Anthropogenic Global Warming

consider yourself corrected on the simple point that industrial pollution is harmful to life on Earth in many ways

I needed no such correction: Pollution is -by definition- harmful…

It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.

For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets…

And these are empirical scientific statements

…made by political bodies, for political purposes. And when they are not supported by current science, current science has to be disparaged…
———————————————————————————————————————————————

The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.

You'd need a command economy to accomplish this dream, wouldn't you?

Almost a third of the world has tried that… How'd it work out?

but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible

In other words, reality didn't conform to your preconceptions! So sorry, dude… You must be the first child ever to be required to grow up!
But -truth be told- I don't believe you: I think you got lazy and your government wouldn't support your idleness.

@Belfrager: You may be suffering from advanced syphilis… Please see a doctor!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #380 – 2015-08-27, 06:06:51

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27
It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.
For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets…

This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27
And these are empirical scientific statements
…made by political bodies, for political purposes. And when they are not supported by current science, current science has to be disparaged…

Sure, science can be politicised. That's the way you want it, but I'm not going along with it.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27
The solution is to free the markets in real sense, so that subsistence farming really is affordable, i.e. so that highly processed stuff produced half a globe away is more expensive and the unprocessed local stuff is cheap to produce and obtain. This is the way it logically should be.
You'd need a command economy to accomplish this dream, wouldn't you? Almost a third of the world has tried that… How'd it work out?

All areas of economy are regulated to some degree in every country. No exception. The only question is to what degree and in what relative proportions.

You can choose to destroy local integration by enabling global outsourcing or you can choose to enable local integration by having controls on global outsourcing. The principle is simple, but since there's more massive turnover in global corporate trade...

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 13:21:27
but at some point capitalism began strangling the markets so hard that it became impossible
In other words, reality didn't conform to your preconceptions!

In other words, you are saying that the way I grew up was not reality. This is really the bottom line, isn't it: Reality is whatever you say it is, never how people actually live and experience.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #381 – 2015-08-27, 09:45:13

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-26, 22:06:51

@Belfrager: You may be suffering from advanced syphilis… Please see a doctor!

Why? do we get syphilis by eating California's fruits? That's a novelty for me...
Anyway rest assured, I eat nothing from Central Valley.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #382 – 2015-08-28, 01:43:40

It's destructive of environment and even affects climate.

For me, those are empirical questions. For you, they're ideological tenets…

He disagrees and he,ersi, says "This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics" when I ask for published scientific articles. If he would forgo the egregious political machinations of the AGW crowd, I'd give him his quietude… Ohm!

Eat your vegetables, ersi! (And you and Belfrager can avoid California's Central Valley's largesse, easily! Can't you?

)

Is this topic about AGW or something else? (Perhaps, marginalized European pseudo-intellectuals and/or mystics!? And how the world would be run, if they were "in charge"…

)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #383 – 2015-08-28, 07:11:15

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 01:43:40

He disagrees and he,ersi, says "This can easily be seen by observing which one of us keeps going on about politics" when I ask for published scientific articles.

We covered this point rather well. You were not asking for scientific articles on the topic.

Your own references have been a crank statistician, political articles, and predictions of warming which is an unscientifically Anglo-centric thing to do. You could just as well say that economy is not real because nobody was able to predict the burst of the subprime bubble, the great depression or the China crash this week.

A specific prediction and the theoretical model as such are different things. If the model is dynamic (non-linear) - which it is in case of the greenhouse - your insistence on warming only demonstrates your ignorance. Your obsession with politics, worship of industry, and insane anti-environmentalism are not exactly helping either.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #384 – 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-27, 23:11:15

Your own references have been a crank statistician, political articles, and predictions of warming which is an unscientifically Anglo-centric thing to do. You could just as well say that economy is not real because nobody was able to predict the burst of the subprime bubble, the great depression or the China crash this week.

