Why, it's like mid-summer there!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984

On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984

https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u-s-next-week/

In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
> > Why, it's like mid-summer there!
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>
> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
> -s-next-week/

And Texas had record cold last February.

We can do a war of anecdotes all day.

On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>
>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
>> -s-next-week/
>
> And Texas had record cold last February.
>
> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.

Exactly.

On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
>>> -s-next-week/
>>
>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>
>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>
> Exactly.

Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"

On 11/29/2021 1:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
>>>> -s-next-week/
>>>
>>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>>
>>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"

....where 'Warmists' == 'clickbaiters et al.'. Show me a responsible
politician (i.e., not scraped from Congress's underbelly) who's citing
local daily weather phenomena as evidence of climate shift.

In article <TIapJ.39102$aF1.17576@fx98.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2021 1:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984

> >>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-west
> >>>> ern-u-s-next-week/
> >>>
> >>> And Texas had record cold last February.
> >>>
> >>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> > Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
> > change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
> > anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>
> ...where 'Warmists' == 'clickbaiters et al.'

No, where Warmists are the collective hysterics who keep trying to sell
us on the idea that the literal apocalypse is a decade away if we "don't
do something!"(TM)

(Always ten years away, no matter how much time goes by, it's always ten
years away.)

> Show me a responsible politician (i.e., not scraped from Congress's
> underbelly)

i.e., anyone I actually find will be deemed a resident of the underbelly
and therefore doesn't count, so why bother?

On 11/29/2021 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <TIapJ.39102$aF1.17576@fx98.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2021 1:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>
>>>>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-west
>>>>>> ern-u-s-next-week/
>>>>>
>>>>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
>>> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
>>> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>>
>> ...where 'Warmists' == 'clickbaiters et al.'
>
> No, where Warmists are the collective hysterics who keep trying to sell
> us on the idea that the literal apocalypse is a decade away if we "don't
> do something!"(TM)
>
> (Always ten years away, no matter how much time goes by, it's always ten
> years away.)

Do you understand the conundrum of how to alert a science-ignorant --
often even science-despising -- populace to a slow-moving disaster? Do
you have a better solution to it?

>> Show me a responsible politician (i.e., not scraped from Congress's
>> underbelly)
>
> i.e., anyone I actually find will be deemed a resident of the underbelly
> and therefore doesn't count, so why bother?

The question is how far into the looney-bin you'll have to dive to find
a sentient policy-maker citing yesterday's weather as proof of anything.
I'm guessing you'll reach MTG's neighborhood...

On Nov 29, 2021 at 1:34:40 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2021 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <TIapJ.39102$aF1.17576@fx98.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2021 1:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>
>>>>>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-west
>>>>>>> ern-u-s-next-week/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
>>>> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
>>>> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>>>
>>> ...where 'Warmists' == 'clickbaiters et al.'
>>
>> No, where Warmists are the collective hysterics who keep trying to sell
>> us on the idea that the literal apocalypse is a decade away if we "don't
>> do something!"(TM)
>>
>> (Always ten years away, no matter how much time goes by, it's always ten
>> years away.)
>
> Do you understand the conundrum of how to alert a science-ignorant --
> often even science-despising -- populace to a slow-moving disaster? Do
> you have a better solution to it?

"I can't think of a better way to implement a worldwide income redistribution
scheme other than to lie to people about it because they're so stupid!"

> moviePig
>
> Do you understand the conundrum of how to alert a science-ignorant --
> often even science-despising -- populace to a slow-moving disaster? Do
> you have a better solution to it?

The global climate is not stable and has NEVER been stable.

Where I'm sitting right now was once a sweltering swamp
full of dinosaurs and not all that long ago, was buried under
a mile of ice.

There is absolutely nothing humans can do that would keep
the current climatic conditions the same.

On 11/29/2021 4:51 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>
>> Do you understand the conundrum of how to alert a science-ignorant --
>> often even science-despising -- populace to a slow-moving disaster? Do
>> you have a better solution to it?
>
> The global climate is not stable and has NEVER been stable.
>
> Where I'm sitting right now was once a sweltering swamp
> full of dinosaurs and not all that long ago, was buried under
> a mile of ice.
>
> There is absolutely nothing humans can do that would keep
> the current climatic conditions the same.

That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the universe.
But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
century a more immediate concern.

On 2021-11-29 21:51:42 +0000, Ed Stasiak said:
> moviePig
>>
>> Do you understand the conundrum of how to alert a science-ignorant --
>> often even science-despising -- populace to a slow-moving disaster? Do
>> you have a better solution to it?
>
> The global climate is not stable and has NEVER been stable.
>
> Where I'm sitting right now was once a sweltering swamp
> full of dinosaurs and not all that long ago, was buried under
> a mile of ice.
>
> There is absolutely nothing humans can do that would keep
> the current climatic conditions the same.

Partly true, but conversely there's a lot of things humans can (and
already do) do that will make it much much worse obviously continually
pumping loads of often toxic chemicals in the air and waterways will
have a negative effect.

On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 13:08:27 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4....@fx97.iad>,
> >> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
> >>> -s-next-week/
> >>
> >> And Texas had record cold last February.
> >>
> >> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
> >
> > Exactly.
> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"

Witness British Columbia. A "100 year storm" all of a sudden indicates a trend, even
though anyone reading about it will be DEAD before another one like it hits.

On 11/29/2021 6:55 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 13:08:27 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4....@fx97.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
>>>>> -s-next-week/
>>>>
>>>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>>>
>>>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
>> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
>> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>
> Witness British Columbia. A "100 year storm" all of a sudden indicates a trend, even
> though anyone reading about it will be DEAD before another one like it hits.

Well, maybe not another one as strong as USED to be called '100-year'...

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:33:25 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>No, where Warmists are the collective hysterics who keep trying to sell
>us on the idea that the literal apocalypse is a decade away if we "don't
>do something!"(TM)
>
They also prefer "Climate Change" to "Global Warming" as the latter
refers only to temperature whereas 'Climate Change' allows one to
encompass forest fires (dried out leaves and trees) and flooding
(mostly melting of snow melt at awkward times of year) not to mention
assorted other changes in weather pattern. (For instance Pacific Coast
salmon being found 4000+ miles from home in the Canadian high Arctic
near the eastern end of the Northwest passage)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:51:36 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the universe.
> But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
>century a more immediate concern.

I'm not prepared to believe any particular percentage of global
warming is caused by mankind but with the population 20x what it was
500 years ago there is bound to be SOME effect and if science tells us
anything it's that a lot of things don't change in a linear manner.

For instance if you take water at 0 F, 5 F, 10 F, 15 F, 20F, 25F, 30F,
35F to anybody who knows the melting point of water they would tell
you the most noticeable effect was in 30F -> 35F with little visible
change before that (or after that until you reach the boiling point)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:01:42 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>>> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
>>> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
>>> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>>
>> Witness British Columbia. A "100 year storm" all of a sudden indicates a trend, even
>> though anyone reading about it will be DEAD before another one like it hits.
>
>Well, maybe not another one as strong as USED to be called '100-year'...

The dikes in question (in British Columbia) were first built in the
1920s and maintained ever since. The area that is only now recovering
from flooding is basically reclaimed land (if you're Dutch that means
"polder") and the problems started when due to storms the pumps that
maintain the water level failed.

The issue is complicated by the fact that the Nooksack river (which is
mostly in Whatcom Co. WA and flows northwards from Mt Baker which is
an extinct volcano close by on the US side) is of course managed by
the authorities in Whatcom Co and thus while the Canadians and
Americans cooperate on flood control in terms of warning each other
they don't give each other orders. Thus in matters of flood control
what is good for Bellingham WA may not be good for Abbotsford BC and
vice versa..... (both are roughly population 80000). While it hasn't
always been the case, this particular flood is far worse on the
Canadian side.

I'm >IN< Vancouver so it goes without saying the Fraser river floods
you're describing have gotten a lot of media coverage. Our local
garbage service includes a grey plastic box for recycling glass and
has not picked up glass for recycling for 3 weeks as the depot is
about an hour's drive E of Vancouver .... guess where?

On 11/29/2021 4:41 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:01:42 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
>>>> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
>>>> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>>>
>>> Witness British Columbia. A "100 year storm" all of a sudden indicates a trend, even
>>> though anyone reading about it will be DEAD before another one like it hits.
>>
>> Well, maybe not another one as strong as USED to be called '100-year'...
>
> The dikes in question (in British Columbia) were first built in the
> 1920s and maintained ever since. The area that is only now recovering
> from flooding is basically reclaimed land (if you're Dutch that means
> "polder") and the problems started when due to storms the pumps that
> maintain the water level failed.
>
> The issue is complicated by the fact that the Nooksack river (which is
> mostly in Whatcom Co. WA and flows northwards from Mt Baker which is
> an extinct volcano close by on the US side) is of course managed by
> the authorities in Whatcom Co and thus while the Canadians and
> Americans cooperate on flood control in terms of warning each other
> they don't give each other orders. Thus in matters of flood control
> what is good for Bellingham WA may not be good for Abbotsford BC and
> vice versa..... (both are roughly population 80000). While it hasn't
> always been the case, this particular flood is far worse on the
> Canadian side.
>
> I'm >IN< Vancouver so it goes without saying the Fraser river floods
> you're describing have gotten a lot of media coverage. Our local
> garbage service includes a grey plastic box for recycling glass and
> has not picked up glass for recycling for 3 weeks as the depot is
> about an hour's drive E of Vancouver .... guess where?
>
They just said the Nooksack's going to flood again, so I presume on both
sides of the border.

