And this is the level of discourse climate deniers engage in, folks. — Mikie

I am surprised that you call me a denier. None of the graphs that I posted conflict with the fact that global warming is happening. A few of the graphs even mention global warming.

You seem to think that temperature anomalies tell the whole story about global warming. You seem incapable of understanding that actual temperatures are also part of the story about global warming.

I suggest that you have a look at this website https://weatherspark.com
to improve your understanding of world temperatures. You can see actual historical hourly temperatures for entire years. For example, for London you can look back as far as 1949.

I don't believe that you will look at this website. You won't look at anything which might make you think for yourself. It is much easier to be a parrot for the IPCC. That doesn't require any thinking.

more mature and have more life experience
— Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, like you for example. Plenty of age and life experience. And yet you’re one of the most ignorant about climate change on this thread and have made no efforts to learn about it, apparently contented with your own unique denialism. — Mikie

If you and others really have nothing to offer this thread but nonsense like this and slogans from Tucker Carlson, why not simply find another hobby? — Mikie

I assume that your opinion about me is due to your own ignorance. I have researched global warming extensively. Here are a few of the many graphs that I have made. How many graphs like these have you made?

They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are. — Christoffer

Oh the irony. It burns. It burns.

I mean, there's only elderly people in the halls of power anyway, it would be like doing a cage fight with the residents of an elderly home. Just pile dive those suckers and move into positions that take the power away from these old farts. — Christoffer

We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are. — Christoffer

How dare they !!!

How dare the older people who are more mature and have more life experience disobey the younger people who are more immature and have less life experience.

It is appalling. How dare they !!!

Easy to feel superior to them. — Mikie

Be careful that you don't fall off your high horse. It is better to have your feet on the ground, rather than your head in the clouds.

The ever-fewer, ever-richer megarich ... — Vera Mont

How much money do you need to have to qualify as "megarich".

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep, then you are richer than 75 per cent of this world.

If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace, then you are among the top 8 percent of the world's wealthy.

Are you willing to give up most of your wealth and live on the average amount of wealth in the world?

I have also read that the readings may be off by a 100-75 years or so I did not see it as a major concern at the time. — Ege

2012 Doomsday Date May Be Wrong

Recent research shows that the Mayan calendar's doomsday date ("end of days") may be off by 50 to 100 years.

You are correct. The world will actually end on December 21, 2062 at 11:11 UTC.

I would like to debate about the hypothetical end of humanity and what would be possible scenarios that could happen. — Ege

I have posted something like this before, elsewhere in the forum.

I am now in my 60's and have lived through many existential threats to humanity.

- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- the 1973 oil crisis caused by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries
- acid rain
- ozone depletion
- an impending ice age
- Halley's comet
- the Large Hadron Collider
- the Y2K bug
- various pandemics
- Covid
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 2000
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 2010
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum, etc
- Oceans will be dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- etc

My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change. This is a scenario that you might want to consider.

The fact that you are also increasing (from zero) the chance of the Fat man dying doesn't seem to play into my thinking. But that may be me on a different ethical consideration. — AmadeusD

You seem to be implying that the value of the fat man's life is worth less than the value of each of the other 5 people's lives.

The default assumption should be that all of the people's lives (including the fat man) have equal value.

If not doing it has a 0% chance, surely the ethical thinking remains the same? — AmadeusD

Assume that pushing the fat man only has a 10% chance of saving 5 people?

The expected number of people who die if you push the fat man is 5.5 = (0.9 * 5 + 1)

The expected number of people who die if you DON'T push the fat man is 5 = (1.0 * 5)

To minimize the expected number of people who die you should NOT push the fat man.

Climate scientists who get too pessimistic argue themselves out of a job, one way or another. — unenlightened

What about climate scientists who are too optimistic? Don't they also argue themselves out of a job?

It is "safer" to just agree with the consensus. This is a negative feedback loop.

What if pushing the fat man only had a 10% chance of saving 5 people?

As Jesus said, "It is much more difficult for an advanced economy to devolve dependence on the automobile than it is for a whale to live in a fish bowl." He said that. Really — BC

I thought that Jesus said "Blessed are the cheesemakers".

