it's starting to look like where i am is going to just duck under the jetstream most of the winter this year, and may actually see above average temperatures. there might be a lot of rain, but that's less annoying than periodic deep freezes.

the rest of eastern canada doesn't seem like it's going to be so lucky.

i think they may have slightly exaggerated the effect of the vortex, and slightly underexaggerated the effect of the el nino, which positioned the path of the jetstream about 100 km south of where it seems to be settling. which takes me from right on top of it to right underneath it, and makes the difference between a winter defined by north winds and a winter defined by moist rains.

as i mentioned before, i think this has to do with them not integrating solar effects into their models. it's a minor thing. but, being positioned where i am, it's a huge difference maker.

forecast temperatures this week are between 2 and 8. no snow on the ground. no snow in the forecast. they're claiming it will get cold in two weeks, but they've been saying that for a few weeks and keep bumping it up. it seems like they misforecasted...

i mean, it could still switch. and it will no doubt get cold once or twice. but i think i'm in a sweet little spot this year...

the bad news is that, if i'm right, the fact that we're at the peak of a very weak solar cycle means winter could get pretty nasty for a few years after this year...

this is a good graph, because it balances the things out at the end.

(the blue is "global warming", the yellow is the sun, the red is the temperature, which is flatlining as the blue and yellow move in opposite directions.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

but where we are, what's more important is how the sun affects the factors that affect the jetstream. there seems to be research that suggests that these dips in the jetstream are correlated with solar activity, which is something very localized (temperature wise) to eastern north america - and tends to create warmer temperatures in the western part of the continent. so, you're not looking at a decrease in global temperature caused by the sun's decrease in power so much as you're looking at the global spread of energy modified in a way that makes us, specifically, colder - and other places warmer.

so, what that means is that even if carbon dioxide keeps skyrocketing, if the sun doesn't come back hard we could very well be stuck with all kinds of wind blowing south from the arctic making us very cold - while africa and india fry.

i've blocked them all, but i don't think it's an exaggeration to state that the reddit army is killing youtube.

you can't get a word in past them. they upvote each other. and they're complete fucking idiots. it's very unfortunate.

i don't know why they're doing this, but it would be great if they'd just stop.

i don't want to really argue with any of the points in the video, i just want to kind of point out that being an academic in the neo-liberal era is going to result in picking up some biases, no matter how much one may align against them, and point out a few things that, by being omitted, presented the kind of status quo idea of markets being drivers of peace.

1) the us military (and i'm going to include intelligence agencies in that category, for the purposes of this comment) acts as an enforcement arm on the "liberalization" policies pushed by the imf and similar organizations. that is, those states that don't want to do what they're told are subject to intervention, destabilization and all manners of coups, who will impose violent policies on the population. it's consequently rather inaccurate to suggest or imply that this is a peaceful or stabilizing process. even canada has arguably seen some soft coups over the last several decades (trudeau, chretien).

2) these policies mostly apply to small states, and it's of course a process of extraction. large states, like russia, cannot be controlled quite like this. and, so you don't get this peaceful market order of capitalists colluding for profit; rather, you get the old nineteenth century model of empires competing for resources. and, we saw this all through the cold war and still see it with american policy against russia and china.

now, i understand it's hard to stand in front of a classroom and speak like this in 2014. but, that's a reflection of academia's willingness to tow the line, rather than of reality.

deathtokoalas
the title of john maus' new thesis has been leaked:

"On Projecting Pseudo-Intellectuality Through Performing Bad Retro for Stoned Teenagers."

RedPill Swallowed
Jealous.

deathtokoalas
naw. even in my late 90s synth-pop phase, i never had any aspirations towards this. and while my background is in math, and math is kind of like philosophy, my epistemology has always been empirically driven. i'm just dismissive.

RedPill Swallowed
I'm not even going to pretend that I don't need to google some of those words, lol....I'll just agree.  Have a nice day. :)

deathtokoalas
it's not that rough. if you ignore silly people like kant, like you should, and like maus doesn't, mathematics and philosophy share an approach to understanding knowledge, which is based in deducing things from assumptions with logic. this is somewhat - albeit not entirely - contradictory to a scientific worldview, which attempts to understand knowledge through experiment.

it gets confusing when you acknowledge that there are quasi-empirical branches of mathematics (like constructivism). but that can kind of be glossed over for the purposes of getting to my point.

....which is that i don't really have time for speculative branches of philosophy. well, i guess it's fun to read sometimes. and you have to define questions before you can test them. but there's not much room for jealousy, there, as a result of that.

accidentalprotégé
I don't agree with everything that comes out of John Maus' mouth but what makes his music "Bad Retro?" As someone who dislikes socialized medicine I still think Rights For Gays is a banger.

deathtokoalas
i'm a fan of the period he's drawing on, but i just don't hear anything except watered down emulation.

Me Ear
Do ya get out much? Me neither. I'm a fat, damaged idiot tho. And your aspirations to truth are fine if it gets you thru shit. Really. I'm not being sarcastic. Even your aspirations to a superiority over others are harmless here in youtube comment sections. Bluntly tho, you don't know shit. Humanity is a tribe of monkeys that fell out of a tree one unfortunate day. And there's good folks and cunts. That's it. But what do I know? lol. Best wishes.

deathtokoalas
yeah. i'm post-godel. i get that. that doesn't have much to do with what i was saying, though. if anything, it's an argument in favour of empiricism.

Me Ear
Well, thanks for replying. 1 or 2 folks were nasty to you on here. I can be nasty too, very. Godel? Not heard of him, if it's a dude. It's in humans to value truth, yes. But there isn't any. And what you believe? It's not important. I'm exaggerating somewhat, yes.

Religion, philosophy, science, can have a place, yes. But anyway, one guy, or girl, sees a cat with 3 legs, kicks it across the road. Another guy or girl feeds it. All the rest is theory, in my view. And, no, I wouldn't kick the cat, on my worst possible day.

deathtokoalas
godel was an early 20th century mathematician that produced a series of important proofs. he's been described as the most important logician since aristotle. and, in some sense he defined a type of thinking that is necessarily post-aristotlian.

i have to oversimplify dramatically. but, he demonstrated that we have a choice between completeness and consistency. what that means is that there are necessarily true statements that can never be proven true - and that we can in fact prove can never be proven, despite being true.

that has a lot of implications to the axiom-deduction approach to epistemology. it throws kant out the window, to begin with. his whole concept of synthetic a priori knowledge being superior is rendered ridiculous.

again: i don't really see any point where you're disagreeing with me. you're just displaying that you didn't really understand what i typed.

Me Ear
I drink, listen to music and type shit for something to do, which I don't usually remember because I'm mentally disordered, damaged and drunk.

A serious (not sarcastic) question - why post clever stuff on youtube? And, again seriously,  where can doing so lead to?

(There's clever folks on youtube, yes, but most of them seem to end up wanting to die fairly soon after they've posted on the toob amongst folk like me, don't they?) 

deathtokoalas
see, here's the thing: maybe people reading my ranting might click on my name and check out my channel, and then go to my bandcamp site. the more places i leave links, the higher the possibility.

it's a benevolent type of spam/marketing, in the sense that people get something out of it. and, i don't get deleted or marked as spam, either.

Me Ear
I'll look at your channel then. I used to rant til I got a troll. Who had a channel. lol. I looked at it eventually, worst music ever. lol again. You know what tho? Your enemy is your helper too. I imagine you're smart enough to have heard of the concept. Except young kids are killing themselves coz of trolls now.. There was a case of somebody in this country who trolled somebody on 6000 websites. Those 2 should've got married, they had very similar interests.lol. Peace. xxx