On 11/29/2021 7:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:51:36 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the universe.
>> But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
>> century a more immediate concern.
>
> I'm not prepared to believe any particular percentage of global
> warming is caused by mankind but with the population 20x what it was
> 500 years ago there is bound to be SOME effect and if science tells us
> anything it's that a lot of things don't change in a linear manner.
>
> For instance if you take water at 0 F, 5 F, 10 F, 15 F, 20F, 25F, 30F,
> 35F to anybody who knows the melting point of water they would tell
> you the most noticeable effect was in 30F -> 35F with little visible
> change before that (or after that until you reach the boiling point)

Anyone who doesn't know "how to boil a frog" can Google it, and notice
how the frog is in high spirits until he suddenly, as it were, croaks...

On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 12:22:33 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4....@fx97.iad>,
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
> > > Why, it's like mid-summer there!
> > >
> > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
> >
> > https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
> > -s-next-week/
> And Texas had record cold last February.
>
> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.

Well, this isn't anecdotal, we've had COLD SPRINGS for the last 8 years across the American Northeast. That is a trend and it's a large consequential area. Unlike the 1-offs, the 100 year storms, arson-induced forest fires, etc.

On 11/29/2021 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <TIapJ.39102$aF1.17576@fx98.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2021 1:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4.14630@fx97.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>
>>>>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-west
>>>>>> ern-u-s-next-week/
>>>>>
>>>>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Yet the Warmists use local weather anecdotes all the time in their 'climate
>>> change' propaganda, while at the same time dismissing any local weather
>>> anecdotes that don't further the Agenda as 'that's weather, not climate!"
>>
>> ...where 'Warmists' == 'clickbaiters et al.'
>
> No, where Warmists are the collective hysterics who keep trying to sell
> us on the idea that the literal apocalypse is a decade away if we "don't
> do something!"(TM)

How much CO2 in the atmosphere is permissible? You might want to put
this in scientific terms instead of looking like you just pulled fecal
matter out your ass again.

On 11/29/21 8:35 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 12:22:33 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <1%5pJ.56103$qz4....@fx97.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2021 12:31 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Why, it's like mid-summer there!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-59450984
>>>
>>> https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/potential-record-warmth-for-the-western-u
>>> -s-next-week/
>> And Texas had record cold last February.
>>
>> We can do a war of anecdotes all day.
>
> Well, this isn't anecdotal, we've had COLD SPRINGS for the last 8 years across the American Northeast. That is a trend and it's a large consequential area. Unlike the 1-offs, the 100 year storms, arson-induced forest fires, etc.
>
so now you support global climate change

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:51:36 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:

>> That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the
>> universe.
>> But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
>> century a more immediate concern.
>
> I'm not prepared to believe any particular percentage of global
> warming is caused by mankind but with the population 20x what it was
> 500 years ago there is bound to be SOME effect and if science tells us
> anything it's that a lot of things don't change in a linear manner.

In some ways, the percentage contribution of human activity to global
warming is just an interesting side note. Even if 100% of it were due
to "natural causes," the amount and the effects are alarming, and should
point to a human desire to alter the results. There are plenty of
things that nature does that are disadvantageous to humans, and that we
take active measures to alter, and this would be no different,
particularly given how once the problem has tipped past a certain point,
it's not something that can be undone by flipping a switch.

> For instance if you take water at 0 F, 5 F, 10 F, 15 F, 20F, 25F, 30F,
> 35F to anybody who knows the melting point of water they would tell
> you the most noticeable effect was in 30F -> 35F with little visible
> change before that (or after that until you reach the boiling point)

You like to often say how much you've studied mathematics and how well
you did at doing so. Obviously, anyone who's studied differential
equations knows about nonlinearity, and therefore how local weather
prediction gets very inaccurate past about 7-10 days because small
variations in initial conditions can lead to enormous variations in
outcome the further out that time goes on. But did you also study
control theory, in which the math tells us that while positive feedback
may be great when you're getting a review on Yelp, it can spell disaster
in a complex system?

