It was tongue in cheek, in case you didn't notice. I know that as modern classical composers go, Ligeti is rather popular. Especially the bits that don't sound like a swarm of depressed bees.
It's not classical, and it's even rather cheesy, but consider Ritchie Blackmore's jump into starry-eyed romantic renaissance-inspired music with his wife:
Too many stars for one sky to hold, some will fall, others are sold (!) as the fields turn to gold down at the renaissance faire.
A not-very subtle way of saying he didn't care about popular or critical success anymore, he just wanted to have fun making the music he liked, and go to creative anachronism-events.
It looks to me the basic reasoning is similar in "real" classical renaissance music: It's often something career classical musicians do on the side, as something less serious and more fun, without the ridiculous pressure and competition - because everyone knows there really isn't a commercial market for it.
Many who do it full time, I think, do it because they want to get away from the rat race, or not be in it in the first place.
If you listened to a Glenn Gould recording, and never heard of Glenn Gould, would you be stunned by it? Wouldn't it be more a wtf-moment at best?
This is a pet peeve of mine... but poin is, a great deal of the value of a work is created by the listeners. We want to share experiences, so we collectively pick a few "winners", explore and experience their character and quirks, and talk about it. There's nothing wrong with it as such. Everyone does it, from the "highest" art forms to the "lowest". It's not snobbery - as long as you admit it. But we should collectively back away from the worst hero-worship.
I used to have a lot of Glenn Gould recordings myself, for what it's worth - and the reasons I don't have them any longer has nothing to do with enjoying them or not. When I lost them (along with a Blandine Verlet recording of the Goldberg variations, which I probably listened more to) I took the opportunity to find a new version. Magnatune had one by a harpsichord builder, Janine Johnson. The great thing about magnatune is that it gives a chance to someone with a background like that - and the recording is excellent.
Ligeti string quartets are out-of-mainstream enough for anyone. Most of the people who want to listen to such things are performing it themselves - although in this case, I'm not sure it's possible, since a string quartet requires four people.
Magnatune has a pretty OK selection of that sort of thing (renaissance lute music). There are rather many performers of early music compared to listeners, forcing some to try new avenues like Magnatune.
It would be nice if you were right; but that's not what your link itself says.
If you vote both above and below, the below vote counts unless it's ruled informal - in other words, invalidly. In that case, what you voted above the line counts, instead of your entire vote being rejected.
So if you followed your own advice, and ranked say 40 of 81 below the line, and put green above it, the below-the-line part would be invalid, resulting in you casting a vanilla green vote.
Yup. And it appears that a small party that is ostensibly about equal custody rights (read: custody rights for fathers) is really mostly about this stuff. Sad. But important for anyone considering voting for them.
Group voting tickets are just undemocratic. Preferential voting should only go as far as the voter wants - if your vote doesn't get distributed to any of your preferences, it should be discarded.
The net effect of which would be... letting others decide for you. The same as voting over the line, just in a slightly less predictable fashion. I don't get why it should make such an important difference?
I think the group voting tickets are interesting in their own right, for what they say of people's prefences. Looking at a group for equal parenting rights, for instance, I see that they rate Christian and "Family First" candidates highly (beyond their own), understandably enough... but then - climate denialists? And what's with the greens at the bottom, do greens advocate the abolition of parentage rights or something?
Can't say I'm surprised, though. There are similar groups in Norway, I see the same there. Although I have a lot of sympathy for father's rights to their children and vice versa, it seems the people who organize around it often are disappointed in government due to run-ins with custody courts. Then they find Libertarianism online, and take the whole package with global warming denial and tax is theft and whatnot.
in brief: Those lists give valuable information to the informed voter.
I don't know about that. There was a lot of dispute over Larsson's estate. His partner through many years, didn't get anything, because they never married or registered their relationship - and the reason they never did was that they were hiding from neo-nazis, which Larsson had royally pissed off. Disputes over rights aren't exactly ideal from a publisher's perspective. I think the success is a lot about the rather extreme anti-banker/capitalist/influental people sentiment in his stories, which has hit a nerve in the current troubles. Maybe that is also a genre of fiction which US audiences has been somewhat short on, due to a generation of films sanitized from such topics by Hollywood blacklists.
For every idiot republican who thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan terrist who wants to make them get gay married, there's an idiot libertarian who is certain that 9/11 was an inside job.
Fixed that for you. Spend some time with 9/11-truthers (if you can stomach it). They can be called many things, but "democrats" is rarely one of them. Most are fanatically anti-government, believe global warming is a conspiracy, etc.
Hold on a tick - that talking point has been debunked well enough before. CO2 has a logarithmic absorption, so there is an upper limit to any positive feedback it could provide (theoretical model), and paleoclimate reconstructions show that it *lags* temperature changes by about 800 years.
And haven't I explained enough times in this thread (three, as I recall) why this is the case?
CO2 is a feedback. As the world gets warmer, more of it gets into the atmosphere, primarily from the ocean.
Try following the implications of that, step by step.
1. The earth gets slightly warmer due to a Milankovitch cycle. 2. This causes some CO2 to be released from the oceans. 3. This causes the earth to warm slightly. 4. Goto step 2.
Now in this process, what will lead? CO2 levels, or temperature?
Further hint: It takes a long time to warm up the ocean compared to the atmosphere.
What I've explained to you here ought to be really obvious. Believe me, it has been explained to denialists like Watt and McIntyre many times. It's your argument that has been debunked well enough before.
Yet denialists keep using the "temperature leads CO2" argument. Even the reasonably well-educated ones, like McIntyre, won't correct people who do.
I won't correct you further, it's time you check your own sources. But to answer your counter-question: If I had the choice between political action sufficient to keep atmospheric carbon below 350 ppm + a teaching job, vs no action and a "research" position where I would really just make up stuff, I'd choose the former, like any person not mad with greed.
That CO2 is a weak feedback is contradicted both by theoretical results (physical models) and paleoclimate reconstructions. No one has yet managed to construct a theory of cloud formation that can "make everything all right again" and simultaneously explain what we have seen.
If CO2 was a positive feedback that could possibly drive the climate into a runaway warming or cooling, it would already have happened in the past.
Depending on what you mean by "runaway", it has happened in the past (and the idea that it should cause cooling is not based in physics). The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
Human prosperity under such conditions would be subject only to speculation, as humanity didn't exist 15 million years ago, the last time we saw that. Humanity hasn't even experienced the kind of temperatures we see now, until now.
I would assert that understanding the limits of the feedback mechanisms we've observed is at a very early stage in the science, and that there is years if not decades of work to go before we understand it properly.
Such a subjective assessment isn't worth much unless it comes from people who really know what they are talking about, i.e. respected climate scientists. But this is not what they say at all.
(btw, if they were only looking for funding, it would make good sense for them to say that "we need decades of work to understand this properly". But they are calling for political action rather than further funding for themselves.)
Just get electric cars to the point where they are as good as petrol cars and cost the same to buy and run.
And how long will that take?
Then slowly bump up petrol prices as everyone moves over.
And how slowly can we afford to do that?
It might take decades but making the green option cheaper is by far the easiest way to make people choose it.
Maybe the slow and easy path isn't an option anymore. We won't know if we throw out the science (which you do when you claim that it doesn't matter anyway).
Ask yourself why would someone want to compare the rate of change of temperature to the rate of change of CO2?
It's not even obvious how those are expected to corellate. Why not look at temperature and CO2 levels directly?
Because the results from that would be too hard to weasel away from. But if you have a noisy dataset, you are a lot less likely to be able to prove correlation between the derivatives. Thus you get the lack of conclusion that you want.
This retreat to the derivative is a special case of the general denialist strategy (not only in climate change, but in everything exposed to political hackery): If you throw out enough data, the results become "inconclusive".
Taking a needless derivative or two is an easy way to throw away data. It looks impressively mathy, too.
The choice of the Sargasso sea as the one and only reliable climate proxy is another example of throwing out data. This simple variant is what we call cherry picking.
we are in a warming cycle that follows a trend that is documented over millions of years.
When it's about proving warming cycles, we apparently have data from millions of years. When it comes to disproving them, whoops, we have to throw out all data other than direct temperature measurements.
Is that the main cause of climate change? That is what the real arguments are about.
No, that's what the faux arguments are about.
The real argument is what we can do about it, how we can convince the world to go in another direction. I don't have the answer to that, but one thing I know: Belittling the seriousness of the issue in order to avoid conflict and try to "stay friends with both sides", will not cut it.
I for one like the climate conditions on Earth in which civilization arose. If that's threatened by natural climate change one day, I'll suppose my descendants can decide how to deal with it, if at all. Hopefully it might be gradual enough for adaption.
But it's not natural change which is a threat to our civilization-friendly climate today. Nor is it necessarily gradual enough for adaption without great human suffering.
My actions aren't by definition evil, but taking responsibility for them means realizing the possibility that they could be.
The "even if we didn't do it, it's happening" is a bit of a red herring IMHO. It's too "fair and balanced", too reasonable to unreasonable positions.
It's also wrong: We have to use science to determine the type of steps to take, and their magnitude. Yes, you can get people to recycle their bottles, but can you get them to pay triple gas price? Can you convince them to leave the rest of the world's coal reserves in the ground? What if that's the kind of effort we are talking about?
If global warming isn't caused by man, our understanding of physics is so out of whack, scientists shouldn't be trusted to advise us on these issues, or ANY issue. Neither should any other kind of science - after all, there must have been a grand conspiracy, involving not just climate scientists but all adjoining fields, and their adjoining fields, since climate science has been treated as solid by all major science journals for thirty years.
No, we can not just say that black is white, and give the point to the denialists to please them and avoid conflict. There will be harsh negotiations in the future - we will even face harsh negotiations with ourselves about what's worth keeping and what can be sacrificed. It makes a huge difference for these negotiations whether climate change is accepted as real or not.
When you live in an area such as Stockholm where you see direct evidence of the most recent ice age and post-glacial rebound it makes you wonder just how much of this warming trend is anthropogenic.
Ah, yes, that's the problem with climate scientists. They don't appreciate the personal impact of seeing scouring marks on mountains, so they forget that there's been an ice age recently!
Uh, NO. No one ever said "the current interglacial period was all our fault". Ice ages and interglacials are caused by Milankovich cycles, small variations in the earth's orbit and axial tilt.
It's just one thing: those orbital anomalies cause only a very, very small change in temperature by themselves. Not nearly enough to move the earth in and out of an ice age. Yet they have been found to be an excellent explanation for them. Why is that?
Because of climate feedbacks. As white ice sheets melt and turns into dark ocean, the sun absorbs more of the energy striking it. As the oceans warm, their capacity to dissolve gases is reduced, causing them to release higher amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Causing further warming, causing further melting. The earth keeps warming, but all things that become warmer emit more heat radiation. Eventually it becomes hot enough that the heat radiation out is in balance with the additional energy absorbed. But by then the tiny change in temperature from an orbital change has turned an ice age into an interglacial.
I recommend you start read Uppsalainitiativet since you presumably speak Swedish.
Slashdot Mirror
I am joking, silly. But it's true that the demographic that most consistently listen to modern classical are either
1. Classically trained musicians themselves.
2. Other musicians (mostly computer-oriented)
2. Members of a disappearing upper-class demographic.
It was tongue in cheek, in case you didn't notice. I know that as modern classical composers go, Ligeti is rather popular. Especially the bits that don't sound like a swarm of depressed bees.
It's not classical, and it's even rather cheesy, but consider Ritchie Blackmore's jump into starry-eyed romantic renaissance-inspired music with his wife:
Too many stars for one sky to hold,
some will fall, others are sold (!)
as the fields turn to gold
down at the renaissance faire.
A not-very subtle way of saying he didn't care about popular or critical success anymore, he just wanted to have fun making the music he liked, and go to creative anachronism-events.
It looks to me the basic reasoning is similar in "real" classical renaissance music: It's often something career classical musicians do on the side, as something less serious and more fun, without the ridiculous pressure and competition - because everyone knows there really isn't a commercial market for it.
Many who do it full time, I think, do it because they want to get away from the rat race, or not be in it in the first place.
This is actually a good suggestion (not just funny, mods). There is in fact a lot of extremely rare stuff on youtube.
If you listened to a Glenn Gould recording, and never heard of Glenn Gould, would you be stunned by it? Wouldn't it be more a wtf-moment at best?
This is a pet peeve of mine... but poin is, a great deal of the value of a work is created by the listeners. We want to share experiences, so we collectively pick a few "winners", explore and experience their character and quirks, and talk about it. There's nothing wrong with it as such. Everyone does it, from the "highest" art forms to the "lowest". It's not snobbery - as long as you admit it. But we should collectively back away from the worst hero-worship.
I used to have a lot of Glenn Gould recordings myself, for what it's worth - and the reasons I don't have them any longer has nothing to do with enjoying them or not. When I lost them (along with a Blandine Verlet recording of the Goldberg variations, which I probably listened more to) I took the opportunity to find a new version. Magnatune had one by a harpsichord builder, Janine Johnson. The great thing about magnatune is that it gives a chance to someone with a background like that - and the recording is excellent.
Ligeti string quartets are out-of-mainstream enough for anyone. Most of the people who want to listen to such things are performing it themselves - although in this case, I'm not sure it's possible, since a string quartet requires four people.
Magnatune has a pretty OK selection of that sort of thing (renaissance lute music). There are rather many performers of early music compared to listeners, forcing some to try new avenues like Magnatune.
It would be nice if you were right; but that's not what your link itself says.
If you vote both above and below, the below vote counts unless it's ruled informal - in other words, invalidly. In that case, what you voted above the line counts, instead of your entire vote being rejected.
So if you followed your own advice, and ranked say 40 of 81 below the line, and put green above it, the below-the-line part would be invalid, resulting in you casting a vanilla green vote.
Yup. And it appears that a small party that is ostensibly about equal custody rights (read: custody rights for fathers) is really mostly about this stuff. Sad. But important for anyone considering voting for them.
The net effect of which would be ... letting others decide for you. The same as voting over the line, just in a slightly less predictable fashion. I don't get why it should make such an important difference?
I think the group voting tickets are interesting in their own right, for what they say of people's prefences. Looking at a group for equal parenting rights, for instance, I see that they rate Christian and "Family First" candidates highly (beyond their own), understandably enough... but then - climate denialists? And what's with the greens at the bottom, do greens advocate the abolition of parentage rights or something?
Can't say I'm surprised, though. There are similar groups in Norway, I see the same there. Although I have a lot of sympathy for father's rights to their children and vice versa, it seems the people who organize around it often are disappointed in government due to run-ins with custody courts. Then they find Libertarianism online, and take the whole package with global warming denial and tax is theft and whatnot.
in brief: Those lists give valuable information to the informed voter.
Should this program be allowed to make phone calls? There's really not much learning involved in being able to answer that question.
I don't know about that. There was a lot of dispute over Larsson's estate. His partner through many years, didn't get anything, because they never married or registered their relationship - and the reason they never did was that they were hiding from neo-nazis, which Larsson had royally pissed off.
Disputes over rights aren't exactly ideal from a publisher's perspective. I think the success is a lot about the rather extreme anti-banker/capitalist/influental people sentiment in his stories, which has hit a nerve in the current troubles. Maybe that is also a genre of fiction which US audiences has been somewhat short on, due to a generation of films sanitized from such topics by Hollywood blacklists.
Never mind that, why would you need a wallpaper app that requests permission to make phone calls?
Really, there's no helping some people.
Fixed that for you. Spend some time with 9/11-truthers (if you can stomach it). They can be called many things, but "democrats" is rarely one of them. Most are fanatically anti-government, believe global warming is a conspiracy, etc.
And haven't I explained enough times in this thread (three, as I recall) why this is the case?
CO2 is a feedback. As the world gets warmer, more of it gets into the atmosphere, primarily from the ocean.
Try following the implications of that, step by step.
1. The earth gets slightly warmer due to a Milankovitch cycle.
2. This causes some CO2 to be released from the oceans.
3. This causes the earth to warm slightly.
4. Goto step 2.
Now in this process, what will lead? CO2 levels, or temperature?
Further hint: It takes a long time to warm up the ocean compared to the atmosphere.
What I've explained to you here ought to be really obvious. Believe me, it has been explained to denialists like Watt and McIntyre many times. It's your argument that has been debunked well enough before.
Yet denialists keep using the "temperature leads CO2" argument. Even the reasonably well-educated ones, like McIntyre, won't correct people who do.
I won't correct you further, it's time you check your own sources. But to answer your counter-question: If I had the choice between political action sufficient to keep atmospheric carbon below 350 ppm + a teaching job, vs no action and a "research" position where I would really just make up stuff, I'd choose the former, like any person not mad with greed.
That CO2 is a weak feedback is contradicted both by theoretical results (physical models) and paleoclimate reconstructions. No one has yet managed to construct a theory of cloud formation that can "make everything all right again" and simultaneously explain what we have seen.
Depending on what you mean by "runaway", it has happened in the past (and the idea that it should cause cooling is not based in physics). The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
Human prosperity under such conditions would be subject only to speculation, as humanity didn't exist 15 million years ago, the last time we saw that. Humanity hasn't even experienced the kind of temperatures we see now, until now.
Such a subjective assessment isn't worth much unless it comes from people who really know what they are talking about, i.e. respected climate scientists. But this is not what they say at all.
(btw, if they were only looking for funding, it would make good sense for them to say that "we need decades of work to understand this properly". But they are calling for political action rather than further funding for themselves.)
And how long will that take?
And how slowly can we afford to do that?
Maybe the slow and easy path isn't an option anymore. We won't know if we throw out the science (which you do when you claim that it doesn't matter anyway).
Ask yourself why would someone want to compare the rate of change of temperature to the rate of change of CO2?
It's not even obvious how those are expected to corellate. Why not look at temperature and CO2 levels directly?
Because the results from that would be too hard to weasel away from. But if you have a noisy dataset, you are a lot less likely to be able to prove correlation between the derivatives. Thus you get the lack of conclusion that you want.
This retreat to the derivative is a special case of the general denialist strategy (not only in climate change, but in everything exposed to political hackery): If you throw out enough data, the results become "inconclusive".
Taking a needless derivative or two is an easy way to throw away data. It looks impressively mathy, too.
The choice of the Sargasso sea as the one and only reliable climate proxy is another example of throwing out data. This simple variant is what we call cherry picking.
Wouldn't the GPL3 give them trouble with that, if someone called them on it?
Wait a minute, didn't the OP say:
When it's about proving warming cycles, we apparently have data from millions of years. When it comes to disproving them, whoops, we have to throw out all data other than direct temperature measurements.
No, that's what the faux arguments are about.
The real argument is what we can do about it, how we can convince the world to go in another direction. I don't have the answer to that, but one thing I know: Belittling the seriousness of the issue in order to avoid conflict and try to "stay friends with both sides", will not cut it.
I for one like the climate conditions on Earth in which civilization arose. If that's threatened by natural climate change one day, I'll suppose my descendants can decide how to deal with it, if at all. Hopefully it might be gradual enough for adaption.
But it's not natural change which is a threat to our civilization-friendly climate today. Nor is it necessarily gradual enough for adaption without great human suffering.
My actions aren't by definition evil, but taking responsibility for them means realizing the possibility that they could be.
I think it takes a lot of arrogance to assume all the world's climate scientists haven't thought to check for that.
The "even if we didn't do it, it's happening" is a bit of a red herring IMHO. It's too "fair and balanced", too reasonable to unreasonable positions.
It's also wrong: We have to use science to determine the type of steps to take, and their magnitude. Yes, you can get people to recycle their bottles, but can you get them to pay triple gas price? Can you convince them to leave the rest of the world's coal reserves in the ground? What if that's the kind of effort we are talking about?
If global warming isn't caused by man, our understanding of physics is so out of whack, scientists shouldn't be trusted to advise us on these issues, or ANY issue. Neither should any other kind of science - after all, there must have been a grand conspiracy, involving not just climate scientists but all adjoining fields, and their adjoining fields, since climate science has been treated as solid by all major science journals for thirty years.
No, we can not just say that black is white, and give the point to the denialists to please them and avoid conflict. There will be harsh negotiations in the future - we will even face harsh negotiations with ourselves about what's worth keeping and what can be sacrificed. It makes a huge difference for these negotiations whether climate change is accepted as real or not.
Ah, yes, that's the problem with climate scientists. They don't appreciate the personal impact of seeing scouring marks on mountains, so they forget that there's been an ice age recently!
Uh, NO. No one ever said "the current interglacial period was all our fault". Ice ages and interglacials are caused by Milankovich cycles, small variations in the earth's orbit and axial tilt.
It's just one thing: those orbital anomalies cause only a very, very small change in temperature by themselves. Not nearly enough to move the earth in and out of an ice age. Yet they have been found to be an excellent explanation for them. Why is that?
Because of climate feedbacks. As white ice sheets melt and turns into dark ocean, the sun absorbs more of the energy striking it. As the oceans warm, their capacity to dissolve gases is reduced, causing them to release higher amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Causing further warming, causing further melting. The earth keeps warming, but all things that become warmer emit more heat radiation. Eventually it becomes hot enough that the heat radiation out is in balance with the additional energy absorbed. But by then the tiny change in temperature from an orbital change has turned an ice age into an interglacial.
I recommend you start read Uppsalainitiativet since you presumably speak Swedish.