Digging through pig $#!+ for kernels of corn.
If you really want corn, eat it before the pigs. The rest of us will go for the bacon.
Comment on Week in review by aaron
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by AK
<blockquote>Zhou was being a witty communist.</blockquote>Actually, he was paraphrasing something Sun Tsu said, I don't remember exactly where. But he was also being very perceptive.
"War" has had many meanings, most of them involving organized violence, although there's always a sort of fuzzy fringe of not-quite-violent metaphores. In von Clausewitz's time, "war" within the framework of European tradition (not counting Guerrilla actions) actually <b>was</b> a continuation of the power/status struggle represented by "diplomacy".
But for Joe (Zhou), the "war" he was referring to was a sinicized version of Marx's "class war", a contest dedicated to total obliteration of the enemy. Much more like Clausewitz's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war" rel="nofollow"><i>"absolute war"</i></a>, which he introduced as a <i>"reductio ad absurdam"</i> relative to the Western/European tradition of war.
I would loosely define the difference as between trying to impose your will on the "enemy", and entirely obliterating the enemy (no quotes) so as to enjoy existence without them. The former, AFAIK, can always be traced back, culturally, to contest for power <b>within</b> an organized front with more "absolute" external enemies: Thus the system of nation-states of (Western) Europe evolved from among non-national polities that made up a cultural horizon with far more destructive external enemies, especially Islam.
Because those <b>within</b> that organized front depend on their opponents in that internal power struggle for mutual defense against the external enemies, strict rules and limits tend to be imposed, primarily by "neutrals" whose primary incentive is to preserve the war-making capacities of both sides.
Beginning with the French Revolution, this system began to break down, because idealistic defenders of the "oppressed" classes considered them natural allies to outsiders being systematically defeated and colonized by the ascendant "Western" religious/military/cultural horizon.
Joe's version of "war" derives from that revolution.
IMO.
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates
I appreciate everyone’s input on this volcanic forcing/LIA discussion. It seems there is some mistaken belief that a huge decline to ocean heat content to the IPWP, which seems very likely to have occurred during the active volcanic period of 1225 to 1275, would instantly translate into monolithic and sustained global cooling event. This is not at all the case. The system is far too complex and has far too much thermal inertia for even this very active volcanic period to cause a sudden sustained long term cooling. It would take a cataclysmic eruption or asteroid strike to do that. What the 1225-1275 period did was tip the scales toward a cooling period which began working its way through the global climate system over many decades. This was further reinforced through sea ice and ocean feedbacks and then the mega eruption of 1453 further reinforced the cooling.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer
Coal fired power plants don’t concentrate mercury in one spot (landfills) where it leaches into the water table. That happens when people throw CFL light bulbs into the trash. Someone needs to man up but it isn’t CD or Barnes.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer
Same guy who thought the island in the pacific was going to capsize if they built a military base on one side of it? Or maybe just a brother by another mother?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by PA
Let’s not and say we did (talk the talk and don’t walk the walk).
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by PA
It doesn’t remove statutory authority – but it does remove statutory enforcers.
Where there is no patrol car there is no speed limit.
↧
Comment on Week in review by climatereason
Rgates
I have only just seen the Captains graph immediately above your post. It chimes with my research which shows a substantial decline during the 13th century BEFORE those volcanos, (also noted in the glacier records) with a slight recovery immediately afterwards and then basically a pretty warm 14th century with several notable and documented heat waves.
As I have said before, the 1400′;s are largely a closed book to me at the moment but there was certainly a good recovery during the first half of the 16th century.
There is no sign these volcanos were LIA gateways. They took place during an existing downturn and none of the four separate documentary records I have demonstrate a prolonged period of lasting severity, merely a few changeable seasons and intermittent severe weather
Can you repost that graphic from a few weeks ago where the ocean temperatures had been reconstructed showing a MWP high and a decline, then a warming again over the last century.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
R. Gates, “I appreciate everyone’s input on this volcanic forcing/LIA discussion. It seems there is some mistaken belief that a huge decline to ocean heat content to the IPWP, which seems very likely to have occurred during the active volcanic period of 1225 to 1275, would instantly translate into monolithic and sustained global cooling event. This is not at all the case.”
Right, Even with a “global” cooling event there would be internal pseudo-oscillations on the way down and the way back to normal. It should take roughly the same amount of time to recover as it does to lose the total energy. That is why declaring that the event ended at some assumed period without considering the internal oscillations would be a giant leap of faith.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer
climatereason | November 17, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Reply
“Sceptics have got to stop using the words ‘hoax’ and ‘conspiracy’”
Sceptic don’t have to do anything.
“and stop thinking all consensus climate scientists are idiots.”
No one thinks that. They were tested and it was found that 3% of them are not ldiots.
“A proportion of them are advocates and some over promote their work but they didn’t become scientists by being stupid.”
97% of them became pseudoscientists by being stupid. Or gullible. I’m equating gullible and stupid.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer
GaryM | November 17, 2014 at 3:28 pm | Reply
“They caved on the debt ceiling increase repeatedly already. They will do so again, and have said so.”
You’re complaining that Republicans want to pay our bills instead of defaulting, ruining the good faith and credit of the United States, ruining the world’s most trusted currency, and throwing the global economy into a tailspin?
Seriously? Those BAD Republicans, huh?
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
tonyb, there are a lot more variables to consider in the northern hemisphere due to the lower specific heat capacity of the land mass and potential for over season snow retention, i.e. glacier building.
That is my interpretation of the Crowley et a. volcanic by hemisphere and the steinhilber et al. solar dTSI. If you remember that there is still going to be internal, primarily NH intensive oscillations, determining “cause” isn’t going to be easy.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by DocMartyn
Josh, why do you quote mercury emission from 2006?
You must be surely aware that emission of Mercury from US power stations have been cut following modern EPA regulations?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by PA
Don’t know what to tell you JCH.
PDO is above average. Surface air temperatures are warm – which means a lot of OLR (a lot of cooling). Depends on whether the energy is coming from stored surface energy or increased insolation (fewer clouds). We could be cooling, we could be warming.
Given that the natural cycles are cycles (they go up and down) it will get cooler at some point.
The basic perception problem of the strong warming community is they put a straight edge through the 1990s warming, drew a line and said it is going to continue forever without drastic action (the same thing has been done with sea level).
Warming and sea level are driven by natural cycles. If they went up forever they would be called natural ramps.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JCH
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2014/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2014" rel="nofollow">PDO</a>
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer
re; high information voters
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
“Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated”
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Willard
A list of members:
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by kcom
Are you really going to make that lame argument, Jim D? Are you that big of an Obama toady? He did it after the election so you have no choice but to check your brain at the door and follow his lead?
The voter turnout in the 2012 US presidential election was just under 60%. Obama got approximately 51% of the vote. By your logic, only 30% of people voted for Obama. Which means 70% did not vote for Obama or the Democrats. That’s more than 2 to 1 against. What significance does that have to the way the electoral system really works? None. Just as your argument has no significance when applied to 2014. Your attempt to move the goalposts after the fact is laughable.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by PA
JCH | November 18, 2014 at 9:03 am |
PDO
Fine. I got out my popcorn, we will see what happens. I think there is weak CO2 forcing.
SAGW (strong forcing) is right – the temperature will go up.
Either natural cycles or solar is right – more hiatus.
Both natural and solar are right – it gets cooler.
When we talk about warming do you mean raw/real or … ahem … “homogenized/pasteurized” temperatures?
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by kcom1
“It knew in advance that some of the loans would go south”
Did it also know that many of them would be utterly corrupt?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