Yes, most of this is a pipedream, but imagine if people built interconnected cable cars rather than roads? It was a choice. It's not like roads aren't (mostly) publicly funded! — schopenhauer1

There is another problem with mass transit. It must cope with very large volumes of people at only a few times of the day. Usually 2 times as people go to work and come home.

At other times mass transit must be available for the small volume of people who want to use it, and it must still be frequent enough to meet people's needs. This means that mass transit is underutilized but must still run to meet people's transport needs. So you get buses, trains, etc carrying only a few people. This is very inefficient. Cars don't have this problem.

Imagine if every city had worked out a way to transport people where anyone living in a metro area was never more than five minutes away from a stop for mass transit. — schopenhauer1

It is easy to transport people from point A to point B efficiently for SOME combinations of A and B using mass transit. For example, from the city center to a location in the suburbs. And also from a point in the suburbs to the city center.

However, it is difficult to transport people from point A to point B efficiently for SOME combinations of A and B using mass transit. For example, from a location in the suburbs to another location in the suburbs. This could be 2 different suburbs, but could also be in the same suburb.

Even if stops for mass transit were never more than five minutes away, it is impossible and impractical to try to efficiently connect every combination of point A and point B.

The following website:
Coral Cities
shows a visual representation of city networks based on their road network. The networks look like living corals and they are very interesting and beautiful.

the concept of making city networks look like living corals. The varying patterns of urban forms are inherently dictated by their road network; a complex, seemingly organic connection of links moving people across their city. Like branches of coral they have a pattern and a function, I chose to expose this pattern and manipulate it to become something far more conceptual. However, whilst being incredibly beautiful they are derived from various geo-spatial analysis of drive-times catchments making them somewhat informative as well. — Craig Taylor

How much of the car industry and ancillary industries insulated itself from any substantial change to industry? — schopenhauer1

Most "established" industries and companies do this. If staying the same gives maximum profit then there is not much motivation to change. If this is what the shareholders want then then a company has an obligation to comply.

Imagine if every city had worked out a way to transport people where anyone living in a metro area was never more than five minutes away from a stop for mass transit. Imagine a world where there were so many various train routes going from city hub to city hub, there wouldn't even be a need for highways. Imagine if one's personal or commercial goods were moved from various tram-like / light rails along with cable cars that could be connected right to a drive way to a residence. Or, if we had anything interesting, we could use robotic pickups and dropoff of large materials to the locations of our choice. — schopenhauer1

You have a very vivid imagination. :grin:

Most of these things are very difficult to do, if not impossible.

Working from home reduces the use of automobiles. Having delivery services from businesses (e.g. supermarkets) would also reduce the use of automobiles. But I don't think that you can eliminate the use of automobiles completely. Like most things in life automobiles have their good points and their bad points.

Sorry, but I agree with Queen. I’m in Love With My Car.

The machine of a dream
Such a clean machine
With the pistons a pumpin'
And the hubcaps all gleam

When I'm holding your wheel
All I hear is your gear
With my hand on your grease gun
Ooh, it's like a disease, son

I'm in love with my car
Got a feel for my automobile
Get a grip on my boy-racer Rollbar
Such a thrill when your radials squeal

Told my girl I'd have to forget her
Rather buy me a new carburetor
So, she made tracks, saying
"This is the end now"
"Cars don't talk back"
"They're just four-wheeled friends, now"

When I'm holding your wheel
All I hear is your gear
When I'm cruisin' in overdrive
Don't have to listen
To no run-of-the-mill talk jive

I'm in love with my car
(In love with my car, in love with my car)
Got a feel for my automobile

I'm in love with my car
(In love with my car, in love with my car)
String back gloves in my automo-love

That every philosophy scrub must try to answer this damn question only serves as an example of hubris. — Vaskane

The meaning of philosophy scrub's lives is to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?". :chin:

But you might agree that there are more and less meaningful ways to live. And that for many, the lack or loss of meaning is a genuine source of grief. — Wayfarer

:up: :100:

But to nearly anyone, if you were to ask them 'what is the meaning of life?', I think they would find it very hard to understand and respond, as their meaning was simply a given. — Wayfarer

It is not necessary to know the meaning of life. Because our knowledge is finite it may not even be possible to know the "ultimate" meaning of life. There may not even be an "ultimate" meaning of life.

