GULP!! A La Ni?a Watch!?!??

[elagache]

Dear X-Air and WeatherCat political observers, . . . .

I think that question has one huge and unsolvable variable that is rarely included in any of the computer models: The heat generated by the politicians!

You are so accurate!

Worse still, I get the feeling that the heat generated by these characters is increasing at an exponential rate!

Cheers, Edouard 

[Bull Winkus]

Still the big question remains: "what is the point of no return in greenhouse gas emissions and what would be the indications that the climate cannot return to its previous state no matter what we do?"

IMHO (since to argue from any other POV would be dishonest and pointless), there is no point of no return, but there is a tipping point where things will get out of hand very quickly. The complexity of the system is inherent in the massive quantity of data and extraordinary time span required to rebalance after an excursion into the extreme. The problem is we can't define normal in a climatological sense. We only know what we prefer. The weather that we have enjoyed for the last 6,000 years, for the most part has been very beneficial to us. That may not always be the case, regardless of human activity. This planet, on its own has gone from polar tropics to snowball Earth.

We sit in balance on the edge of a great energy flow, with a massive heat and CO2 sink in our oceans to smooth out the short term extremes on a geologic scale. Plus, there is extreme variability in flora production to aid in counteracting long cycle CO2 buildup through oxygen conversion. But, the resulting carbon cycling is carbon additive to the system as a whole, and is potentially disruptive as well, due to the extremes of variability in fossil fuel conversion back to CO2.

My conclusion is that we must be prepared for that which we cannot control. Utilization of energy from fossil fuels is in our nature, and we are part of the whole of Nature on this planet. We are not going back to stone axes and wood stoves, but increases in CO2 levels will produce shorter Winters, and warmer oceans, which will lead to more abundant flora and faster conversion of CO2 to carbon and oxygen. That may or may not be enough to offset, but increased atmospheric temperature raises its water carrying capacity and increases atmospheric energy ∆ with greater cloud cover and increased activity in violent storms, making it more difficult on the ground for the CO2 producers.

There is no way to predict the outcome, but the struggle will go on for as long as we are here and prefer some ideal climatological condition not currently in evidence. Economic pressures will lead us to gradually adapt. We may move many of our structures underground to take advantage of greater efficiencies in heating and cooling, and greater shielding from violent storms. We may adapt our power distribution systems away from centralization to distributed models through innovations in battery technology and greater numbers of much smaller, more widely distributed power production facilities. We've already started allowing many jobs to work from home, reducing the need for daily commutes.

We are part of Nature, and the goals of our comfort and convenience and economic welfare may not always yield positive influences on the climate, but many times they do, especially over the longer term as we adapt to counteract the effects of our own influence.

 

[xairbusdriver]

Excellent, balanced, rational review of the question. You obviously have no hopes of ever being elected to anything! That will never fit on a bumper sticker or even a 'sound bite'.

[Blicj11]

Thank you to each of you who took the time to express your thoughts on the climate issues. I enjoyed reading your comments and learned from each one of you. This is a great forum, made so by great WeatherCatters.

[elagache]

Dear Herb, X-Air, Blick, and WeatherCat climate watchers,

My conclusion is that we must be prepared for that which we cannot control.

In a sentence this is my deepest concern.  Reducing greenhouse gases is a good idea - no doubt, but it cannot be even the principle focus.  The time has come to try to anticipate what changes are likely to be occurring and make changes so that human life can continue as normally as circumstances permit.

It might ultimately be a matter of life and death.  Currently southern California is extremely vulnerable to a water shortfall.  A natural disaster that doesn't cause loss of life by itself could disrupt the water supply to the southland to the point people wouldn't have enough water to live on.  There is no plan to evacuate the greater Los Angeles area and where could move so many people?

However, there is a surprisingly critical economic reason even for those who want strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Contrary to green dogma, "green technologies" have another common factor - virtually all of them cost more than what they propose to replace.  That cost must be made up for by some sort of economic activity.  So any hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is dependent on as strong an economy as once more circumstances permit.  As climate change disrupts the economy, there is less money available to pay for changes to reduce emissions.  The California economy alone has lost billions of dollars because the current drought - that lost money cannot be spent on green energy.

So the only prudent strategy is a two-pronged one: respond to changing climatic conditions so people can continue to have productive lives and act to change infrastructure to reduce emissions.  Without maintaining people's lives, there will be another catastrophe: the collapse of western civilization.

Honestly, if climate change was the only problem facing the modern world, I believe we could have coped with it (especially if tackled without the handicap of environmental dogma.)  Alas, reducing green gas emissions will not reduce terrorism and religious extremism, it will not reform our economic system, it will not end government gridlock, it won't repair or replace aging infrastructure, it will not promote an ethical treatment of one another, etc., etc., etc.

I fear that for many dreamers, the pursuit of "green" isn't simply a practical solution to a balance of atmospheric chemistry.  Instead, it is a delusion about what utopia might look like.  Such people are extremely dangerous because of their naive idea of what is necessary for people to get along.  They have a confidence that if humans could simply be "natural" everything we want could come true.  The folly is that what they conceive of as "natural" is a completely synthetic creation of civilization.  Human's in their "natural state" (according to evolution) lived extremely hard, painful, and short lives.  Nature cannot be the cure for civilization because civilization was undeniably the cure for humans living in the wild.  As bad as civilization might be, it beats the alternative, and as imperfect and unhappy our current civilization might be, it is still better than anything that has preceded it.

This is the difficult but avoidable reality that everyone in the west should accept.  There is no short-cut to utopia, green or otherwise.

Edouard

[Bull Winkus]

With or without civilization, we are still part of the whole of nature. Our civilization is an adaptation for our comfort and physical well being. It affects nature, goodly or badly, while still being a part of the whole of nature. Just as a tornadic thunderstorm both destroys and replenishes, our interactions both destroy and create opportunities in the natural environment. While we see ourselves as being at odds with the natural environment, if we examine that relationship between nature and other species, it is easy to see that same dichotomy in them. All species struggle to perpetuate their kind. They take from and give to the environment and other struggling species unlike themselves. As the environment changes, they either learn and adapt or are wiped out. We face the same trials in our relationship with the natural environment. Not very long ago, within my lifetime, humans thought the Earth's crust was one solid shell over a molten core. We now understand the dynamics of plate tectonics. We can't modify that force in nature, so we've modified our construction to take it into consideration. Yet, it's quite possible though yet undocumented, that our fossil fuel consumption (removing the volatiles from the layers within the crust) during these few centuries will have the net result of less volcanic activity across the surface of the planet within a few thousand years.

We are simply one of the microcosms of the macrocosm of nature, and there is nothing unnatural about what we do.

[elagache]

Dear Herb and WeatherCat armchair philosophers,

We are simply one of the microcosms of the macrocosm of nature, and there is nothing unnatural about what we do.

While I don't have a cold scientific view of the cosmos, I do agree with this central point.  Human beings are a product of processes that science explains with  theories like evolution.

What I find especially odd in this is while we supposedly "all know it" - virtually none of us live out our lives as if this were true.

One day, I tried to do a "back of the envelope" calculation to see how long it would take for me to meet every eligible woman in the San Francisco bay area could might be a candidate for being a wife.  The answer was in the decades even I met one woman every night for every day of the year.

Now supposing there was a woman in the San Francisco bay area who would have been a suitable wife, could I have ever found her?  Suppose the search space is even larger - say the United States or France - any hope?

Yet, people are confident that simply by wandering around they can, without any methodical searching at all, find a true soul-mate.  From where does this confidence derive?

Edouard 

[xairbusdriver]

Yet, people are confident that simply by wandering around they can, without any methodical searching at all, find a true soul-mate. From where does this confidence derive?

Since this is a 'family-oriented' forum, I will only say that it does not usually happen in the upper portions of the male body. I suspect it is similar with the female... Hopefully, most humans eventually use their brain, but the number of single-parent households might indicate fewer people use that faculty than I would like.

Just a suggestion, if you are still searching, your 'one-a-day' method is both too fast and too slow. It will take more than one day to discover her and your search group is too big to begin with. I suggest you move to a location with fewer than 2,000 people within a 50 mile radius. I'm not sure about that "wagon" thing, either...