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen… (But you no longer "like" him…

)

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it? Where are the papers that document anomalous climate change? And -more importantly- where are the papers that attribute such to human activity?
If the problem is de-forestation, why do we need to stop burning coal? If the problem is burning coal, why do we need to dispense with natural gas? If the problem is "carbon" — why shouldn't we wipe the earth clean of life!?
(Your answer will likely be incoherent: Something akin to Prof. Ehrlich's screeds.)
Seriously: Pollution is a perennial problem. "Solving" it takes money — and the means to make more.
If you're not willing to sacrifice a large portion of your ("their"?

) population, you need an understanding of the real world. Which, I think, you not only lack but prefer to ignore…

I'm sure you abhor GMOs. And nuclear power generation. And everything since the invention of printing! (You'd have been against that too.) Your stance is not actually incoherent -except to you: You'd like the world to return to feudalism.
But you won't say so!
Ain't gonna happen, dude! (Do you know where the term "dude" comes from…? Let me know, either here or in private… I promise to expose your ignorance!)

Anglo-centric?

You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world? Yikes! To my way of thinking, that makes you a monster!
But prosperity is the only good solution.
And you reject it!

Which, to my way of thinking, makes you a … (Well, you know.)

BTW: If you want to be a "subsistence" farmer, you need to know what that means! (You'll only grow enough to keep body and soul together, dude!) If you want more, you'll need to "relax" your penchant for "commanding" your fellows…)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #385 – 2015-08-28, 10:51:08

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen… (But you no longer "like" him… )

What about him? Do you have something to actually say?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it?

No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Anglo-centric? You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?

No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #386 – 2015-08-28, 12:41:25

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-28, 10:51:08

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Among others, I gave you links to papers by Lindzen… (But you no longer "like" him… )

What about him? Do you have something to actually say?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Your bugaboo ("warming") is supposedly replaced by "climate change" — I take it?

No. What I'm saying is that the greenhouse effect should never have been replaced by warming. You can read this in the very first page of this thread, and I have been consistent with this throughout. But your reading comprehension is as it is...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-28, 08:47:58

Anglo-centric? You mean, you'd kill most of the world's current population — to satisfy your "way" of looking at the world?

No. I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms. If you do neither, you are guilty of obfuscation. For example, Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world. Greenhouse effect is the scientific term, provided that you want to talk science, whereas global warming and climate change are a deviation, signalling that you don't want to talk science. And Anglo-Americans are full of it.

Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.

About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.

You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"? You'll have to eliminate all life on Earth. "Global Warming"? You'll certainly have to get rid of every modern device since the invention of--- hey, Og just discovered he can make fire! "Climate Change"? Uh---- I don't know how you stop the Earth from doing what it has been doing since the planet came together as one cohesive body. It's always been going from warm to cool to warm to cool and so on.

I would submit here that industrial farming, for all the bad rap it gets, may leave the human race in a better position to adapt to change than subsistence farming does. Of course, in order to do this industrial farming itself has to be able to adapt--- change is gonna happen and there's not a lot you and I can do to stop it.

Right now we have the ability-- poorly managed I'll admit but we have it-- to feed people all over the world. On your subsistence farm, depending only on your own abilities--- you're subject to floods, drought, bugs, vandals and I don't know what else that can decimate crops. Industrial farms are subject to the same thing of course--- but large-scale farming that covers an enormous area can absorb trouble a little better simply because of the "economy of scale".

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #387 – 2015-08-28, 13:21:15

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-28, 10:51:08

Negro is the right word for the African race, "black" is a politically correct obfuscation that does not fit most languages of the world.

Negro is just Spanish for black, and from the perspective of a Germanic language I'd say it's Latinate words that obfuscate.

Anyway, politically correct would be something like Afro/African-American, not black.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #388 – 2015-08-28, 13:25:34

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-28, 12:41:25

Ersi--- you might want to re-think a few things. Suppose you're on the South Side of Chicago and you call somebody a "Negro". Got your running shoes on? You're gonna need them--- trust me on this.

When you know/If you knew e.g. Russian, you would not want to be called Black. You would definitely prefer Negro. Trust me on this.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-28, 12:41:25

About the other stuff---- Bull Malarkey. Double Bull Malarkey. "Greenhouse Gasses" "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" all mean about the same thing these days. At least they do the way they're getting thrown around in these discussions here and elsewhere.

Colloquially, yes. Scientifically, no.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-28, 12:41:25

You wanna get rid of "Greenhouse Gasses"?

No.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #389 – 2015-08-28, 15:45:16

ersi, the "greenhouse effect" (as you call it) is a toy model, appropriate for toy arguments…^* It comes from the beginning of atmospheric science and, unless you're really into AGW theory, stays there; I don't see how you've managed to accept anything as science since Aristotle!

Where are the papers that connect the "greenhouse effect" with measured states of the earth's atmosphere?
And with past and current proportions of greenhouse gasses? (CO₂ comes to mind…

)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-28, 02:51:08

I recommend this: Either use proper (or at least immediately recognisable descriptive) terms, or else define your terms.

If you won't speak the language everyone else understands, shouldn't the noises you make be called babbling?

One simple example (I've asked you about) is "transient climate sensitivity". Can you give me a figure for this (in the appropriate units) and support its derivation? Or would you prefer to keep muttering "greenhouse effect"?

————————————————————————
* By "toy model" I mean "akin to Newton's $F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\$ ," so don't get your panties in a twist because of the terminology…

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #390 – 2015-08-28, 19:50:16

Right here, "negro" is the preferred word for calling the African race all around (forget bullshit like "Afro-Americans" or "afrodescendants"). It's offensive only if used harshly against someone.

The other word, "preto" (which equals to "black") is not widely used and must be applied with care. If you have very close relationships with somebody dark-skinned, you are allowed to call him/her this way.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #391 – 2015-08-28, 20:47:17

They will never understand the difference between a Preto and a Negro, Barulheira. Too much subtle, both for them and for their blacks.

Speaking about African related things and back to thread, Chinese already bought all coal mines at the oriental part of Africa and are building an huge system of railroads to take the coal to the ports where Chinese freighters carries it directly for China. Last year, a new energy plant running with coal was built per day in China. 360 new ones only last year.
Probably they will double it this year.

Oakdale will have to eat his own words but served to him by Chinese. I wonder if he's going to enjoy it as much as the way he thinks Americans are very right with their coal usage.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #392 – 2015-08-28, 21:59:01

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-08-28, 12:47:17

Oakdale will have to eat his own words but served to him by Chinese. I wonder if he's going to enjoy it as much as the way he thinks Americans are very right with their coal usage.

What words are those, Bel?
Where coal is plentiful and cheap, it will be used...

BTW: What happened to Europe's forests?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #393 – 2015-08-29, 07:29:16

ersi, the "greenhouse effect" (as you call it) is a toy model, appropriate for toy arguments…^* It comes from the beginning of atmospheric science and, unless you're really into AGW theory, stays there; ...

If (industrial) pollution (of air and water) exists, AGW is not a theory, but a simple common-sense fact along with acid rains and ozone depletion. The only thing wrong with it is the name. The name implies as if it were (only) about warming.

* By "toy model" I mean "akin to Newton's $F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\$ ," so don't get your panties in a twist because of the terminology…

"Toy model" is not terminology. It's a dyslogistic. It may become a term as soon as you define it so that it can be distinguished from a proper model, but there's never any hope that you ever define anything.

Where are the papers that connect the "greenhouse effect" with measured states of the earth's atmosphere? And with past and current proportions of greenhouse gasses? (CO₂ comes to mind… )

But you just said that it comes from the beginning of atmospheric science. Nobody ever refuted it, so if you know the topic, you know the literature. Or else, as usual, you have no clue what you are asking and even this response here is futile.