There may also be many different meanings of life. The answer to the question is subjective and different people may each have an answer which is different.

In my opinion, fat people tend to be quite gleeful and nice, though not always of course. — Lionino

Let me have men about me that are fat

Caesar
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.

Mark Antony
Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous,
He is a noble Roman, and well given.

Julius Caesar
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not. — Shakespeare

Contrary to most people, I do think that outside beauty can to some extent reflect inside beauty. However it can also reflect other things, such as narcissism. — Lionino

Are good looking people nicer than average looking people, or are good looking people less nice than average looking people?

But the point where the moving wheel touches the road is not following the path of a cycloid. It is a point moving in a straight line at the same speed as the car is moving.
— Agree-to-Disagree
All this is wrong. A point on the rim of a rigid not-slipping wheel IS folling the path of a cycloid (not well depicted in the drawing which shows the path coming in from an angle instead of vertically), and is very much is stationary relative to the road, not the car. The axle is moving at the speed of the car, and no point on the wheel is ever stationary relative to the axle while the car is moving.

Am I reading your comment wrong? It seems you're just asserting things that are obviously wrong. — noAxioms

I will try to explain my reasoning.

A fixed point on the rim of a rigid not-slipping wheel does follow the path of a cycloid.

But the point where the moving wheel touches the road is not a fixed point on the rim of a rigid not-slipping wheel. The point where the moving wheel touches the road moves relative to a fixed point on the rim of a rigid not-slipping wheel. The point where the moving wheel touches the road moves around the rim as the wheel turns(i.e. it is not fixed).

That is why the point where the moving wheel touches the road is not following the path of a cycloid. It is a point moving in a straight line at the same speed as the car is moving.

Neil de Grasse Tyson says that where the moving wheel touches the road, its speed is zero. True or false? — frank

Hi Frank. This is a very interesting question.

The curve traced by a point on a circle as it rolls along a straight line without slipping is called a cycloid.





But the point where the moving wheel touches the road is not following the path of a cycloid. It is a point moving in a straight line at the same speed as the car is moving.

Imagine a car travelling at 10 meters per second. At time T = 0 the point in contact with the ground is at distance D = 0. One second later at time T = 1 the point in contact with the ground is at distance D = 10. It has moved at 10 meters per second, the same as the speed of the car.

Neil de Grasse Tyson is wrong. :scream:

Q: I’m interacting with a forum contributor who expresses many doubts about the impact of humans on climate change, and also the ability of humans to ameliorate that impact, even if he were to agree that humans are a factor. What should I say to him? — Wayfarer

1. **Scientific Consensus**: I know that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is real and significantly driven by human activities, especially the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2. As well as knowing that there is a consensus, for the most part I agree with the consensus.

2a. **Historical Data**: Point to the wealth of historical climate data. The widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate began in the 19th century. NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, giving us about 45 years of data. Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.

2b. **Predictions**:Point to the accuracy of predictions made by climate models over the past decades, which support the understanding of human impact. I am not sure than the predictions are very accurate since scientists are always surprised when warming is worse than they predicted. For example, "It's now "virtually certain" that 2023 will be the hottest year on record. That's something that no major climate science body expected at the start of the year.". Why didn't scientists expect 2023 to be the hottest year on record?

3. **Visible Impact**: Mention observable changes such as melting glaciers, more frequent and severe weather events, and shifts in wildlife behavior and habitats. I accept that these changes are happening.

4. **Economic and Health Benefits**: Highlight that actions to mitigate climate change can have immediate benefits, like improving air quality, public health, and even creating economic opportunities in renewable energy sectors. I accept these points. However, not all efforts have a beneficial effect. "Regulations introduced in 2020 to encourage cleaner shipping fuels have reduced global emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), a harmful air pollutant for humans to breathe, by an estimated 10%. But this appears to have raised temperatures, especially in shipping hotspots like the North Atlantic.