[Bull Winkus]

But, Edouard! That's like asking where babies come from. ? No one knows.

But most people do know that mingling with the opposite sex produces more mouths to feed, yet they still do it. No wonder the government thinks they can manipulate our minds so easily. Judging by the irrational mumbo-jumbo getting forced down our throats lately, it appears they can!

[elagache]

Dear X-Air, Herb, and WeatherCat armchair philosophers,

Sorry, I guess my analogy missed the target.  The business of boy meeting girl wasn't the core of the matter, but this endless optimism that such a process will succeed in almost "fairy-tale proportions," when the social landscape is littered with failed examples.

The question in my mind leads to more puzzling enigmas.  There is a boundless faith in the power of science and technology to lead to genuine improvements in human existence - but there is absolutely no evidence this is true.  It is true that technology has improved some things, but not all things, and technology has lead to many horrible things as well.  What is the balanced assessment of technology in human life?  Well, I believe few people ever bother to worry about it, even if their happiness hangs in the balance.

To me the paradox boils down to a kind of "vacuous spirituality."  If human beings are a kind accidental transformation from ape to extremely clever hairless-ape, we are nothing more than a fluke.  Flukes certainly have no good fortune or propensity toward success.  On the contrary, if we accept a cold scientific account of our existence, we are simply a result of a long chain of extremely unlikely events.  Sooner or later, the dice won't roll in our favor and we'll be obliterated by some normal process of the natural world.

Yet, even if that seems to be the only reasonable conclusion that science offers us, we don't life in constant fear that our world will be destroyed at any time - even if the logic seems unassailable that it could.  So why aren't we constantly afraid of the end of our world?  Why do we have confidence in ourselves, that others will treat us humanely and that there is hope for future generations?  The only foundation for such beliefs has been spiritual in origin.  Such spirituality has been banished to the margins of society precisely in part because it seemed "obsolete."  Yet, there is no replacement as far as I can tell.  Without some appeal to divinity, what makes this stupendous "mistake" of the hairless-ape likely to endure any further?  If our science is truly correct and we count on it for all the technology we use - we are nothing more than hairless-apes - aren't we?

Even in 2016, most people cannot swallow such a harsh truth - but that doesn't give you a reason to believe anything else - unless you genuinely do believe in something else.  There are lots of people who insist they don't believe in anything else, but clearly act as if they did. 

There is a Finagle law that goes: "Don't believe in miracles - rely upon them!"  It funny enough, but isn't that what many, many people are ultimately doing?



Does that put the enigma into focus?

Edouard

[Bull Winkus]

I don't see any enigma at all. Anyone who has been through a devastating event, such as a tsunami or tornado, is face to face with their own fragility on a very large scale. My own anecdotal experience is that I've never been directly exposed to any of these large scale destructive events, and yet I accept my status as mortal without question. In fact, I find it somewhat egotistical to assume some higher plane of immortality awaits those who behave in a certain way. Religion preaches humility, but it certainly doesn't practice it.

I understood the statistical probability scenario you were positing. I simply chose to exit this vein of seriousness in the hopes of bringing a chuckle. Your scenario presupposes the existence of an ideal mate. It makes no attempt to correlate that possibility to reality or to quantify the ratio of ideal mates possible in the selected population group. It might be that very few or very many potential mates are possessing in the secondary sexual characteristics and personality flexibility to make an ideal mate. Or, it may be that the idea of an ideal mate is a fairy tale for prepubescent children. I don't know. ? No one does, really. Every individual is operating under the restrictions of their own data sets and rules, and group generalizations serve only to introduce errors about the outcome.

In the making of a relationship, it's important to note that the creation phase never ends. Both parties are and will always be in a state of flux, insofar as the relationship is concerned. Perhaps the most important characteristic to look for, other than stability, is flexibility, and to avoid rigidity. The number of potential candidates, using that token, may be much larger than considered at first blush.

 

[dfw_pilot]

Edouard, I believe you'd have better odds (as a male) trying to find an available female in San Francisco than most other cities.

I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. As a Rolex presupposes it's maker, so does the Cosmos. Listen to a symphony playing Mozart and ask yourself where does the beauty of music come from? Where does the sense of right and wrong come from? Where does mercy and grace toward those who don't deserve it come from? Why is adultery considered wrong? Why is love considered good? We each have imprinted on us, the knowledge of good and evil, and that doesn't come from trillions of years of cosmic dust mixing with amino acids to create life.

I find it somewhat egotistical to assume some higher plane of immortality awaits those who behave in a certain way. Religion preaches humility, but it certainly doesn't practice it.

Actually, we all live forever, it's just which way does one go after we leave this Earth. And to be picky, because I'm pedantic, religion doesn't actually practice anything. Fallible humans practice religion, and they shouldn't be the measure of the religion they follow. I follow Jesus Christ; not because I'm arrogant or superior, but precisely because I'm weak. I'm a frail, fallible human who messes up all the time. No one should look to me as a representation of what the Christian "religion" should look like. But because I am weak is exactly why I need a savior.

dfw

[xairbusdriver]

I think this tread is wandering far from the OP's intended purpose. But since there seems no disinclination to switch from the mysteries of weather phenomena to the mysteries of "religion", I shall make a statement this one time.

...because I am weak is exactly why I need a savior.

I understand the source of this comment, however, I disagree with the implied definition of "weak". 'Man' is predisposed to desire power, in my opinion. If for nothing else, as a reaction to lack of control over the one common concern of this forum: Weather. The problem come when 'man' succeeds in 'conquering' anything and then assumes he has power. Unfortunately, that usually quite limited power still does not allow him to control that weather thing!

Many of us continue pursuing 'power' through education, business acumen, bank account building and anything else we can think of. All of these endeavors ultimately end in death. Whether the life lived is considered a 'success' is not up to the liver.

Absolutely none of us are perfect [citation not needed]. Absolutely every one of us is too weak to live perfectly. That's what makes every one of us a "sinner". That is one of the few "absolutes" I support, believe, and live by. That is why, like dfw, I accept the free gift of God who paid the ultimate price for my salvation. But a gift is of no value if it is not accepted by the recipient. Pity the proud who trust in their own power for eternity and never wonder as Peggy Lee asked, "Is this all there is?".

As far as Eduoard's search, I think he left out one critical criteria; How many women will find him to be the best mate? In my case, it drastically reduced the number of 'candidates'! After 41 years, if that's not a miracle, I'm not sure what one is! [removed link to the now castly photobucket.com site]

[elagache]

Dear Herb, dfw, X-Air, and WeatherCat armchair philosophers,

Okay, this thread look hopeless, but let me try to motivate the hair that I was trying to split.

There are many who have noticed an odd attraction by environmentalists toward the natural world as a kind of "natural religion" (don't quibble just yet.)

There is no doubt that people experience things when in the wilderness that are uplifting and motivating.  Those with traditional faiths often find being outdoors a path to enriching their faith.  Those with traditional faiths have an explanation, but those without it, nonetheless have experiences that feel genuine.  If you reject the traditional religions as the explanation for these uplifting experiences, it isn't that much of a stretch to come to believe that interacting with nature is experiencing a "greater good."

Okay, so far so good.  However, many decide to act based on their feelings "greater good," and as part of these actions they strongly embrace green technology.

Suppose one such person run into somebody like me who has worked a little bit in the electrical generating industry and understands enough about how the power grid works to be deeply worried about the wholesale adoption of technologies like solar and wind power.  The problem is really quiet simple.  These technologies are limited by the natural mechanism of their power generation.  Solar power requires sunlight, wind power requires wind.  Our power grid on the other had has to provide power 24/7.  The obvious worry is what happens at night when the wind is calm (a common occurrence in the West during the summer.)  If there is something nobody wants is rotating blackouts in the evening of a nasty heatwave.

Will this "nature worshiper" take my concerns seriously or not?  I believe the answer is no for a very odd reason.  If you accept this "nature religion" view, than green power is "by its greenness" better than any other kind.  Moreover, since green power is good - there has got to be a way to make it work.  That's what geeks are for.

By my attempt to explain how a power grid actually works, I have instead attacked this person's religion and there is no way I'm going to win this argument (until the blackouts actually start happening.)