Some systems are homeostatic, which means that the way they're set up
allows them to compensate for small changes. E.g., up to a point, the
temperature of the human body is homeostatic. If you get cold, you'll
shiver and your surface capillaries will contract, which brings your
body temperature back up. If you get hot, you'll sweat and your surface
capillaries will relax and swell up with blood, which brings your body
temperature back down. Mathematically, subtracting out the effects of
these small changes is known as "negative feedback" (because of the
subtraction), and in most systems that humans are concerned with, this
is considered a good thing.

But it's possible to put so much change into a system that it ceases being
able to compensate. For example, you can put a human body into an
environment so cold that its efforts to keep the core temperature high
enough causes blood to cease to flow properly in the extremities, leading
to frostbite. You can put a human body into an environment so hot that
its efforts to keep the core and the brain cool enough can lead to
dehydration. There's only so much change that the body can handle.

Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new perturbations
leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the opposite: an
acceleration in the changes. This is "positive feedback," because the
net effect is to keep adding to the changes (which is one case in which
something that is "positive" is a bad thing). The global climate has
been able to compensate for comparatively small increases in temperature
since the industrial revolution, but we're nearing the tipping point
from negative feedback to positive feedback, and that's why climate
scientists are worried.

-Micky

On 12/14/2021 12:05 AM, Micky DuPree wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:51:36 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the
>>> universe.
>>> But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
>>> century a more immediate concern.
>>
>> I'm not prepared to believe any particular percentage of global
>> warming is caused by mankind but with the population 20x what it was
>> 500 years ago there is bound to be SOME effect and if science tells us
>> anything it's that a lot of things don't change in a linear manner.
>
> In some ways, the percentage contribution of human activity to global
> warming is just an interesting side note. Even if 100% of it were due
> to "natural causes," the amount and the effects are alarming, and should
> point to a human desire to alter the results. There are plenty of
> things that nature does that are disadvantageous to humans, and that we
> take active measures to alter, and this would be no different,
> particularly given how once the problem has tipped past a certain point,
> it's not something that can be undone by flipping a switch.
>
>
>> For instance if you take water at 0 F, 5 F, 10 F, 15 F, 20F, 25F, 30F,
>> 35F to anybody who knows the melting point of water they would tell
>> you the most noticeable effect was in 30F -> 35F with little visible
>> change before that (or after that until you reach the boiling point)
>
> You like to often say how much you've studied mathematics and how well
> you did at doing so. Obviously, anyone who's studied differential
> equations knows about nonlinearity, and therefore how local weather
> prediction gets very inaccurate past about 7-10 days because small
> variations in initial conditions can lead to enormous variations in
> outcome the further out that time goes on. But did you also study
> control theory, in which the math tells us that while positive feedback
> may be great when you're getting a review on Yelp, it can spell disaster
> in a complex system?
>
> Some systems are homeostatic, which means that the way they're set up
> allows them to compensate for small changes. E.g., up to a point, the
> temperature of the human body is homeostatic. If you get cold, you'll
> shiver and your surface capillaries will contract, which brings your
> body temperature back up. If you get hot, you'll sweat and your surface
> capillaries will relax and swell up with blood, which brings your body
> temperature back down. Mathematically, subtracting out the effects of
> these small changes is known as "negative feedback" (because of the
> subtraction), and in most systems that humans are concerned with, this
> is considered a good thing.
>
> But it's possible to put so much change into a system that it ceases being
> able to compensate. For example, you can put a human body into an
> environment so cold that its efforts to keep the core temperature high
> enough causes blood to cease to flow properly in the extremities, leading
> to frostbite. You can put a human body into an environment so hot that
> its efforts to keep the core and the brain cool enough can lead to
> dehydration. There's only so much change that the body can handle.
>
> Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new perturbations
> leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the opposite: an
> acceleration in the changes. This is "positive feedback," because the
> net effect is to keep adding to the changes (which is one case in which
> something that is "positive" is a bad thing). The global climate has
> been able to compensate for comparatively small increases in temperature
> since the industrial revolution, but we're nearing the tipping point
> from negative feedback to positive feedback, and that's why climate
> scientists are worried.

