Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

Sort:
playerafar
Festers-bester wrote:
playerafar wrote:

Regarding the forecast for a terrible heat wave in the US during the next week - 
during the last two days the forecast has not changed for the better.
The heat wave is closer now. Becoming more and more likely.
What often happens is that air conditioning usage spikes. Heavily.
Air conditioning uses a lot of electric power.
And then there are electricity brownouts and blackouts because of too much demand.
Then there might be no air conditioning at all or even no electricity for fans.
Especially bad in cities.

That looks familiar. Oh yes. My comment #31110. Imitation being the most sincere flattery, I thank you.

I already knew about brownouts and blackouts during over-use of air conditioning during heat waves.
I lived through one of those in New York City a long time ago.
Idea: the approaching terrible heat wave about to hit the US hard is not about 'you and me'.

lfPatriotGames
AG120502 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

It's easy to look back as an adult and think "we could do all that stuff twice as fast". But half of kids are having trouble keeping up as it is. Double speed education is for prodigal geniuses.

It is certainly easy for adults to do that. But the potential of children remains unrealised.

When I was in kindergarten, the smarter kids, instead of saying numbers out loud to do addition, just used their fingers, increasing accuracy and speed. The average kids, on the other hand, were slow, inaccurate and rather confused. Fast forward a few years and the smart kids and the average kids are basically the same. They were just a bit faster than the average kids in two digit multiplication. The average kids didn’t get better. The smarter kids got worse. All the children were being made to apply principles they didn’t understand and weren’t taught. They were taught to use ‘tricks’ using the distributive property of multiplication. After some time, it was more about the tricks than actually understanding. Later, this understanding, which the smarter kids had more of, will affect their ability to do double integration and make proofs. The smart kids lost their ability to understand, and the average kids didn’t gain any.

Currently, I’m in fourth grade and very popular in my class. Using my popularity, I have convinced my classmates to do homework. The fifth and sixth graders’ homework. After explaining how and why 2x-x is x, they’ve developed the ability to find GCF’s, solve linear equations and use and solve problems with exponential notation. This all happened because instead of making the class recite ‘multiplication is repeated addition’ I made them understand the relationship between unary operations and multiplication. They figured out most of it with barely any spoon feeding from me. All I did was literally tell them what’s in the textbooks, give them some basic problems to solve and make them reason how to solve the more complex ones and derive methods of solving them.

So far, I’ve just been talking about how I did things. I am a typical nine-year old who is good at being popular. With some basic techniques, the kids in my class are at least a grade ahead of their peers. The class’s average score in tests has jumped by eighteen percent. And the lowest score is 72%, which was once 56%. The Polgar sisters were raised to be chess prodigies. Their childhood was full of chess. These people don’t have to spend much time or energy every day. They still have time to chat with their friends and go to football tournaments or whatever. Sounds like a good ROI to me.

The point is, you can make people improve significantly with little resources. This doesn’t make me some sort of genius child psychologist. This means that people are being given much, much less than they can chew. I’m not for making everyone great at everything. I don’t believe that’s possible. I just think basic education can be completed much faster and that humans can develop and improve more than they are currently doing. And no, I do not study in a school for gifted children.

I suppose it will be interesting to see how people react to your comments.

AG120502

Could be. What do you think?

playerafar
AG120502 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
playerafar wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

I prefer elucidation to blanket condemnation.

Me too.
Elucidation.
But that takes different forms. Refers to different things.
Over one billion people don't agree with the science consensus about manmade climate change.
It won't do any good 'condemning' them. None.
Nor will it do any good claiming its about education or IQ or elitism or credentials.
In fact - such stances make things worse.
-----------------
Climate is complex. So are commerce and industry and consumerism.
How do the one billion disagreeing people react to the complexities?
Its something like they don't trust complexity.
And science is often relegated to a kind of black box.
Its harder for them to 'black box' weather disasters and news about same - 
but the way their stance works is often in how they interpret 'regional'.
'Hey we don't like cold. And if its warmer here because of this carbon thing then we like that. And if its harder for people in some regions then maybe that was going to happen anyway. '
And they don't like governments doing things about the problems.
If they don't see it as connecting to the benefit of their family job money property neighbourhood they don't like it and don't trust it and are more comfortable regarding it as a scam.
That's the situation.

That is a very mature way of looking at it. Not everyone is capable of that kind of observation.

To solve ANY problem, you have to always consider the concerns of those who disagree.

Figuring out who will be opposed to the steps taken is very important when trying to solve problems. You can figure out how to effectively combat them, how to do damage control and how to convert them. All your preparations can go to waste if you don’t account for people who not only do not contribute, but attack your actions and you.

The one billion plus people who disagree with the news and science of manmade climate science -
are not just some people posting their disagreement on the internet.
They are one billion people with real power.
And they're not alone. Not isolated.
About half of societies 'pitch in' with them and are on their side ideologically and philosophically.
Even though they agree with the real news and science about the disaster that is manmade climate change. They are 'partners' against the other half who they 'don't trust'.
And within that half that 'doesn't trust' are the geocentrists too.
Fascinating to me that the geocentrists outnumber those who disagree with climate news and science.
They outnumber them almost two to one.
For some reason - those who disagree with the news and science are a lesser subset of that half of society.
With the tiniest subset (of that half) being the flat earthers. (4% in the US).

Festers-bester
playerafar wrote:
Festers-bester wrote:
playerafar wrote:

Regarding the forecast for a terrible heat wave in the US during the next week - 
during the last two days the forecast has not changed for the better.
The heat wave is closer now. Becoming more and more likely.
What often happens is that air conditioning usage spikes. Heavily.
Air conditioning uses a lot of electric power.
And then there are electricity brownouts and blackouts because of too much demand.
Then there might be no air conditioning at all or even no electricity for fans.
Especially bad in cities.

That looks familiar. Oh yes. My comment #31110. Imitation being the most sincere flattery, I thank you.

I already knew about brownouts and blackouts during over-use of air conditioning during heat waves.
I lived through one of those in New York City a long time ago.
Idea: the approaching terrible heat wave about to hit the US hard is not about 'you and me'.

No it's not but feel free to repeat my profundity. It's fine.

playerafar

'No its not' was good. You got that part right maybe. If you can do it.

playerafar

from the internet just now:
"Authorities are urging people to stay hydrated, limit outdoor activities during peak heat hours, seek air-conditioned environments, check on vulnerable neighbors, and be aware of cooling centers. Energy demands are also expected to spike. 
Climate Change Connection: Meteorologists and climate scientists note that while summer heat waves are normal, the increased frequency, intensity, and duration of such extreme heat events are consistent with the predicted impacts of human-caused climate change"
-------------------
Different regions of the US are going to be hit on different days.
For some it will be as early as Sunday. Tomorrow in other words.
For others it will be midweek.
In some places the heat wave has already started.

NotQuite8-Bit

Oh yeah... where I am, we've already gotten extreme heat warnings

DiogenesDue

The projected heat wave will not be doing much on the west coast of the US (7 day forecast is all <80'F), so expect some people that dwell there to dismiss it while they are still experiencing global climate *change* locally.

playerafar
NotQuite8-Bit wrote:

Oh yeah... where I am, we've already gotten extreme heat warnings

I was trying to find out more certainly what they mean by 'record' heat waves.
Very probably they mean for the particular day of the month.
But can't yet rule out they mean record day for the whole month.
But that can also mean for the entire month as a whole.
Or even that they mean for the location. All time records for all year around.
-------------------
But after some more checking it appears the announcements refer to record highs for exact dates in the particular location. Expected to happen in various places.
There's also record lows as in the low temperature being the highest its ever been.
Which is even nastier than the peak temperature that day.
A lot nastier.
(there's also record lows for the day - as in the lowest lows - but in the warm seasons that's usually not a problem)

mpaetz
lfPatriotGames wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

When I say global climate, and any changes happening to it, cannot be "experienced" by personal observation in one's own home, I mean that no one can possibly see all the varied climatic conditions around the globe and how they change over time. We must rely on information gleaned from a variety of sources.

Our local climates are naturally affected by wider regional and global climatic conditions, so we should expect that a significant change in global climate will result in local changes--greater in some places, negligible in others. Of course we can experience those changes.

When I posited that global warming might affect snowpacks and reduce river flows in your area, you said that that was "local climate". Now you say that worldwide temperature rise IS "global climate". You also say that sea level rise on the Oregon coast is global climate, but why is it not just local climate, as sea levels don't matter in Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Uganda, Kansas, and thousands of other places far from the coast?

My opinion is that global climate is the conglomeration of all local climates and noticeable changes in global conditions will cause variations in regional climatic conditions that people everywhere will experience.

To answer your question, because global climate includes all of what you mentioned. If global rise (global climate) in temperature causes our snowpack to melt, yes, that would be something experienced locally.

So I'll ask again, if global climate cannot be experienced locally, how would one go about experiencing it any other way? From my experience, a person can only experience climate at the local level. It is impossible to experience the entire global climate, all at once. So I'm curious, how would one go about experiencing global climate on a global scale?

Is it because global climate cannot be experienced at all? If that's the case, global climate CHANGE cannot be experienced, wouldn't you agree? And if something cannot be experienced, it's probably not something to be worried about.

I will suppose your last paragraph is your answer, which I agree with. I think it's probably a way of saying, yes, global climate is experienced locally. Just worded differently to help bail out Fester.

Further elucidation:

I have repeatedly said that there will be (varied) local manifestations of global climate change. So why do you constant attribute "global climate cannot be experienced locally" to me?

It seems obvious that no one can see what is happening to all the different environments around the entire planet solely from personal observation of their own neighborhood.

Again, I am not "supporting" or "bailing out" Fester. If you have issues with or questions for him, address them to him.

Festers-bester

I will not claim heat records being broken where I am is a direct result of the climate globally warming. But it is a good indicator since 90+ is unusual for June and individual days of 98+ are even more rare.

The recod being clearly broken is the number of consecutive days expected over 90 and near 100. Right now the prediction is for 8 to 10 days starting as soon as today.

Festers-bester

Festers-bester

If my A/C breaks down I'll fly to Oregon where global climate does not happen.

🙄

lfPatriotGames
mpaetz wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
mpaetz wrote:

When I say global climate, and any changes happening to it, cannot be "experienced" by personal observation in one's own home, I mean that no one can possibly see all the varied climatic conditions around the globe and how they change over time. We must rely on information gleaned from a variety of sources.

Our local climates are naturally affected by wider regional and global climatic conditions, so we should expect that a significant change in global climate will result in local changes--greater in some places, negligible in others. Of course we can experience those changes.

When I posited that global warming might affect snowpacks and reduce river flows in your area, you said that that was "local climate". Now you say that worldwide temperature rise IS "global climate". You also say that sea level rise on the Oregon coast is global climate, but why is it not just local climate, as sea levels don't matter in Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Uganda, Kansas, and thousands of other places far from the coast?

My opinion is that global climate is the conglomeration of all local climates and noticeable changes in global conditions will cause variations in regional climatic conditions that people everywhere will experience.

To answer your question, because global climate includes all of what you mentioned. If global rise (global climate) in temperature causes our snowpack to melt, yes, that would be something experienced locally.

So I'll ask again, if global climate cannot be experienced locally, how would one go about experiencing it any other way? From my experience, a person can only experience climate at the local level. It is impossible to experience the entire global climate, all at once. So I'm curious, how would one go about experiencing global climate on a global scale?

Is it because global climate cannot be experienced at all? If that's the case, global climate CHANGE cannot be experienced, wouldn't you agree? And if something cannot be experienced, it's probably not something to be worried about.

I will suppose your last paragraph is your answer, which I agree with. I think it's probably a way of saying, yes, global climate is experienced locally. Just worded differently to help bail out Fester.

Further elucidation:

I have repeatedly said that there will be (varied) local manifestations of global climate change. So why do you constant attribute "global climate cannot be experienced locally" to me?

It seems obvious that no one can see what is happening to all the different environments around the entire planet solely from personal observation of their own neighborhood.

Again, I am not "supporting" or "bailing out" Fester. If you have issues with or questions for him, address them to him.

I have. But his response was pretty typical. I asked him if global climate cannot be experienced locally can global climate CHANGE be experienced locally. He didn't have an answer and instead said it was a stupid question. Given the topic of conversation is climate change it seemed like a pretty relevant question.

The only reason we are discussing it is because you responded to my comments to Fester. So did Elroch. It seems pretty obvious the only way to experience global climate, or climate change, is locally. Afterall, the only way local climate exists is because of global climate. There are no places on earth where it's 300 degrees, or minus 300 degrees. (not counting things like volcanoes of course) All local climate falls under the limitations of global climate. So I decided to ask the internet anyway. The internet insists climate and climate change can only be experienced locally, despite Festers assertion that it "cannot".

I would ask him to type in the same question into whatever search engine he uses and compare the results. But I have a feeling that the question, the answer, the internet, and anything else he can think of are all "stupid".

lfPatriotGames
Festers-bester wrote:

If my A/C breaks down I'll fly to Oregon where global climate does not happen.

🙄

Maybe that's why we don't experience the same problems you do. You said it yourself; global climate cannot be experienced here.

playerafar

Regarding global climate and global manmade climate change being 'experienced locally' -
of course that is happening.
The first one has been happening since the beginning of humanity on earth.
And before that - by other life forms on earth.
And before that - well rocks can't experience so no.
Yes all of that is obvious.
------------------
Regarding the second one - manmade climate change being 'experienced locally' the answer is more and more its yes. During recent decades. And especially in particular areas.
Some areas are not hit hard like the the pacific northwest and UK-Scandinavia-France.
-------------
the points are that climate is diverse and complex and varies with region and seasons and over time - and manmade climate change disasters are also diverse and complex and vary from region to region and with the seasons and over time too.
-------------
but 'cannot be experienced locally' can also be a play on words in this context.
principle: those who reject climate news and climate science cannot be forced to interpret words and phrases and sentences in the ways that those who don't so reject would intend or prefer.

power_9_the_people
lfPatriotGames wrote:
power_9_the_people wrote:

It snowed in July of last year in Montana
 https://www.mtmemory.org

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bozeman/comments/1bsarag/come_to_montana_where_the_only_holiday_it_doesnt/?

Fireworks might have to be cancelled

And bbqing in a blizzard?

Today is 6/21. It's 10:30 in the morning. We currently have a fire in the woodstove so the radiant heat doesn't come on. The high temperature today is forecasted to be about 56 degrees. And it's currently snowing at Timberline Lodge.

But they are saying good weather is coming next week.

We have experienced no climate change today in QC It was a very nice day 😌 you could say a perfect and exceptionally beautiful day, considering the wide variety of weather conditions

power_9_the_people

The average temperature on St. John the Baptist Day (June 24th) in Quebec City is typically mild, with highs around 20°C (69°F) and lows around 11°C (51°F). It's a pleasant time to be outdoors, but the area can also feel breezy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Average High: 20°C (69°F)
Average Low: 11°C (51°F)
General Feel: Mild, potentially cool, and breezy
While June is generally a pleasant month in Quebec City, it's worth noting that temperatures can fluctuate, and there's always a chance of some cooler weather, especially in the evenings.

power_9_the_people
AG120502 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

It's easy to look back as an adult and think "we could do all that stuff twice as fast". But half of kids are having trouble keeping up as it is. Double speed education is for prodigal geniuses.

It is certainly easy for adults to do that. But the potential of children remains unrealised.

When I was in kindergarten, the smarter kids, instead of saying numbers out loud to do addition, just used their fingers, increasing accuracy and speed. The average kids, on the other hand, were slow, inaccurate and rather confused. Fast forward a few years and the smart kids and the average kids are basically the same. They were just a bit faster than the average kids in two digit multiplication. The average kids didn’t get better. The smarter kids got worse. All the children were being made to apply principles they didn’t understand and weren’t taught. They were taught to use ‘tricks’ using the distributive property of multiplication. After some time, it was more about the tricks than actually understanding. Later, this understanding, which the smarter kids had more of, will affect their ability to do double integration and make proofs. The smart kids lost their ability to understand, and the average kids didn’t gain any.

Currently, I’m in fourth grade and very popular in my class. Using my popularity, I have convinced my classmates to do homework. The fifth and sixth graders’ homework. After explaining how and why 2x-x is x, they’ve developed the ability to find GCF’s, solve linear equations and use and solve problems with exponential notation. This all happened because instead of making the class recite ‘multiplication is repeated addition’ I made them understand the relationship between unary operations and multiplication. They figured out most of it with barely any spoon feeding from me. All I did was literally tell them what’s in the textbooks, give them some basic problems to solve and make them reason how to solve the more complex ones and derive methods of solving them.

So far, I’ve just been talking about how I did things. I am a typical nine-year old who is good at being popular. With some basic techniques, the kids in my class are at least a grade ahead of their peers. The class’s average score in tests has jumped by eighteen percent. And the lowest score is 72%, which was once 56%. The Polgar sisters were raised to be chess prodigies. Their childhood was full of chess. These people don’t have to spend much time or energy every day. They still have time to chat with their friends and go to football tournaments or whatever. Sounds like a good ROI to me.

The point is, you can make people improve significantly with little resources. [.....]

I don't remember ever having used my fingers 😕

But Maybe I just can't remember