As uncomfortable as my example is, this is precisely an example where "religion" is influencing large numbers of people and could be putting us into serious trouble.  Worst still, while they are ultimately being influenced in a manner that is emotional, they will nonetheless insist they are being "scientific" - when they aren't.  Even if you try very hard to make it clear to them that they don't understand how the power grid actually works, they will not acknowledge their ignorance and try to understand if indeed green power could have a limitation in this particular application.  The very essential requirement of "disinterest" when trying to do science clearly isn't present in this person.

My suspicion is that spirituality is essentially a universal human experience and that everyone has spiritual encounters of one sort or another.  What we do with those encounters of course varies widely.  Alas, if you accept a view like this, one conclusion is unavoidable: there is a lot deception going on somehow and a clear view of the spiritual landscape is extremely difficult to come by.

Edouard

[Bull Winkus]

Edouard, I believe you'd have better odds (as a male) trying to find an available female in San Francisco than most other cities.

I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. As a Rolex presupposes it's maker, so does the Cosmos. Listen to a symphony playing Mozart and ask yourself where does the beauty of music come from? Where does the sense of right and wrong come from? Where does mercy and grace toward those who don't deserve it come from? Why is adultery considered wrong? Why is love considered good? We each have imprinted on us, the knowledge of good and evil, and that doesn't come from trillions of years of cosmic dust mixing with amino acids to create life.

I find it somewhat egotistical to assume some higher plane of immortality awaits those who behave in a certain way. Religion preaches humility, but it certainly doesn't practice it.

Actually, we all live forever, it's just which way does one go after we leave this Earth. And to be picky, because I'm pedantic, religion doesn't actually practice anything. Fallible humans practice religion, and they shouldn't be the measure of the religion they follow. I follow Jesus Christ; not because I'm arrogant or superior, but precisely because I'm weak. I'm a frail, fallible human who messes up all the time. No one should look to me as a representation of what the Christian "religion" should look like. But because I am weak is exactly why I need a savior.

dfw

Thank you dfw for your carefully thought out response. As a baptized Christian, I certainly appreciate your point of view and share it on some level.

I'm not wishing to get into a polarized discussion on the merits of Atheism vs Christianity, but I felt the need to clarify my somewhat cryptic statement as quoted above. Regardless of any religion or the religion of non-religion, I feel that in all humanity, given the billions of people having lived on this Earth up to now and the billions yet to live and die, it is very egotistical to assume that one's singular personal awareness has to continue into perpetuity. Even the most thoughtful and consistent contributors to understanding our place in this space/time continuum hardly rate an existence for?ever. I find it infinitely more credible that personal awareness ceases with the cessation of life, just as it does under the care of an anesthesiologist, or in deep sleep. So, by now you're wondering how that squares with my Christianity. Well, I believe in a creator and that Jesus lived. However, I don't believe that there is any human that ever existed that understands or can communicate with an entity capable of creating the universe and all that's in it. It's simply beyond our comprehension. Plus any communication from such an entity would be fraught with ethics issues or rather conflicts between the notion of free will and predetermination.

I differ with you also on the notion that religion doesn't practice anything. That's a dodge. I see all religions as self perpetuating socioeconomic constructs, and historically and consistently very profitable to the apostle elite. The practice is to insert themselves into the interpretation of right and wrong as an aid to the masses. That's why I say that they are not humble in purporting the existance of immortality for all. It's just not a humble proposition.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to be immortal, but I know I can't, and I've accepted that. I have this recurring dream of being a bodiless spirit floating along on pure will, the context of which is a composite of all my experiences (of course, what else?). The world as I know it is still occupied by physical beings of all the familiar types from human to amoeba, and in my presence they are all aware of me. I can pass through walls at will, but my ability to communicate with physical beings is hampered by my lack of vocal cords or some other language of expression. However, I just can't imagine beyond that any practical, enduring, natural mode of immortality, because being immortal takes a very long time. Even imagining it with a body is no help, because that would be too much like reincarnation, which opens up its own set of conflicts of improbabilities.

So, I'm pretty sure it's just not a big deal. No worries.  That's just me. "No one should look to me as a representation of what" or how to interpret the universe, either. I'm here today; gone tomorrow. ? Metaphorically speaking, I hope.