Good post. But I'd have thought that unreliability of long-range
weather forecasts is due not to non-linearity but rather to simple
multiplication of cascading possibilities.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 05:05:44 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:51:36 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> That's true and certain, as is the eventual heat death of the
>>> universe.
>>> But scientific consensus says that AGW makes surviving the remaining
>>> century a more immediate concern.
>>
>> I'm not prepared to believe any particular percentage of global
>> warming is caused by mankind but with the population 20x what it was
>> 500 years ago there is bound to be SOME effect and if science tells us
>> anything it's that a lot of things don't change in a linear manner.
>
>In some ways, the percentage contribution of human activity to global
>warming is just an interesting side note. Even if 100% of it were due
>to "natural causes," the amount and the effects are alarming, and should
>point to a human desire to alter the results. There are plenty of
>things that nature does that are disadvantageous to humans, and that we
>take active measures to alter, and this would be no different,
>particularly given how once the problem has tipped past a certain point,
>it's not something that can be undone by flipping a switch.

Yup - I definitely understand about tipping points and how they're
usually one way. (i.e. you can seldom go back)

>You like to often say how much you've studied mathematics and how well
>you did at doing so. Obviously, anyone who's studied differential
>equations knows about nonlinearity, and therefore how local weather
>prediction gets very inaccurate past about 7-10 days because small
>variations in initial conditions can lead to enormous variations in
>outcome the further out that time goes on. But did you also study
>control theory, in which the math tells us that while positive feedback
>may be great when you're getting a review on Yelp, it can spell disaster
>in a complex system?

I don't believe I've ever discussed my grades but yes my undergraduate
degree is math with a minor in statistics. (Followed by an MBA in
finance and systems a few years later)

You are totally right about nonlinearity. As for control theory yes
though it was before Yelp (actually before the internet which was just
barely starting when I competed my MBA). I started on the BBS circuit
in 1983 and within 5 years had gone to the internet by 1988 though the
earliest Usenet posting I've ever been able to document was April 94.
(Can't do it now that Deja News aka Google Groups is defunct)

>Some systems are homeostatic, which means that the way they're set up
>allows them to compensate for small changes. E.g., up to a point, the
>temperature of the human body is homeostatic. If you get cold, you'll
>shiver and your surface capillaries will contract, which brings your
>body temperature back up. If you get hot, you'll sweat and your surface
>capillaries will relax and swell up with blood, which brings your body
>temperature back down. Mathematically, subtracting out the effects of
>these small changes is known as "negative feedback" (because of the
>subtraction), and in most systems that humans are concerned with, this
>is considered a good thing.

I'm writing this during a break from a Youtube video on the origin of
skin color. I'm about 2/3 of the way through and like it a lot - it's
NOT political and is done by a professor in evolutionary biology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4OFcT5m1Y

The sort of thing you're discussing plays a big part in her video.

>But it's possible to put so much change into a system that it ceases being
>able to compensate. For example, you can put a human body into an
>environment so cold that its efforts to keep the core temperature high
>enough causes blood to cease to flow properly in the extremities, leading
>to frostbite. You can put a human body into an environment so hot that
>its efforts to keep the core and the brain cool enough can lead to
>dehydration. There's only so much change that the body can handle.

Very definitely - if you take too much sweet foods your body will
urinate more than usual to attempt to get rid of it. Too much overload
produces diabetes and one of the symptoms of diabetes is regular
thirst to give the body the liquid to urinate away the excess sugars.

>Sometimes the inability of a system to keep up with new perturbations
>leads, not to compensation for the changes, but to the opposite: an
>acceleration in the changes. This is "positive feedback," because the
>net effect is to keep adding to the changes (which is one case in which
>something that is "positive" is a bad thing). The global climate has
>been able to compensate for comparatively small increases in temperature
>since the industrial revolution, but we're nearing the tipping point
>from negative feedback to positive feedback, and that's why climate
>scientists are worried.

Yup - and it really doesn't matter whether the anthropomorphic portion
is 20%, 40%, 60% or some other number - it's an existential problem
mankind has to deal with. Nobody knows where the tipping point is but
one look at Venus demonstrates there is such a point. Obviously a
runaway greenhouse effect like Venus would be catastrophic for life on
earth.

(Do we really want our grandchildren living in mine shafts?
ObDocStrangelove reference)

Geology tells us climate change has ALWAYS been with us long before
mankind but haa been connected to 'great extinction' events a minimum
of five times in geologic history. Some of these have involved the
extinction of 90-95% of species on Earth. Most of these have required
hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions) to correct. To me
that's a problem different for most to grasp. They don't know how long
the extinction of the dinosaurs took but it was under 10000 years (how
much under is unknown) which in geologic terms is the wink of an eye.