly one. This is an anonymous internet forum. We're supposed to debate  and discuss things and while one is welcome to bring in personal circumstance as it is often effective in debate, this isn't a presidential debate where journalists are here to fact-check us and at the end of the day there will be a vote based on our performances.

So if you choose to believe whatever about my life, that is up to you. I don't have to pass some sort of litmus test in your eyes in order to have the right to hold an opinion or have my opinion considered valid. You demand that I reveal more of my real life situation in order to claim that I help other people in line with my beliefs, and if I don't provide it, then I'm somehow a fraud or pretending. That's a false dichotomy. 

[micmichd]

24 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This is nondeterministic algorithm 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm

You are not the only 'smart' person in the world - or this debate - but you used to think that didnt you??

Explanation:  There are so many non-computable varients (and unknown variables) in models that make predictions of future climate that it is a nondeterministic algorithm.

The classic example of a nondeterministic algorithm would be to ask a computer something like:  Does she really love me?

Some things cannot be computed - there are too many unknowns and too many unknown unknowns.

 

And what has the fact the the device I am using was produced in SEAsia (or not) have to do with the price of sugar?

 

Surely it's nondeterministic, there's all kinds of stochastics in applied cybernetics. But you can still calculate with it. 

You could theoretically also calculate on love if you would have a precise definition. I heard there's 30 different words for 'love' in Thailand, maybe you should learn to be more precise.

 

Your electronic devices cost money, and so does sugar. Producing electronic devices needs raw materials and energy, so does sugar. Now imagine you could only afford one of these items - which one would be your choice?

Edited August 8, 2018 by micmichd

[ELVIS123456]

1 hour ago, micmichd said:

Surely it's nondeterministic, there's all kinds of stochastics in applied cybernetics. But you can still calculate with it. 

You could theoretically also calculate on love if you would have a precise definition. I heard there's 30 different words for 'love' in Thailand, maybe you should learn to be more precise.

 

Your electronic devices cost money, and so does sugar. Producing electronic devices needs raw materials and energy, so does sugar. Now imagine you could only afford one of these items - which one would be your choice?

Which one? Let me plug that question into my computer. But I do think it will be a nondeterministic algorithm issue (again) and the answer I get will depend on many many things, including what time I press the enter key..........................here goes:

 

 

Way too complicated for me. 

 

Think I will stick to algorithmic calculations and not follow the climate scientists down the path of "Bullwinkle's Folly':

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by ELVIS123456

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, JCauto said:

I engage in climate change deniers and skeptics not because I expect to change their minds, but because I believe it is vital to get as many people on board as possible, because I know that this issue will not go away and soon enough even the most skeptical will have to admit that what has been forecast is not only happening, but is happening at a much faster pace than even the models predicted.

You won't get "us" on board because we reject the idea that building a few windmills and buying a Prius is going to do anything at all to change anything.

 

BTW, I did the best thing anyone that believes in man made CC can do and didn't have any children. If man caused the problem, the solution is obviously not to have children till the population is at least the same as in the 17th century, before the industrial revolution.

[canuckamuck]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You won't get "us" on board because we reject the idea that building a few windmills and buying a Prius is going to do anything at all to change anything.

 

BTW, I did the best thing anyone that believes in man made CC can do and didn't have any children. If man caused the problem, the solution is obviously not to have children till the population is at least the same as in the 17th century, before the industrial revolution.

You should have said 10th century, then the temp would be the same as today.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This is nondeterministic algorithm 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm

You are not the only 'smart' person in the world - or this debate - but you used to think that didnt you??

Explanation:  There are so many non-computable varients (and unknown variables) in models that make predictions of future climate that it is a nondeterministic algorithm.

The classic example of a nondeterministic algorithm would be to ask a computer something like:  Does she really love me?

Some things cannot be computed - there are too many unknowns and too many unknown unknowns.

 

And what has the fact the the device I am using was produced in SEAsia (or not) have to do with the price of sugar?

 

You’ve never heard of Bayesian Prediction and the use of the Posterior Predictive Distribution have you.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You won't get "us" on board because we reject the idea that building a few windmills and buying a Prius is going to do anything at all to change anything.

 

BTW, I did the best thing anyone that believes in man made CC can do and didn't have any children. If man caused the problem, the solution is obviously not to have children till the population is at least the same as in the 17th century, before the industrial revolution.

Yes, I understand the mindset you espouse. It's called cynicism and I refuse to embrace it.

And yes, you have had individually a large impact by not having kids. I rather doubt you did that in response to climate change, but it is still valid.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

You should have said 10th century, then the temp would be the same as today.

False:

"It is thought that between c. 950 and c. 1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was only in the 20th and 21st centuries that the Northern Hemisphere experienced warmer temperatures. Climatic Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a globally uniform event.^[8]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period}

[ELVIS123456]

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/05/north-atlantic-cooling-has-plunged-below-1950s-and-1800s-levels-and-scientists-project-more-cooling/

 

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/record-cold-in-australia/news-story/6545967e12ba597ca4f9de97fecd788c

 

Quote:  A cold snap has delivered some of the chilliest temperatures in decades to parts of Australia’s east coast, with more frosty mornings to come.

Quote:  But when it's record cold, the news reports don't mention global warming.

 

[JCauto]

1 minute ago, ELVIS123456 said:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/05/north-atlantic-cooling-has-plunged-below-1950s-and-1800s-levels-and-scientists-project-more-cooling/

 

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/record-cold-in-australia/news-story/6545967e12ba597ca4f9de97fecd788c

 

Quote:  A cold snap has delivered some of the chilliest temperatures in decades to parts of Australia’s east coast, with more frosty mornings to come.

Quote:  But when it's record cold, the news reports don't mention global warming.

 

Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, cold in one place doesn't disprove global warming any more than putting my arm in the freezer does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems. 

In fact, climate change will inevitably result in some places becoming cooler, this being the macro-level impacts on weather systems. The key issue is "change", and the driver is the "climate" which is becoming on a global scale "warmer". Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just taking inspiration from this doofus? 

http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/

[micmichd]

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

Yes, I understand the mindset you espouse. It's called cynicism and I refuse to embrace it.

And yes, you have had individually a large impact by not having kids. I rather doubt you did that in response to climate change, but it is still valid.

What's wrong with cynicism?

Cynicism is the weapon of the intelligent against those in power. Ever heard of Diogenes of Sinope masturbating on the idea of platonic love as propagated from the philosophers on the other side of the market place in Athens? 

 

Just to add some more cynicism to it: 

It's not the number of children, it's their ecological footprint that counts. A fat Western child uses 3 times as much than an African child. So, getting rid of a Western child should have significantly more impact on the climate than getting rid of a Southern child. 

Face it: not only by numbers but also due to obesity Western Europe is much more overcrowded than the South of the world.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, JCauto said:

In fact, climate change will inevitably result in some places becoming cooler, this being the macro-level impacts on weather systems. The key issue is "change", and the driver is the "climate" which is becoming on a global scale "warmer".

And so we circle back to an earlier point; that climate "change" of any sort, in any direction, is claimed by activists to be driven by, or at the very least "consistent with", catastrophic man-made global warming.

 

Hot, cold, wet, dry, it's all man-made global warming, according to the activists. It's a living demonstration of the saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When all you have is a hatred of capitalist industry, or humanity in general, everything looks like a greenhouse gas-driven crisis.

 

On the face of it, it looks like a good strategy, but the problem is that everyone has now seen through it, and the activists have no Plan B. The climate alarmism ship still floats in the ocean, but very few people remain on board.