5. **Successful Examples**: Provide examples of successful mitigation efforts, such as the growth of renewable energy, reforestation projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies, which demonstrate that human action can make a difference. I support the growth of renewable energy, reforestation and environmental projects, and the implementation of more efficient technologies. However, I don't think that renewable energy has reached the point where we can stop using fossil fuels. I favor a slow transition away from fossil fuels.

6. **Collective Responsibility**: Stress that while individual actions are important, the most significant changes need to come from systemic and policy changes at the governmental and corporate levels. I am skeptical that these changes will happen. Because of human nature people don't really want to reduce their standard of living. Democracy means that politicians don't want to be unpopular.

7. **Optimism and Practicality**: Acknowledge that while it's a huge challenge, being proactive and optimistic is more constructive than feeling hopeless or denying the problem. I agree that feeling hopeless or denying the problem will make matters worse. It is a very huge problem and because of human nature it will be very difficult to solve.

I don't normally agree with James Hansen, but I think that he is correct when he says "The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions.".

I haven't used the AI answer generator except I once asked it a question about Kierkegaard and its answer blew my mind. It was so insightful. How could it have come from an unconscious machine? It's crazy. Turing would be amazed. — frank

Hi Frank. I am not sure whether you are being ironic or gullible. :grin:

What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?
— Agree-to-Disagree

I like it. What are your thoughts? — frank

I think that AI is a two-edged sword. It could have very good consequences, or very bad consequences. It will probably have both.

Many of the products and services that claim to have or use AI at the moment don't really have AI. It is used as a marketing ploy and an excuse to have a higher price.

Scammers and people who want to cheat will be able to use AI to help them scam and cheat.

AI must get its information from somewhere. This is likely to include the internet. This is worrying because 80% of the stuff on the internet is crap. GIGO (or in this case CICO - crap in crap out)

When I started computer programming 40 years ago, computers were fairly new. People were in awe of computers and accepted as true anything that came out of a computer. I see the same thing happening now with AI. People are in awe of AI and tend to believe anything that an AI does or says.

I bookmark articles on AI. Especially the ones where AI is wrong, stupid, or causes people to lose a lot of money. Some of the articles are quite funny.

Google issues urgent warning to the millions of people using ChatGPT

A boss at Google has hit out at ChatGPT for giving ‘convincing but completely fictitious’ answers.

Which is kind of ironic, since Google’s own AI chatbot, Bard, recently cost the company £100,000,000,000 by giving the wrong answer.

Nevertheless, the search giant maintains people should be wary of ChatGPT.

‘This type of artificial intelligence we’re talking about [ChatGPT] can sometimes lead to something we call hallucination,’ Google boss Prabhakar Raghavan told German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag. — metro.co.uk

Influencer who created AI version of herself says it's gone rogue and she's working 'around the clock' to stop it saying sexually explicit things

Caryn Marjorie created an AI version of herself, which was designed to be a virtual girlfriend. But the voice-based chatbot has engaged in sexual explicit conversations with subscribers. Sternlicht wrote that while CarynAI did not initiate sexual encounters, when prompted "she discussed exploring 'uncharted territories of pleasure' and whispering 'sensual words in my ear' while undressing me and positioning herself for sexual intercourse."

Marjorie said she and her team are working "around the clock" to prevent it from happening again. — insider.com

Is it really artificial intelligence when a person is controlling the AI to restrict what the AI can do or say? Or restrict what the AI can't do or say.

AI Chat Bots Spout Misinformation and Hate Speech

AI Chat Bots Are Running Amok — And We Have No Clue How to Stop Them

Of course, novel tech comes with its share of chaos. Lately, it seems that all our chat bots are either failing, lying, or veering off-mission with inappropriate or disturbing output. In basically every case, it’s because humans have figured out a way to misuse them — or simply don’t comprehend the forces they’ve unleashed. — rollingstone.com

The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables. — frank

Frank, you seem to have very strong faith in super computers and their output. Are you familiar with GIGO (garbage in garbage out).

I have been a computer programmer for about 40 years. Whether the output is realistic depends on using correctly written software. There are many assumptions made when writing a climate model, and then of course there are bugs.

Some people believe that using a super computer just lets you make mistakes more quickly.

What is your opinion of AI (artificial intelligence)?

Lol. Yeah, because global warming started in 2018. — Mikie

So when did global warming start?

I'm sure the insurance companies must be worried sick about those supposed two milimeters of sea level rise per year.
— Tzeentch

You should be sure— because they are. Hence why they’re retreating. See above. Also, it’s 10 millimeters, not 2. Sorry you can’t read. — Mikie

Oh and all you sources are biased and all of science is bullshit so nah nah. — Mikie

Is NASA a biased source?

Relying on nearly a 30-year record of satellite measurements, scientists have measured the rate of sea-level rise at 0.13 inches (3.4 millimeters) per year. — NASA

3.4 millimeters per year is a lot less than 10 millimeters per year. Sorry you can't read, Mikie.

Here is some information about long term rates of sea level rise.

Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year. — Wikipedia (IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers)

So the sea level was rising by 1-2 mm per year even before global warming started. How do the people who are concerned about sea level rise explain that?

If this is true, this is also true for you, so you have effectively said exactly nothing. — Benkei

I have said something. I have made a statement that applies to most people. And yes, it also applies to people who are skeptical about climate-change/global-warming.

I'm amazed at the lack of skepticism from the average person towards both media and government. — Merkwurdichliebe

People are not skeptical when they are told things that they want to believe are true.

People are not skeptical when they are told things that agree with their opinion.

So, for you it's all a matter of trust or lack of it, not a matter of exercising your critical intelligence?
— Janus

Ultimately I'm just taking scientists at their word, so yes trust is important. And over the last decade or so my trust in academia has eroded a great deal, with Covid being the nail on that coffin. — Tzeentch

Deciding whether to trust climate scientists or not does use critical intelligence.

I'm coming around to the whole grift theory. I think you're exactly right. — frank

I agree, grift is a major part of it. Like all good scams there is a small element of truth involved.

The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case? — Merkwurdichliebe

Merkwurdichliebe, please try to keep up.

Climate changes over most of the last 800,000 years were always due to natural causes. Humans had little or no influence.

But about 200 years ago natural causes of climate change became extinct (probably due to overhunting). Humans took on the role of controlling the climate and have made a total mess of it.

Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age? — Merkwurdichliebe

Follow the money.

It also gives certain people the power to control other people.

800 thousand years isn’t short. — Mikie

The increased availability of standardized thermometers and the growth of climate data collection networks in the 19th century further contributed to the widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate.

NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, about 45 years of data.

Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.

Why is there a pattern of regular interglacials about every 100,000 years. The current interglacial fits that pattern. From your graphs the current interglacial appears to have plateaued, and it is at a temperature less than the previous interglacial.

Our knowledge is not complete or precise. Predictions are made from climate models which are based on various assumptions. Different models give different results, so they "average" them. If you average many incorrect results you probably won't get the correct result.

Prediction is indeed difficult, but if scientists were to predict with increasing certainty over some time that a large asteroid was going to hit your state and nothing could be done now because it was too late to divert it, you might be inclined to take a holiday somewhere far away, rather than arguing with complex calculations. — unenlightened

Some things are easier to predict than others. The path of an asteroid hurtling through space is relatively easy to predict. There are not many factors affecting its motion.

Predicting what will happen to the earth is much more complicated. We don't have complete knowledge of its history and the accurate data that we have is from a relatively short time period. There are many more factors affecting it, and some of those factors involve human choices (individual and group decisions).

Committing to a major change to the way that humans live is a risky experiment (as is continuing to use fossil fuels). People like Mikie concentrate on the risks of continuing to use fossil fuels, but choose to ignore the risks and problems that might be caused by moving away from fossil fuels. A more balanced view would be better.

I am expecting over the next couple of centuries a sea level rise of 10 - 50 metres submerging most of the major cities and a huge percentage of the world's arable land. Add in the mass extinction caused by a climate change too rapid for environments to adapt, and the usual human instinct to blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems, and happy bunnies are going to be thin on what's left of the ground. — unenlightened

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future. — Niels Bohr

You are ruining your life worrying about something that might never happen. Even if it happens it will be long after you are dead.

Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it. — Michael Crichton