Lackadaisically and Intermittently Throwing Darts at a Surprisingly Resilient and Long-Lived Bubble, With the Bubble Fighting Back | An experiential experience on the lasting effects of US media global warming misinformation in the minds of its recipients

It is irrelevant what any of us think about any of this. Just look at the scientific consensus, which for this for example seems to be this, for now, until a better model is found. You have access to the internet. This shouldn’t be so hard.

Or maybe it’s this:

The takeaway being that Africa climate is not well understood so nobody really knows. THOUGH, it is very sensitive to change

1 Like

OK so it sounds like you guys are getting up to speed on the Sahara issues.
Very good.
Living at the edge of the driest desert in North America, we’re “rolling back the desert” here - lots of green.
We’ve found trees that grow fine here without ever being watered, and theie seeds are are spread by the wind.
We may turn this ranch into an anti-desertification effort - probably grants available.
And it is hard to imagine ourselves and our domestic animals NOT having an effect on denuding the Sahara landscape.
I can tell you a reason why it would start out slow then speed up:
As long as you have moist soil, the sunlight can only heat the ground so much before evaporation cools it. This is why you seldom see temps over 100 degrees in wet areas.
And there is a cycle where the moisture falls as rain or dew at night, so the cooling can take place again the next day.
BUT
Once the ground dries out, it;s over - now you have dry dry dry, with nothing to make it we again, and then you have a desert that is difficult to “roll back”, although our ranch is now full of trees we did not plant and do not water after 12 years. We planted a few. they spread seeds, the whole place is full of trees now. We think these same plants, and there must be many others, strategically planted, COULD roll back deserts around the world. :slight_smile:

The example you gave made my point: The experts do not even agree on whether mankind had anything to do with un-greening the Sahara or not. t;s an unknown. But since we know humans have a tendency to cut down forests for firewood and then have their goats eat even the remaining weeds, there’s no reason to think that did not ay least play a role in denuding the Sahara. And from what I recall, long-term evidence suggest the Sahara turns green then loses its green with the glacial cycles. But mankind is part of nature if we are there participating, so we may have a role too.
]
One thing we do know is, colder climates are drier in general, even though it seems like the opposite would be true.

I wonder if the albedo of the Sahara, reflecting so much sunlight back to space, could be responsible for the mysterious temperature stasis for the last 12,000 years. We would naturally think of a desert as warming the planet, but is that true? Maybe the reflected sunlight means deserts COOL the planet. This could explain why our present interglacial period is cooler than previous interglacials. :slight_smile:

What a long list of things you are wondering about. I only really wonder about how the rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and other human activities, are affecting the climate and natural life on this planet. Unfortunately there is not really that much to wonder about though, unless you are interested in all the details, the details are just on how badly this or the other thing is affected.

https://www.axios.com/2023/07/20/world-heat-wave-records-us-europe-china

Thanks Windy:
I doubt if my natural curiosity will ever be satisfied.
It takes curiosity to handle a story more complicated than a slogan or bumper-sticker.
Here are a few questions for you - let’s see if you can answer:

  1. Do you have an explanation for why temps have been significantly higher than this, several times, during the last 10,000 years, without runaway warming?

  2. Is it really unexpected to have glaciers from the previous glacial cycle still melting today?

  3. Please explain your understanding of “multi-decadal oscillation”.

  4. Here it is for you. A good explanation:
    Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) | Climate Data Guide (ucar.edu)
    Ice melts => the open water then cools => ice reforms => the protected water then retains heat => ice melts again… repeat, repeat, repeat, every 60 years or so…

Plain to see the sea ice is almost at the recovery stage of this ~60-year cycle. What will you say when sea ice is once again advancing?

  1. This oscillation is based on the recognized fact that open arctic ocean water loses heat to evaporation and radiation to outer space, whereas water insulated and sheltered by ice above retains its heat. Your preferrred narrative pretends open water warms by absorbing sunlight, causing runaway warming. Can both of these opposites be true?. Please explain which is correct. Does open water in the arctic gain heat or lose heat?

  2. Have you ever heard how primitive tribes are controlled by those who can predict eclipses, by telling the tribe the sun will show its disapproval of their sins, and they must then follow the dictates of the “wise ones”? The tribes fall for it. There are many examples. Don’t think it could happen to you, by those aware of these patterns of warming and cooling? Guess again! it already has! :slight_smile:

Your points have very little to do with today, are identical or remarkably similar to talking points climate change deniers use, and would be expected to come from someone living inside a media bubble and not grasping the simple to understand basic science of it Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

Even more than wind, you can’t see it, smell it, or feel it, so it’s easy to dismiss, and perhaps feel inclined to give your opinion on, ignoring the science that has been done. It’s a symptom of science and media illiteracy, which is understandable growing up inside the bubble, but should be overcome if you want to give your opinion on it.

The elephant in the room, and the point, are greenhouse gases trap the heat from the sun, like a blanket. Now that blanket is continuously getting better at trapping the heat. The problem is that this is occurring too quickly for life to be able to adapt to, contributing to the ongoing extinction event.

This is the main point. Your points are details that slightly change this or that. The Holocene climatic optimum would have seen higher temperatures if greenhouse gas concentrations were higher then, and regarding Atlantic multidecadal oscillation - Wikipedia, if it truly is an oscillation with some kind of periodicity, the rising temperatures due to global warming will soon or have already overwhelmed that, and:

https://what-if.xkcd.com/162/

Thank You for an interesting discussion, Windy.
Remember what we are taught in science classes from high school to college:
The process of science is to continually test whatever is the current, dominant hypothesis, actively attempting to dispove it. It is only by running through such a relentless gauntlet of attempted disproving that gives legitimacy to any such dominant theory.
So, as a science person, I’m just doing my job.

Also, please realize, as my Grandmother born in 1898 once explained to me:
There are always people saying “it’s the end of the world”, but it never is, the world goes on.

Also, we’ve been treated to endless scolding over the fossil fuels that have given humanity our advanced existence since LONG BEFORE “global warming”. It’s always the same people, they just find new reasons. Before global warming, their theme was “we’re running out of oil!” That was why we had to stop using it, because there was no more left.

That fell apart as more and more oil and gas were found. My Yale-educated Dad’s company made sonar equipment used for undersea exploration, including even the Loch ness monster, and oil exploration, among other things.

Back during the oil crisis of the 1970’s, when we were “clearly out of oil”, my Dear old Dad, knowing how all that oil exploration data had come out, confided in me, “Doug, you have NO IDEA HOW MUCH OIL IS OUT THERE!!!” I think he knew what he was talking about.

The world is always full of fearmongerers and doomsayers, always has been. Similarly, the world is always full of people intent on controlling things, like money, who will convince populations that the impending doom is due to the sins of the people, and the best way for them to reform is to pay the fearrmongerers.

The thing is, these things roll along so slowly, that the next generation is bareoly aware of the fearmongering lies the previous generation suffered, nor that the same people and organizations that fooled the previous generation with untrue statements may be doing the same exact thing to the NEXT generation, because this NEXT generation won’t bother to check and see what the SAME fearmongeres said last time, how NONE of it came true, like a bunch of unquestioning, wet-behind-the-ears, young religious converts, before they realize they are part of a pattern that has always been in effect, and maybe always will be.

Just as a clue though, since this narrative may be reaching its peak, right before it evaporates, here is an image showing the “climate models” causing all the doomsaying, with the actual data of measured temps below (because they are lower than all the models).
image
Now, back to statistics: What are the CHANCES that ALL of the models would be wrong in the upper direction?
And what are the CHANCES that you are too lazy to see or care that these models, upon which all this fearmongering depends, have been proven WRONG?

OK I think it’s dinnertime. Gotta go! Don’t worry, we’re all gonna survive! :slight_smile:

Seems yes, you posess more info about global warming than me. This is not a big deal, Im not that into global warming. But how much of that info is accurate? Probably not much of it, seeing that you are getting opposite conclusions of mainstream scientists. Then you seem to be mixing in some unhealthy scepticism to experts.

And is this discussion about us not being afraid of dying? This seems to be a less important part of the discussion. Just discuss what is happening, and then everyone can figure out how to feel about it themselves.

Also, you did not «win» any discussion about Africa and global warming. We all knew noone knows what will happen. And why the desert came to be is what it is. Still, we should agree that global warming at the speed we are seeing now, is bad news for Africa. The best way to measure this could be to let anyone place bets on the future of the continent as a result of global warming. Im pretty sure the pessimists would outnumber the optimists

Well just remember how often “all of the experts” turn out to be wrong about SO MANY things.
Also, it takes virtually zero mental effort to just say all the self-described and mutually-agreeing “experts” must just be right because they all agree, and there are so many of them.
(They don’t actually all agree, but the constant drumbeat of indoctrination makes it seem that way.)
You can find tenured Harvard professors who openly declare it is 100% wrong, but they don;t receive a lot of publicity.
Anyway, don’t forget, most of these catastrophist people are being paid to say what they say,
and not only that, but,
they will lose their jobs if they so publicly much as question any aspect of “the narrative”.
Not only that, but they will deftly change their “opinions” to match whatever new narrative is enforced, even if it flips 180 degrees, like when “global cooling” changed to “global warming” - same people, same “solutions”, opposite “problem”.
Therefore, it’s easy to “follow the money” and realize “the money” controls “the narrative”.
Remember two things control the world economy:

  1. Controlling the price of energy by making sure it remains scarce;
  2. Controlling who is allowed to drill, transport, and sell energy, etc.
    Wanna know the real reason for most any war? (including the current one)
    It’s all about who gets to drill, mine, and sell, energy, which would be far more abundant and affordable otherwise. They may need to blow up pipeline, or a few hundred wells, or foment a communist “revolution” - whatever it takes, doesn’t matter, “they” will do it.
    :slight_smile:

@dougselsam , It’s a refutation of expertise that isn’t expertise at all, since it’s based solely on feelings, or rather resentments, and not on factual analysis. In climatology, it would be the counterpart of the “idiot, idiot, idiot”, which invariably takes the place of analysis of AWES and their designers. Blind belching takes the place of technical expertise. I prefer qualified expertise.

1 Like

Hi Pierre: Speaking of that, there’s a great example of “all the experts” agreeing.
Every AWE “expert” agreed that they could, and would, design a system that would outperform wind turbines.
There may have been a few skeptics, but most people would not dare to question “the experts”.
Lots of investors gave them a LOT of money to work with.
OK so, 15 years later, what is the result?
How many of those “experts” were right?
How right were they?
Turns out they really didn’t even understand wind energy, nor the magnitude of the challenge.
Turns out they weren’t reallly “experts” in anything except how to waste money and how not to do wind energy.
“experts”… HMMMPH!
The astute student might begin to note a pattern here…
:slight_smile:

This is a great analogy. Climate change deniers keep at it time and time again, missing the point that climate research by now is quite extensive, and want the discussion talking points to remain as they were 20 years ago, when indeed knowledge was more sparse.

Having seen whats going on in academia plus many have been startups in AWE, I do think though that there is reason for us to be careful about scientific research results on global warming. But saying to Makani «hovering AWE» cant work doesnt make me knowledgeable or even right, unless I can acrually prove that the concept is infeasible. Something that would probably require me to know about as much stuff as the Makani people did, about their project.

Yeah, I’m not sure how they screwed it up that bad. I actually think some version of the general concept could work OK. Obvously, some very wrong design decisions were made.

Well, whomever was running things, apparently wasn’t very knowledgeable(?)
And even Fort Felker couldn’t save it. I wonder if he’s still working for Google…

Hi friends!
We don’t need to discuss wether climate change is real and man-made! I’ve unlisted the topic.

Typical - like I said, they put their hands over their ears and say “La la la la la I can’t hear you!”
Well done, Tom. We’d hate to ruin a perfect record!

Latest Doomsday fearmongering scenario: Back to global cooling, but it’s still your fault!
Gulf Stream Collapse!
Gulf Stream current could collapse in 2025, plunging Earth into climate chaos: ‘We were actually bewildered’ | Live Science
They say it will plunge Europe into a deep freeze.
But there is no agreement on this whole story.
I was under the impression that warm water from the gulf stream fell as snow in Greenland, reflecting sunlight and keeping everything up there cool. But more immediately, the warm North Atlantic keeps Europe warm, so…
Whatever the case, the only viable action is to panic and feel guilty, and try to stop doing anything, since anything you do will cause a catastrophe.
By the way, have you ever thought, if we can harness ocean currents for unlimited cheap energy, “they” will need a reason to restrict it, and maybe tax it. So this could be a setup for future control of otherwise cheap and abundant energy.
Also, did you know, the emergence of Central America, rising from the sea, cut off the Gulf of Mexico from the Pacific side, causing warm bathtub conditions, which caused the Gulf Stream, which caused the current ice age, which resulted in the evolution of humanity by adaptation to the cold? Suddenly we needed clothing, shelter, fire, and technology to use it all, just to survive the cold. Hard for primates to stay in trees when all the leaves fall off! Once the leaves were gone, we became “ground-apes”, and had to turn our former tree nests upside-down and get inside them on the ground!
And it;s all about weather, which starts with:

  1. underground magma currents that move the continents around on the surface
  2. ocean currents moved around by the shifting continents
  3. finally, as a side-effect, air currents are affected, influencing temperatures.
    How di we lose our body hair? Clothing and shelter!
    Why do people go bald? Because of a million years of wearing hats!
    And it all started out with magma currents underground… :slight_smile:

So much for decarbonization - Record Coal Use this Year:

Global Coal Use Set to Stay at Record Levels This Year, IEA Says - Bloomberg

We were all gonna die in 2015 if we didn’t stop emitting carbon dioxide immediately ahead of that date.
What happened?
Oh nothing…
Nevermind…
:slight_smile:

@dougselsam personally I don’t support the continued presence of someone this scientifically illiterate, and apparently opposed to the scientific process and filled with conspiracy theories, on an applied science forum. I was planning to continue discussing this topic in this topic to try to pop the bubble a bit, but haven’t come around to that these last few days.

Anyway, expect long duration suspensions if you can’t control yourself outside of this topic.

Part of an earlier intended comment in this topic: