Interesting – Disqus has an email address thief

I attempted to comment to an article here:

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-if-we-gave-war-and-everyone-came.html

and got an error message:

OR PICK A NAME

That email address is already registered with a Disqus account. Log in or enter another email.

Disqus claims I have an account when I don't.

Disqus claims I have an account when I don’t.

As the saying goes “Very Interesting….”

Visiting their web site here:

https://disqus.com/

gave no joy on any email address to which I might send a complaint that someone has poached my email address for a Disqus account. (In theory, postmaster@whereever.com is supposed to always exist and I might try it later, but is typically automated / scanned…)

So after looking around for a while and finding the site very hostile to external communications from someone not a member (and being unwilling to open an account with Some Non Me email as mine has already been poached by someone there so I can’t use it) I found another way, maybe.

They have a job listing for a

Site Reliability Engineer
We’re looking for an experienced Site Reliability Engineer to play an integral role on our Dev Ops team at Disqus. The ideal person is obsessed with uptime and site speed and has years of experience with server hardware and Linux systems. At the same time, you are passionate about working with development engineers to get more done faster with less trouble. You’ll be working at our office in San Francisco. Disqus reaches over 1 billion unique visitors a month. You’ll be working on large scale challenges immediately as well as make a huge, lasting impact on all technical decisions.

And figuring that having unreliable email addresses and folks poaching other folks email addresses is kind of along those lines, I applied for it… and in the question about “website” included the information that my email address had been poached. We’ll see if they get clue about it all… ;-)

Full job listing here:

https://boards.greenhouse.io/disqus/jobs/5215#.VRRV8FX38yg

Disqusbluelogo
Apply Now
Site Reliability Engineer
at Disqus (View all jobs)
San Francisco, CA or New York, NY
We’re looking for an experienced Site Reliability Engineer to play an integral role on our Dev Ops team at Disqus. The ideal person is obsessed with uptime and site speed and has years of experience with server hardware and Linux systems. At the same time, you are passionate about working with development engineers to get more done faster with less trouble. You’ll be working at our office in San Francisco. Disqus reaches over 1 billion unique visitors a month. You’ll be working on large scale challenges immediately as well as make a huge, lasting impact on all technical decisions.

What You’ll Do

Work with our server-side infrastructure, including configuring Linux systems (e.g. packaging) and dealing with hardware.
Participate in 24/7 on-call rotation (be available by phone or email in case something goes wrong)
Troubleshoot issues with hardware, software, applications and network
Work with engineers on product decisions and troubleshooting, but primarily work independently
Help improve the development organization’s ability to rapidly and safely deploy code
Architect and build our systems for maximum productivity and scalability
What We’re Looking For

Proven ability to build large, reliable, scalable infrastructure — you’ve directly contributed to scaling a highly-trafficked website or web application
Extensive knowledge of Linux (we use Ubuntu and Debian) and 5+ years of system administrator experience
PostgreSQL, Slony, pgbouncer; also non-relational such as Cassandra
Nginx, HAProxy, Varnish, Memcached
Knowledge of shell scripting and Python (familiarity with Django is a plus)
Able to join the team onsite at San Francisco HQ
Nice-to-Haves

A relevant university degree is great, but we care more about industry experience and knowledge
Programming experience (Python, Django, JavaScript). You’ll work directly with engineers and assist in debugging/optimizing on the application-side
Previous work experience in a startup environment
Previous experience with a development focused operations team
About Disqus

What is Disqus?
Disqus is a free service that enables great online communities. As the web’s most popular discussion system, Disqus is used by 3 million websites that cover pretty much any topic imaginable. Our magic is in connecting people to stuff worth talking about.

Who We Are
Disqus is a fast-growing team making a big impact. We’re a group of hackers and tech geeks who love the web and believe that better communities will make an even better web. We believe in amazing user experiences, well-designed code, and fast, iterative development.

We go above and beyond when it comes to thinking outside of the box to solve problems creatively. We’re driven to learn and implement new technologies, and figure how to scale them to accommodate our massive scale. Are you up for the challenge of building an application that supports 50,000+ requests per second, and 4MM active concurrent connections to our realtime stream? Then join us.

We love what we do, and we love the team we’ve built.

Work Perks

We’re a small team that gets a lot done and has a lot of fun along the way. All full-time employees of Disqus receive the same great benefits:
Competitive salaries and stock options
Daily catered lunch and fully stocked snacks, drinks, and beer
Weekly in-office yoga and massage
Apple computers and a bountiful equipment policy
Flexible hours, so you can be at your most productive
Generous out-of-office time for holidays, vacation, sick leave, and personal or family needs
Comprehensive medical, dental, and vision plan options
Team celebrations: company anniversaries, birthdays, weddings, babies – you name it, we celebrate it!
401(k) plan, pre-tax commuter benefits, employee assistance program and flex spending accounts
Convenient office location in SOMA near public transit (blocks from BART, Muni, Caltrain) and parking
Friendly, casual office environment with plenty of toys (foosball, ping pong, video games, and more)

Their application demands many fields and has entries for several kind of social media (Facebook, and Twitter, but oddly, not Linkedin where most professional folks look to make job connections).

They demand an entry for “Skype Alias” though it accepted my entry of “It used to be chiefio but I no longer use Skype since Microsoft bought them”. Leaving out that it had been made a nice little NSA feed in the process… and it also seems from their expectation of high social media interaction that they have no clue that Security Guys are not keen on too much public access to their information…

They will likely also be surprised at my resume that was attached listing Orlando as my address ( it still is, legally) while I put that I was presently in San Jose in the slot on their online application (as that is where my seat is at the moment). Oh Well.

I can only hope that they figure out that the email address that is on the resume is the same as a Disqus account, but a different person. And maybe fix it.

Until then, it looks like I can’t comment at blogspot pages. Not like it was high on my list of things to do…

At blogspot.com you get redirected to a Google site for “support”. I looked at the form for complaining about ‘Impersonation’ but it auto-filled in my google gmail account (rarely used and only for non-serious stuff like testing chrome… due to the Google “all your data are ours” policies…) and would not let me make a complaint without uploading a photo of my drivers licence. Not having a photo to hand, and not doing to send one to Google anyway, that’s a dead end.

Please attach a clear, readable copy of your valid driver’s license, national ID card, or other photo ID. *

https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/82112

So it looks like it is “open season” on anyone you don’t like. Just open a Disqus account using their email address, then without even logging in you can disrupt their ability to post on various forums. Nice. Then you could log in and post all sorts of inflammatory crap to fill up their email box if you desired. Very nice.

Oh, my comment was:

• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
11B40 • 4 hours ago
Greetings:

With all due respect to the recently and sadly deceased Fouad Ajami, who did much to shape my thinking about that benighted region, those are the lands of “I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; and my cousin, my brother, and I against the stranger”. (And we kuffars are always strangers, aren’t we now ???

My own formulation goes like this: Islam is the millstone. It is nothing more than the globalization of predatory 7th Century Arab tribal culture under a thin veneer of religion. And if your plan doesn’t include constraining, undermining, or eradicating Islam, you don’t have a plan. What you have is a hope.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar

E.M.Smith Comment:

I think one of my favorite sayings applies here. Usually I use it related to stock trading, but…

“And Hope is not a strategy. -E.M.Smith”

Subscribe to feed

Posted in Tech Bits | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Saudi are “in” in Yemen

Per Al Jazeera News, Saudi Arabia is conducting air strikes and shelling in North Yemen against the Houthi areas.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/saudi-ambassador-announces-military-operation-yemen-150325234138956.html

This is a “hot” version of the proxy war between Saudi (sunni) and Iran (shia) Islam.

Sunni and Shia Islam.  Sunni in green, Shia in red.  (Ibadi Purple)

Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni in green, Shia in red. (Ibadi Purple)

This, as they say, is going to be interesting…

Saudi Arabia and a coalition of regional allies have launched a military operation in Yemen against the Houthi rebels, who deposed the US-backed Yemeni president last month.
Adel al-Jubair, Saudi ambassador to the US, said on Wednesday that a coalition consisting of 10 countries, including the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), had begun airstrikes at 7pm Eastern time.
The operation is to defend and support the legitimate government of Yemen
Adel al-Jubair, Saudi ambassador to US
“The operation is to defend and support the legitimate government of Yemen and prevent the radical Houthi movement from taking over the country,” Jubair told reporters in Washington.
Military sources said rebel positions were hit at various locations in Sanaa, including at al-Daylami airbase and the adjacent international airport in north Sanaa, as well as the presidential complex seized by the rebels in January.

So we (the USA) are allies of The House Of Saud, who are Wahabi (sort of extra hard core Sunni) and are enemies of Iran (Shia) who we are helping attack ISIS / ISIL (Sunni) while we are negotiating to prevent them (Iran) from getting a nuclear bomb while we have sanctions against them. In the mean time, we are against Syria (who ISIS are attacking) while supporting Israel (who they all hate) except that Obama is upset with Israel and wants to throw them under the Arab bus… while ISIL is stirring up trouble in Yemen and joining in the trouble in Lybia where we are on who’s side again? So Saudi is dropping their own bombs now… Well, that’s at least a clear point… maybe.

I really do wish that we (the USA Government) had a clue what we are doing and just what side we are backing in all this… or better yet, just stopped handing weapons and support to folks who (while they hate each other) universally agree that we ought to be converted to Islam or killed.

Sigh.

Fun to watch, though. I suppose.

Subscribe to feed

Posted in News Related, Political Current Events | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

A Wonderful Comment on the Benefit of CO2

In this link in comments on WUWT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/24/mann-on-the-run-latest-paper-dead-at-birth-rejected-by-german-warmist-scientists-deletes-inconvenient-facebook-challenge/#comment-1891268

Is a wonderful comment by RBGatDuke. I’ve edited things a little bit. I included the preceding and responding comments, and there was a correction by RBGatDuke that I’ve ‘inlined’ for easier readability. (You can always hit the link to see the actual unchanged version if this bothers you).

First up, the lead in:

Abram March 25, 2015 at 8:21 am
Here’s a guy who thinks he’s the worlds #1 climate scientist, but his experience is in dendrochronology. Really, there shouldn’t be a link between these two as the tree rings give an approximation of the “sum of conditions” not necessarily climate, but he already knew that.

emsnews March 25, 2015 at 8:30 am
Quite so, Abram. Mann thinks he is #1. Tree rings show not just temperature but also rain amounts and incidentally, insect attacks. Yes, we have regular years every 20 or so in the Northeast where we have all the trees stripped of their leaves simultaneously by caterpillars who come out of the ground where they hibernate.

So on these years, the tree rings are smaller than other, normal years.

Tree rings most certainly do not show us cooling or heating alone.
<
[…]
Reply
Steve Oregon March 25, 2015 at 8:42 am
Good one. Imagine what Mann would do if he had any power or authority.
He’d be the Pol Pot of Climate Science.

I think that the spacing indicates that the reply is about the “truth” of what Abram says, that tree rings integrate all limits, but I find it amusing that it also seems appropriate to the Pol Pot comparison ;-) At any rate, here’s the reply about tree rings:

rgbatduke March 25, 2015 at 8:58 am
IIRC this is literally the truth. In one of the directories released with the original tree ring data, there was a record of email conversations where some of the goals of the work were clearly discussed with colleagues, and dealing with the MWP and LIA were on the list, as they were clearly visible on (IIRC) Jones and Briffa’s reconstructions that were also published in AR3/TAR. But the JB result wasn’t a hockey stick, and hence didn’t tell the right story. IIRC there were climategate emails that said almost exactly the same thing. The simple fact of the matter is that there was a body of climate scientists — a substantial body — in direct communication with one another and at the very least displaying their utter lack of scientific objectivity as they were “gunning” for the MWP and LIA in order to support their assertions of catastrophic warming (and the funding cornucopia gold rush that followed, where they were regularly interviewed on radio and TV and became “famous” — and who can resist the seduction of all that?).

But my favorite thing is this:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm

Note well — for the trees used by Mann as proxies, we expect to see roughly 12% increased growth rates of tree rings from 1850 to the present due to the increase in atmospheric CO_2 itself, not due to increased temperatures at all! Indeed, the growth rate due to temperature increases is also documented in this short review as being expected to be around 10% over the same interval.

The problem with this is that it means that the tree ring proxies were almost certainly incorrectly selected and normalized across the overlap using Mann’s procedure of only using trees that were in good correspondence with the temperature data and then extrapolating the ring widths observed into the past. In the past there would have (possibly, even probably) much less variation in CO_2 level, so that they underestimate warming by roughly a factor of two by attributing growth due to two factors in the recent present to only one of the two, but not correcting for the absence of variation in the other in the remote past.

Tree rings based climate estimates probably underestimate past warming by a factor of roughly two, outside of the additional confounding of heat with or without adequate water under the conditions of lower CO_2. That is, hot dry low-CO2 conditions actually decrease plant growth rates as they are water-limited in growth and (as the article points out) have large stoma through which water loss occurs, experiencing a very severe increase in plant stress. As CO_2 increases, plant stoma sizes needed to maintain CO_2 perfusion decrease, water loss decreases, and in addition to growing faster in response to the otherwise rate limiting CO_2, the plant grows faster still in warmer conditions even when less water is present, as they lose less water to respiration through the smaller stoma.

This additional confounding factor could make tree rings underestimate past temperatures by an additional factor of 2, or it could cause tree rings to infer cool conditions where in reality the conditions were hot, but CO_2 stressed and dry.

I first realized this when I saw a paper (probably linked through this site) that was trying to make inferences about tropical storms and temperatures using growth rates of certain tropical trees (in the Phillipines, maybe? Can’t remember.). The trees have showed a systematically increased growth rate that the article (naturally) attributed to global warming even though the data they presented did not show any sort of good correlation with global average temperature in detail. It did, however, follow a curve I had recently worked out for probable well-mixed CO_2 content in the atmosphere over the last 1850 years, and the numbers — 15% overall, IIRC — worked out almost perfectly for the increase in growth expected from the increase in CO_2 alone.

Inlined correction:rgbatduke March 25, 2015 at 9:03 am
Sorry, I meant that that Malaysian trees didn’t follow the known local temperature but were in good agreement — really excellent agreement — with the CO_2 curve itself, a thing that eluded the authors of the study as it has eluded the entire discipline AFAICT. My bad. end inline update. -EMS

This may be the next big shoe to come crashing down on the global warming dendroclimatologists. AFAIK, they have all to a Mann completely, utterly, totally neglected the effect of CO_2 itself on growth rates of the very plants they are using as proxies. In many cases — notably this case in the Phillipines or Malaysia or wherever it was — consideration of CO_2 completely eliminates any correlation with temperature at all in the residuals (that is, after taking CO_2 increase into account, there is nothing left to explain via temperature variation). In any event, correcting for it will, without question, substantially lower the anomaly these methods report when it is taken into account.

This is the one thing that the catastrophists don’t want to draw attention to, but even my friends in Environmental Sciences are perfectly aware of — the increased CO_2 alone is responsible for over 10% of the crops harvested worldwide every year. If one takes the increased drought resistance and increased growth rates due to warming (whatever the cause) into account, the number goes up closer to 20%. We feed, clothe, and shelter somewhere between 1 and 1.5 billion people a year with this food mass, with the plant fiber mass, and with the trees mass that we know, quite reliably and on the basis of literally hundreds if not thousands of greenhouse experiments, is available only because of the increased CO_2 in the atmosphere.

This is why even some otherwise rabid ecologists are starting to change their stance on CO_2. Yeah, maybe it will cause a global catastrophe in 100 years, maybe not, but up to now its effects have been so overwhelmingly positive that the world would almost certainly have voted to burn enough carbon to take the atmosphere to 400 ppm regardless if they were actually informed of its benefits.

1 to 1.5 billion people.

That’s how many people would potentially starve if we waved a magic wand and dropped CO_2 right back to 280 ppm tomorrow. At the very least, to prevent the worst catastrophe humanity has ever even dreamed about we’d all have to tighten our belts and equitably distribute the food we have to the world’s poorest 2 or 3 billion people, as naturally the hardest hit would be the poorest and most populous nations, nations that can only feed their own populations because of the CO_2 benefit.

Here’s the really, really sad thing. The climate news this week has been fabulous. Seriously! A paper is being published that through careful work reduces aerosol cooling uncertainty by over a factor of two and reduces the probable cooling itself to a mere 0.5 C! This in turn invalidates 80% of all of the climate models — 100% of the ones predicting catastrophe. This in turn requires one to re-tune the surviving ones so that they work at all with the much smaller aerosol cooling, which eliminates almost all of the positive water vapor feedback which is the only thing that could cause a real catastrophe. The probable implication of this paper is that the “crisis” is decisively over! ECS from 1 to 2 C is simply not likely to be catastrophic even in RCP8.5, and most probable ECS is on the low side of this range, with basically no net feedback on top of CO_2-only forcing!

Throw in the observation that the hockey stick neglected direct CO_2-driven growth and hence is incorrectly normalized. Throw in on top of that the simple observation that the CO_2 increase in the industrial era is feeding one person in five who is alive today (and not just humans — this effect pervades the entire biosphere!). If we had anything like objective reporting on this issue, anything like non-politicized science addressing it, anything like simply human selfishness in analyzing it, this would be headline news.

And in 1 to 2 years, if the aerosol result holds up, it will be. It is simply inevitable. If the strict upper bound of aerosol cooling is only 1 C, it will simply no longer be possible to maintain the illusion that the GCMs are useful in some way. The modelers will be forced to recalibrate the models, and the recalibrated models will, without any doubt at all, show far, far less warming than the old ones.

There will be two important social results from this. It will become common knowledge that the claims for precision and accuracy in these models and their suitability for purposes of “projecting” future climate have been from the beginning sheer bullshit. Numerous papers will appear proving what is and really always has been perfectly obvious, that there is no statistical basis for any claim for predictivity for the entire procedure that has been used to “project” a future climate, that every single assertion of “confidence” in documents presented to policy makers has been a deliberately deceptive misuse of a statistical term in a political context. Pitchforks and torches may appear as it becomes clear just how much public money has been wasted and stolen and misdirected as a result of this deliberate, self-interested deception. Second, it is barely possible that we will stop demonizing coal burning power plants and gasoline burning cars long enough for science and technology to do its job and actually invent better alternatives without the panic and without the incredible misdirection of resources into climate research on the hypothetical effects of a hypothetical catastrophe that will no longer be hypothetically likely at any level worth the money.

All good, from my point of view.

[A strong comment, thank you. .mod]

davidmhoffer March 25, 2015 at 10:09 am
Thanks RGB.
Long ago, before I discovered WUWT, I brought up the issue of CO2 fertilization disrupting tree rings in terms of both temperature and precipitation response in what I soon came to understand was a “science” forum in name only. I was patted on the head and told not to worry about the issue, and to leave the science to the “scientists”. Kinda forgot about it until your comment just now.

I also left in the kudos from the moderator and the reply from DavidMHoffer, mostly as I had a similar experience on a different question when I first started out. The “There there little boy, don’t tire out your tiny little mind with the hard stuff, just trust use wise ones” from a site that insisted on deleting any followup comments of the form “But what about THIS that seems to conflict?”… It was a bit of snark about “I must hang out at WUWT” that gave me a clue about where to go to get real information and reasonably polite treatment when asking questions…

At any rate, it is a very good comment and deserves to not be lost in the flood of a half dozen articles and 1000 comments a day at WUWT, so I’m putting a copy here.

FWIW, this is my comment on the same thread. Not nearly as moving, but more technical, IMHO:

E.M.Smith March 25, 2015 at 12:06 pm

The AMOC is the far north / European end of the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift) AND the return current below the surface. Now Mann was all “unprecedented” all over this slow down, and absolutely certain that it is an unusual and human caused thing.

Unfortunately, it is highly precedented and happens to even greater degree with very significant tendency to ‘regularity’. (I note in passing that we just had a ‘super tide’ event with folks coming out to see it as there will not be another one for decades… yet there will be another one as tides are driven by lunar / solar orbital mechanics.) My speculation is that much of the cyclical change is related to water flow changes directly driven by tide cycles in both water and air and that’s why we have what looks like 1500 ish year cycles along with sub cycles at 750 and about 300 years, along with a 5000 ish year cycle on the long end.

But far from speculation. This paper looks at Florida weather and how it relates to changes in the Gulf Stream and through it AMOC (by implication).

http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/publications/Jacobson%20et%20al.%202012%20Hg%20in%20L.%20Tulane%20ES%26T%2046%20%2011210-11717%5b1%5d.pdf

While it mostly looks at Hg concentration and transport with sea level and temperature changes, there’s an interesting chart of changes in the ratio of oak to pine pollen (which shifts with temperature and rainfall).

Figure 3. Lake Tulane Hg flux in relation to organic matter and selected plant taxa over the last 60 000 years. Horizontal green bars indicate Tulane Pinus periods (TP0 through TP6), which correspond to YD and Heinrich Events H1 through H6.14 Sea level in the Gulf of Mexico since 25 000 years BP is based on ref 17.

And:

The second of the dramatic peaks of the accumulation rate of Hg (ca. 13 000 and 5000 years BP, Figure 3) is slightly before the sharp increase in Pinus pollen, which lags a few hundred years. The Pinus rise is interpreted as a change in water regime, with increasing warmth and higher summer precipitation. If correct, the result would be an acceleration of the rise in regional water table, creating conditions for increased reductive dissolution of secondary Fe (and release of Hg). The soil, nearly at its present groundwater state, apparently was then rapidly depleted of stored Hg.

So we have periodic peaks of warmth and rain (Florida “summer pattern” today) happening when there are increases in Hg accumulation (leaching into the lake) in sync with the Younger Dryas and Heinrich Events. Heinrich Events being a rise in ice rafted debris on ocean floors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event

Heinrich events appear related to some, but not all, of the cold periods preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which are best recorded in the NGRIP Greenland ice core. However, difficulties in synchronising marine sediment cores and Greenland ice cores to the same time scale cast aspersions on the accuracy of this statement.

So they are during cold events, preceding the rapid warming spikes of D-O events.

What’s the point? While there is a lot of speculation that Heinrich Events are caused by some kind of fresh water flow or ice dam collapse leading to a slow down or halt of the AMOC, that isn’t known. IMHO it could just as easily be a natural shift of the current under extreme tidal forces (and would explain the quasi-periodic nature of D-O events that happen on the same schedule as Bond Events during the Holocene and their Heinrich Event fellow travelers). But what is clear:

When the AMOC slows and shifts, and Europe goes cold, the solar heat backs up in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida gets warmer and wetter. This is not at all unusual, and has been happening for tens of thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years. The pine and the oak trees are clear testimony to that. The Mercury is a bit more complicated, but also suggests the same.

So all you folks in the frozen north and tundra Europe, Florida is the place to head when the ice doesn’t leave “on time”… but you already knew that ;-)

This is also indirectly testimony for the W. Thunderstorm Thermostat Thesis. Florida gets warm, and wet, and fires up a whole lot more thunderstorms to hold total heat flow constant (less from the Arctic, more via thunderstorms and convection / precipitation). Even now during full on interglacials, it is very clear that the heat can only build up so far before the thunderstorms kick in and take it to the stratosphere for direct radiation to space. Hard to get much over about 88 F in Florida for very long before a thunderstorm cools things off again. Even when the Gulf Stream backs up and the AMOC shuts down; it just goes to “Summer Mode” and rains out the heat…

So, IMHO, this is pretty direct evidence that Mann has no clue about what real science has been done showing natural variability far more extreme than any proposed human caused changes. And just how much the AMOC is an oscillator and not a steady state.

Subscribe to feed

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Ice Ages and The Book about Milankovitch

This is a comment on WUWT that I’m preserving here since I’m tired of needing to explain this again and again and look up the book reference each time.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/20/an-attempt-to-link-past-ice-ages-to-co2-rather-than-orbital-cycles/#comment-1887812

E.M.Smith March 20, 2015 at 1:52 pm Edit
Yes! (To Slavatore Del Prete)

This (from a paper trying to say it was CO2, not orbital cycles, that cause the ice age / interglacial cycles):

“This makes sense in that the whole world was cold at the same time, but the Milankovitch theory should have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and thus cannot explain the synchronous advance of glaciers around the globe. ”

Is where they have gone idiotically wrong. You, Salvatore, and Data Soong, have got it right.

“They” have made the typical “noob” idiot mistake of simplification and leap to conclusion. Had they actually read about the Milankovitch cycle hypothesis they would have enough clue to know they were being idiotic.

The “thumbnail” is that first Milankovitch thought something similar, but found the data conflicted. Then he tried another approach that also failed as it was “exactly backwards”. Then he had the “Ah Ha!” moment and got it right. It is all neatly described in a history of his work that I’ll recommend below. But first:

The basic cause of the asymmetry is the land. The South Pole is all land all the time surrounded by water. The North Pole is all water all the time surrounded by land. Due to this, the South Pole is ALWAYS frozen. Always. Full stop. No melting. Done deal. (Anyone talking about the South Pole “melting” is full of it. No other option applies.) Only the North Pole can melt.

And melt it does, but ONLY when things are just EXACTLY right. We are, fundamentally, an Ice Age Planet that pops out of it just for a tiny little while and only when things are just right to melt the north pole ice. Anyone who is all worked up that the North Pole is melting is like the dog trying to sink his teeth into a car tire doing 30 MPH. If he gets what he wants he will be seriously injured and absolutely mortified. WHEN the North Pole freezes over next and stays frozen we are headed head first into that long night of deep freeze frozen ice age “pronto” with no recourse. Again: Period, full stop.

What Milankovitch figured out was that when ALL the parameters of the Earth Orbit line up just so, we barely cross the threshold for North Pole melting and poke our little frozen noses out for just a little while. Then when any of them gets far enough away from that magic alignment, it’s all ice ice baby all the time again. We are presently on the cusp of that W/m^2 rate and can be stable in either frozen or melted states depending on albedo of snow on the ground…

One other point, the key bit is NOT distance from the sun. In fact, we melt when furthest from the sun. Solar energy is not diminished worth note by distance, BUT when the Earth is at it furthest from the sun, it takes longer to make the season change happen. So when it is summer at furthest from the sun we have a few more days of summer. It is that few more days, not the simple W/m^2, that melt things and let the interglacial happen.

So, when summer in the Northern Hemisphere happens with the Earth furthest from the sun, and the tilt is maximized so polar heat is maximized, and the orbital eccentricity is maximum so we get the most added days of N.H. summer, then, and only then, can ONE pole melt, that being the N.H. pole, and allow an interglacial. At all other configurations we freeze.

(Sidebar per the 41K / 100K year problem: IMHO it is pretty easy to explain. In the past we were warmer. We could melt the north pole on lesser changes, like the 41 ky changes alone. Now we are, overall, much colder. It takes ALL the parameters being neatly aligned and that only happens on the 100 Kish year cycle. Really about 120 ky including the interglacial part… Look at the temp record and you can still see spikes up at the 41 ky cycle points, just not enough to melt the North Pole…)

FWIW, if you would understand the actual Milankovitch theory (which is unlike what most folks think it is and post about and complain about and…) there is a very nice small and readable book that explains it all nicely. It is the story of the history of Milankovitch and his work with paper and pen while in a German prison, only incidentally going into the theory and how it works, via relating what he tried and failed and tried again until he got it right. That book is highly recommended:

“Ice Age: The Theory That Came In From The Cold!” by John and Mary Gribbin.

Please, buy it and read it. It’s a wonderful tale and full of useful information for the small size and only 105 pages. You will never look at Milankovitch the same way again once you know about his life and how carefully he worked all this out. Spending, literally, years in a prison cell with plenty of time to think and nothing but pen and paper to do the work. (The Germans in that WW were not fond of his nationality…) At the end you will understand just how interglacials form, and why they are the key bit, not “why ice ages happen”… we are default ice…

If the warmistas had a clue about this they would be actively praying for “global warming”. In no more than 2000 years and potentially as short as 300 years you can kiss Canada good-by as the ice returns. New York City goes too, but a bit later as the ice takes a while to build up… And there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it.

Now, back at this “paper”…

As they have already got it entirely wrong by saying that the hemispheres ought to be counter cyclical to each other (and completely do not have a clue that Milankovitch took that approach, found it wrong – provably – and discarded it) and are clueless about what Milankovitch actually SAID causes interglacials, the rest of their work is disposed of in the same trash barrel. If you can’t even check your references and read your citations, the rest is going to be garbage…

Subscribe to feed

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 26 Comments

Are the Leaders of the Global Warming Movement Sociopaths?

When I look at the behavior of folks like Algore, there is a pattern that is rather similar to that seen in folks who are Sociopaths. For example, the video referenced in this article:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/16/gore-goes-off-the-deep-end-calls-to-punish-climate-change-deniers/

But first, a digression. There is much confusion of terms about “sociopath” vs “psychopath”; which isn’t all that surprising given that Psychology changes what words they use, and what those words mean, with astounding speed and regularity. (See the Wiki on it for examples of change over time. Note that at one point homosexuality was classed as ‘psychopathy’ by the professionals. One wonders if it was a ‘consensus’…) For my purposes, I’m going to reserve “psychopathy” for those folks with zero moral compass, zero ability to have one, zero “connection” and a broken brain. While “sociopathy”, in my point of view, is someone who may have a glimmer of those abilities, but often leaves them turned off or just doesn’t “get it” why they ought to care. In short, one is crazy and the other is just functionally immoral and lacking empathy.

Now, one reason for pointing out that distinction is that I believe all of us have some capacity to “turn on” or “turn off” brain functions. (Well, at least I know I can and I know many other folks who do at various times, so I think it fair to generalize the ability – though clearly some folks can not “control themselves” and many can’t do it enough…) I mention this for the simple reason that I can choose to meet or not meet some of the “criteria” given for a sociopath. I’m pretty sure I’m not one (for reasons that I’ve mentioned before, in particular the excess of “empathy” that causes me pain, but that I can “turn off” with effort) but there are some folks who would count those abilities in the “are too” side of the checklist. Oh, and I’ve been in a NASA study that set the personality profile selected for shuttle astronauts and had hours of interviews with a shrink and a load of psych tests that all asserted I’m very very normal, but able to control myself and act appropriately in any circumstances. That “right stuff” metric… But there are similarities between “does not care about others” and “can not allow self to care at this moment” that can lead folks astray in their thinking.

So it is quite possible that the folks in leadership positions are NOT sociopaths clinically, but are just able to be “functional sociopaths for the cause” at the moment. Again, perhaps some of that “right stuff”, just for the wrong reasons.

With that preamble, what makes for a sociopath?

Largely, it’s a self centered egotistical person who does not learn from their mistakes and does not give a damn about others as they have low / no empathy. They are also, often, very successful as they don’t care who they crush or how as they climb to the top of organizations and can be very skilled social manipulators. (There is a strong excess of sociopaths and sociopathic behaviour at the tops of businesses and especially governments.)

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

Has an interesting “checklist” for lay folks. At the end, though, they have one particular idiocy that is horrific. I’ll get it out of the way now:

“Sociopathic tendencies can often be confused with that of conditions such as aspergers or vice versa. The key difference is that sociopaths lack conscience, whereas people with aspergers simply lack theory of mind.”

Completely stupid. Aspergers is being used here as though it were Autism (yet even there we have folks who were / are autistic who have shown they do have a ‘theory of mind’ and knew other folks where thinking, but had other issues) and is asserting that Aspergers folks do not know other folks have a mind (i.e. only conceive of themselves as thinking and everyone else as a kind of prop on stage).

The spouse is a Special Ed. teacher who specializes in such folks and “we talk”. (She also has asserted I’m on the normal side of the cut-off but “on the spectrum” of the behaviors; so “normal with quirks” like high memory function and tendency to over-concentrate on things of interest…) We are both very aware that Aspies quite clearly do have a ‘theory of mind’, just often not liking what those other minds are doing to them… For me (and many others like me) it is TOO MUCH empathy and being too connected to others that’s the issue, not too little. Like Temple Grandin who used her excess empathy for cows to understand them and change the entire industry. Not only had a ‘theory of mind’ but a theory of mind in cows when “professionals” asserted other animals didn’t have a mind. I “talk to bunnies” (and yes, they talk back… it is a very simple tone based language but getting the tones just right is hard; I once had the whole herd scatter when I said “Look up for raptor!” that is just a bit tighter and louder than “I’m here, anything going on?”… they all stopped, looked up, didn’t see a bird but decided to look at me and trust me, then headed for cover; later I got the tone softer and lower and it was the correct inquiry / greeting) and I sometimes talk to other animals. Mammals DO have a mind. Emotionally much like ours, analytically more narrow, less burdened with crazy ideas… most cats are sociopaths, though.) But I digress… So skip that “stupid bit” at the end and it has some nice easy tips.

A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one’s goals. Sociopaths can be dangerous at worst or simply very difficult to deal with, and it’s important to know if you’ve found yourself with a sociopath, whether it’s someone you’re dating or an impossible coworker. If you want to know how to spot a sociopath, then you have to pay careful attention to what the person says or does.

What does one see in those calling out “Denier!!”? The leaders of Global Warming groups?

Disregard for the feelings of others? Check.
Lack of remorse or shame when caught? Check.
Manipulative behaviour? Check.
Unchecked egocentricity? Check.
Ability to lie for goals? Check.

Hmmmm……

I offer as examples:

Name calling and assertions of “denier” and suggestions of ostracism or bodily / career harm to opponents.

Climategate email and the Hockey Stick debunking (including errors shown). (Also Puchy and his sex poodle book…)

W.W.C. and his rewrites of Wiki; also the rewriting of climate history and “adjustments” of temperature data.

Algore, Puchy, Hansen, and so many more…

And a 1000 and One papers (or likely more) published and peer reviewed that are clearly trash but P.C. “for effect” finding an untold number of things caused by “Global Warming” including both more and less snow and more and less rain and more and less, well, everything. Oh, and that “Inconvenient Truth” movie that was found to be lying by a British court (despite official Britain being very on board with AGW) and forced to include a disclaimer when shown…

And need I even mention the ig- Nobel Prize committee and their awards to Algore and the IPCC and all the folks claiming to be Prize Winners as a hanger on to the IPCC?

The slime, it burns…

So, in conclusion, it sure looks to me like we have clear Sociopathic behaviour in the main / lead participants in the Global Warming scam. (Without even touching on the hidden manipulators like Maurice Strong, Club Of Rome, et. al.). Perhaps it was my “people reader” screaming “Sociopath!” at me when I’d seen these folks that first got me a bit tepid about them. Having met a couple now, it gets worse in person… But my “diagnosis” would be that they do, generally, have a personality disorder. And not one of being capable of “the right stuff” when needed… no, they are “stuck in it” with the wrong stuff.

At least, that’s my opinion as a lay person with little to go on but my own observations of their actions and attitudes. Maybe they are fine folks who love their dog and pat their children on the head… or maybe they just know how to fake it…

Subscribe to feed

Posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, Human Interest, Humor, News Related | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments