Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

31 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Don and others,

 This was posted by JB 2 hours ago at WxBell:

“Continued Climate Community Denial

Dr Viterito writes:

This is the latest ‘buzz’ in the climate community. The BBC just ran an article on it, and the conclusion of the Berkeley Research Group is that the warming can be partially explained by a reduction in cloud cover due to reductions in sulfur dioxide, a reflective aerosol. Improved Chinese air quality is also listed as a possible cause.

 

Of course, the fallback position is ALWAYS what's happening above our heads and NEVER what is beneath our feet. So, it's business as usual as there is no mention of geothermal inputs into the system. 

 

First and foremost, the East China Sea is the locus of the warming. As Google Gemini posits:

 

Hydrothermal activity is widespread in the East China Sea, particularly in the Okinawa Trough, a back-arc spreading basin. Here, seawater circulates through the oceanic crust, becoming superheated and carrying unique chemical and biological properties to the seafloor. This activity is concentrated in the central and southern parts of the trough and is often associated with volcanic and tectonic activity. Notable sites include the Yokosuka vent field, which is the deepest and hottest known in the area.

 

And a huge rise in seismic activity has been recorded this past year. According to All Quakes (East China Sea Earthquakes Archive: Past Quakes in 2025 | AllQuakes.com), there has been a large amount of volcanic/seismic activity in 2025. Here are the summary statistics for the East China Sea:

 

In 2025, East China Sea has had 14,770 quakes of magnitudes up to 5.9:

50 quakes above magnitude 5

271 quakes between magnitude 4 and 5

1,375 quakes between magnitude 3 and 4

3,197 quakes between magnitude 2 and 3

9,877 quakes below magnitude 2 that people normally don't feel.

 

Keep in mind, we still have 10 weeks left in 2025. 

 

If we compare this with the FULL YEAR statistics for 2024, we see the following:

 

In 2024, East China Sea has had 12,143 quakes of magnitudes up to 6.4:

• 1 quake above magnitude 6
• 23 quakes between magnitude 5 and 6
• 382 quakes between magnitude 4 and 5
• 655 quakes between magnitude 3 and 4
• 2,365 quakes between magnitude 2 and 3
• 8,717 quakes below magnitude 2 that people normally don't feel.

 

That is, we have a 21% increase year over year, and if we adjust for the remaining time left this year (i.e., extrapolate out to the end of 2025), we would see a 53% increase, or an extrapolated total of roughly 18,500 seismic events for the year. More importantly, according to AllQuakes.com, the average yearlystatistics for the East China Sea are as follows:

 

East China Sea has a high level of seismic activity. On average, there are about 6,600 quakes every year.

 

That is, the extrapolated value for 2025 will be nearly three times higher than an average year for the East China Sea! And we aren't even factoring in the extraordinarily high vales for the fore-arc basins east of Kamchatka I discussed in the PSI article a few weeks ago. That activity will impact the temperatures of the Kuroshio Current as it makes its way into the north central Pacific.

 

We have to keep plugging away at this!!

 

Art 

 

 

You cant make this stuff up”

As I provided the SSTA data yesterday, I won't repeat that part of the post. I note that he asked GEMINI (AI) a question. The question he asked does not directly address the issue. The issue concerns whether volcanoes are driving the warming, not whether there is hydrothermal activity and/or what drives that hydrothermal activity.

Since he used GEMINI, let's see how it would respond to a direct question (note: I never provided "leading" information to generate a desired outcome):

Its response:

So, while he tried to create the impression that AI, or at least one AI, backs his thinking, when asked directly about the warming, the AI does not. It focuses on what the literature describes as the causes of the warming. Submarine volcanoes are not even mentioned its response.

Of course, he didn't ask the direct question. It doesn't fit his preferred outcome. The exercise was about confirming his view, not gaining objective information.

Although the AI performed quite well with the direct question, I still think it is better practice to go to the literature itself, as bad practices such as prompt injection can lead to skewed results from AIs.

A good paper on the subject can be found at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL090956

 

 

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The following seems to describe their M.O.:

1) If presented by counterarguments, they largely ignore the counterarguments or, in infrequent cases of response, make broad claims that the arguments are incorrect, they shift goal posts, etc.

2) If presented with data and links to the data or scientific literature that anyone can access, that crosses a "red line." They seem to have a mortal fear about others having the ability to access the data or literature, perhaps because they know that their own view is hollow unsupported conjecture. Access to data is far more dangerous to their view than simple counterarguments.

He probably also hid your reply

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

As I provided the SSTA data yesterday, I won't repeat that part of the post. I note that he asked GEMINI (AI) a question. The question he asked does not directly address the issue. The issue concerns whether volcanoes are driving the warming, not whether there is hydrothermal activity and/or what drives that hydrothermal activity.

Since he used GEMINI, let's see how it would respond to a direct question (note: I never provided "leading" information to generate a desired outcome):

Its response:

So, while he tried to create the impression that AI, or at least one AI, backs his thinking, when asked directly about the warming, the AI does not. It focuses on what the literature describes as the causes of the warming. Submarine volcanoes are not even mentioned its response.

Of course, he didn't ask the direct question. It doesn't fit his preferred outcome. The exercise was about confirming his view, not gaining objective information.

Although the AI performed quite well with the direct question, I still think it is better practice to go to the literature itself, as bad practices such as prompt injection can lead to skewed results from AIs.

A good paper on the subject can be found at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL090956

 

 

we really need to ban AI on an executive level

many prominent thinkers/scientists have stated it will destroy our society

[donsutherland1]

38 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

we really need to ban AI on an executive level

many prominent thinkers/scientists have stated it will destroy our society

I used the same AI he used to illustrate a point. I still prefer using the actual literature. AI is here to stay, how it is used or misused will have profound consequences. I take no position on whether AGI or a “singularity” will be reached anytime soon.

[LibertyBell]

33 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I used the same AI he used to illustrate a point. I still prefer using the actual literature. AI is here to stay, how it is used or misused will have profound consequences. I take no position on whether AGI or a “singularity” will be reached anytime soon.

we might need to place some restrictions so children (under 18) aren't using it for their school projects, I feel like it discourages independent thinking.

 

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

we might need to place some restrictions so children (under 18) aren't using it for their school projects, I feel like it discourages independent thinking.

 

Yes, there are already some studies suggesting that it erodes critical thinking skills. That's a real problem.

[Typhoon Tip]

Fermi Paradox explanation, incarnate if you ask me.

It is a personal hypothesis of mine; in it's simplest preface states, 'the species evolves the ability, and then the ability unwittingly devolves the species'.  Which yet even more succinctly equates to, 'species evolution emerges the devolution of the species'

Whether there is any veracity to that idea or not, we cannot deny the intuitive suspicion, nor the outright observation of the 'emerging Idiocrasy' phenomenon, and the precarious vision of that state of affairs being in charge of a climate future, nuclear armament future, biological toxicity future ...etc, etc.

Maybe human evolution has reached the point whence the Law of Diminishing Returns has kicked it. The law of diminishing returns, often referred to as the law of lessening returns, states that if you keep increasing one factor of production while keeping others constant, the additional output gained from each new unit of that factor will eventually decrease...    I mean ... we can see that with a modest interpretation of that we might be observing how more and more provision of resource, both physical or informed, is resulting in less productivity ( perhaps a perversion of "intelligentsia" for this context ). Less is coming back from the people being effected by all that provision.  Perhaps that's twisting things too much, but I don't believe so.  It's anecdotal, but an example: I've been finding vis-à-vis. more and more with this current version of humanity, when ideas like the  above are floated in mixed company, the points and/or abstractions fail to comprehended as readily as they once did ... decades ago.  I'm just now old enough to recall water cooler conversations where among the colloquy were sincere head nodders.  Now, you get a more gaped jaws under blank stares, followed by a some effacing joke about it being over heads.

Maybe in some analog ( if not physical) sense it is similar to entropy growing within the system - I kind of like that actually. Because we learn via formal academia that entropy does in fact gain in every system that exists in nature. Entropy in simplest definition is the measure of disorder in a system.  So why would the evolutionary process not have to pay into that universal "cosmological tax" for existence.

It is not hard to see how species evolution might ironically lead to devolution.  The reason is plainly acceptable, if one understands evolution to begin with, more specifically how it works.  Evolution perfects the specie's ability to survive by a transactional relationship between chance mutations during and preceding competition.  Those with insufficient mutation, thus lacking skill, don't win.   And the trophy?  the trophy is not OLED TV's, Buggatti cars, Yaughts and palatial estates, dinners with celebrities ... fortune providing eases of living - in fact, no "eases" even short of that illustrious list of aspiration is part of the trophy - not to nature.

In nature, the trophy is the ability to have sex with the best possible partner and give birth to the healthiest possible children, that in turn will carry on the lineage of those competition (and chance) refined genetics. The children of that union thus possess greater and greater prospects to achieve the same... Many generations later, the species has improved.  That is what evolution is. Humanity is attempting, unwittingly, to take proxy away from the Darwinian process, and redraw it as "capital Darwinism" - which really isn't sustainable, because it has nothing to do with creating the best version of our species.  It's no wonder that now, after the last 200 some-odd years since the Industrial Revolution accelerated capital Darwinism, we find that having done so has procreated all these existential perils. 

That is also why we necessarily die.  Our existence' become receptacles of growing disorder.  We call it aging and disease. Some philosophies of medicine list aging AS a disease.  But surviving means that our offspring have a better chance to survive for being better equipped. However, they too are ultimately doomed to being receptacles; but their children may in turn be better suited ...and on and so on. Evolution is kind of an eerily genius adaptation to fend off entropy eventually eroding at a system to the point of demise.

There's a bit of a catch-22 to all this, where "eases of living" intrinsically lowers competition ( or necessity for the arrival of favorable mutation) stresses, which halts perfecting the system.  Attempting to perpetuate the intrinsic vitality of any species, while lowering challenges spanning successive generation, smacks like physically impossible due to the ever growing quotient of disorder; there are no longer needs to improve via adaptation. 

This is why species - probably - fail once they get to some ceiling of achievements along their legacy, whence feedback  lessens returns. That science fiction novel is easy to write.  They end up in a figurative cul-de-sac of immensely powerful technological capacity but oops... the Idiocrasy has slipped below the necessary intelligence to responsibly serve as custodian and operator. 

But... any such Fermi Paradox explanation needs to apply universally.   The above essay might intuitively fit humanity. Based upon all available evidence, that is.  Perhaps some other species has evolved the "genetics" - if their life form even uses genetics as wee know it ... - to always be compensating for lessening returns ( which otherwise leads to a build up in critical entropy).  At least in our case, that's not possible though.  But it is hard to imagine an alien evolutionary process that escapes the negative feed-back from lessening challenges of the Darwinian motif - or how. 

Every aspect of biology in any living organism serves a purpose. Evolution provided that.  Fits the biological model that living systems do not sustain cells and organs, etc, that are no longer being used. Everything in an organism is necessary.  For earth biology, as far as we can assume human kind being a part ... intelligence was an emergent property of all that. In our case, absolutely necessary for our rise out of primordial obscurity. 

So, if the 'state of provision' and eases of living get in the way of needed intelligence, where does the intelligence go?   Just the last 20 years of recent modernity's surplus in 'how-to' and/or what-you-need-to-know at finger tips with nearly zero challenges, has managed to en masse vote a convicted criminal, harboring a dark triad narcissistic personality disorder ... into a position of self-fulfilling power.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/20/2025 at 9:05 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

Fermi Paradox explanation, incarnate if you ask me.

It is a personal hypothesis of mine; in it's simplest preface states, 'the species evolves the ability, and then the ability unwittingly devolves the species'.  Which yet even more succinctly equates to, 'species evolution emerges the devolution of the species'

Whether there is any veracity to that idea or not, we cannot deny the intuitive suspicion, nor the outright observation of the 'emerging Idiocrasy' phenomenon, and the precarious vision of that state of affairs being in charge of a climate future, nuclear armament future, biological toxicity future ...etc, etc.

Maybe human evolution has reached the point whence the Law of Diminishing Returns has kicked it. The law of diminishing returns, often referred to as the law of lessening returns, states that if you keep increasing one factor of production while keeping others constant, the additional output gained from each new unit of that factor will eventually decrease...    I mean ... we can see that with a modest interpretation of that we might be observing how more and more provision of resource, both physical or informed, is resulting in less productivity ( perhaps a perversion of "intelligentsia" for this context ). Less is coming back from the people being effected by all that provision.  Perhaps that's twisting things too much, but I don't believe so.  It's anecdotal, but an example: I've been finding vis-à-vis. more and more with this current version of humanity, when ideas like the  above are floated in mixed company, the points and/or abstractions fail to comprehended as readily as they once did ... decades ago.  I'm just now old enough to recall water cooler conversations where among the colloquy were sincere head nodders.  Now, you get a more gaped jaws under blank stares, followed by a some effacing joke about it being over heads.

Maybe in some analog ( if not physical) sense it is similar to entropy growing within the system - I kind of like that actually. Because we learn via formal academia that entropy does in fact gain in every system that exists in nature. Entropy in simplest definition is the measure of disorder in a system.  So why would the evolutionary process not have to pay into that universal "cosmological tax" for existence.

It is not hard to see how species evolution might ironically lead to devolution.  The reason is plainly acceptable, if one understands evolution to begin with, more specifically how it works.  Evolution perfects the specie's ability to survive by a transactional relationship between chance mutations during and preceding competition.  Those with insufficient mutation, thus lacking skill, don't win.   And the trophy?  the trophy is not OLED TV's, Buggatti cars, Yaughts and palatial estates, dinners with celebrities ... fortune providing eases of living - in fact, no "eases" even short of that illustrious list of aspiration is part of the trophy - not to nature.

In nature, the trophy is the ability to have sex with the best possible partner and give birth to the healthiest possible children, that in turn will carry on the lineage of those competition (and chance) refined genetics. The children of that union thus possess greater and greater prospects to achieve the same... Many generations later, the species has improved.  That is what evolution is. Humanity is attempting, unwittingly, to take proxy away from the Darwinian process, and redraw it as "capital Darwinism" - which really isn't sustainable, because it has nothing to do with creating the best version of our species.  It's no wonder that now, after the last 200 some-odd years since the Industrial Revolution accelerated capital Darwinism, we find that having done so has procreated all these existential perils. 

That is also why we necessarily die.  That model provides we are receptacles of growing disorder that our offspring have a better chance to survive for being better equipped. However, they too are ultimately doomed to being receptacles; but their children may in turn be better suited ...and on and so on. Evolution is kind of an eerily genius adaptation to fend off entropy eventually eroding at a system to the point of demise.

There's a bit of a catch-22 to all this, where "eases of living" intrinsically lowers competition ( or necessity for the arrival of favorable mutation) stresses, which halts perfecting the system.  Attempting to perpetuate the intrinsic vitality of any species, while lowering challenges spanning successive generation, smacks like physically impossible due to the ever growing quotient of disorder; there are no longer needs to improve via adaptation. 

This is why species - probably - fail once they get to some ceiling of achievements along their legacy, whence feedback  lessens returns. That science fiction novel is easy to write.  They end up in a figurative cul-de-sac of immensely powerful technological capacity but oops... the Idiocrasy has slipped below the necessary intelligence to responsibly serve as custodian and operator. 

But... any such Fermi Paradox explanation needs to apply universally.   The above essay might intuitively fit humanity. Based upon all available evidence, that is.  Perhaps some other species has evolved the "genetics" - if their life form even uses genetics as wee know it ... - to always be compensating for lessening returns ( which otherwise leads to a build up in critical entropy).  At least in our case, that's not possible though.  But it is hard to imagine an alien evolutionary process that escapes the negative feed-back from lessening challenges of the Darwinian motif - or how. 

Every aspect of biology in any living organism serves a purpose. Evolution provided that.  Fits the biological model that living systems do not sustain cells and organs, etc, that are no longer being used. Everything in an organism is necessary.  For earth biology, as far as we can assume human kind being a part ... intelligence was an emergent property of all that. In our case, absolutely necessary for our rise out of obscurity. 

So, if the 'state of provision' and eases of living get in the way of needed intelligence, where does the intelligence go?   Just the last 20 years of recent modernity's surplus in 'how-to' and/or what-you-need-to-know at finger tips with nearly zero challenges, has managed to en masse vote a convicted criminal, harboring a dark triad narcissistic personality disorder ... into a position of self-fulfilling power.

 

I've always believed the Great Filter lies ahead of us, there are some barriers that most sentient species simply cannot cross. Did you know that research has been done showing that human intelligence peaked about 3000 years ago and has been declining ever since?  Dependence on technology, the industrial revolution, etc., all make humanity unsustainable.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/20/2025 at 9:05 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

Fermi Paradox explanation, incarnate if you ask me.

It is a personal hypothesis of mine; in it's simplest preface states, 'the species evolves the ability, and then the ability unwittingly devolves the species'.  Which yet even more succinctly equates to, 'species evolution emerges the devolution of the species'

Whether there is any veracity to that idea or not, we cannot deny the intuitive suspicion, nor the outright observation of the 'emerging Idiocrasy' phenomenon, and the precarious vision of that state of affairs being in charge of a climate future, nuclear armament future, biological toxicity future ...etc, etc.

Maybe human evolution has reached the point whence the Law of Diminishing Returns has kicked it. The law of diminishing returns, often referred to as the law of lessening returns, states that if you keep increasing one factor of production while keeping others constant, the additional output gained from each new unit of that factor will eventually decrease...    I mean ... we can see that with a modest interpretation of that we might be observing how more and more provision of resource, both physical or informed, is resulting in less productivity ( perhaps a perversion of "intelligentsia" for this context ). Less is coming back from the people being effected by all that provision.  Perhaps that's twisting things too much, but I don't believe so.  It's anecdotal, but an example: I've been finding vis-à-vis. more and more with this current version of humanity, when ideas like the  above are floated in mixed company, the points and/or abstractions fail to comprehended as readily as they once did ... decades ago.  I'm just now old enough to recall water cooler conversations where among the colloquy were sincere head nodders.  Now, you get a more gaped jaws under blank stares, followed by a some effacing joke about it being over heads.

Maybe in some analog ( if not physical) sense it is similar to entropy growing within the system - I kind of like that actually. Because we learn via formal academia that entropy does in fact gain in every system that exists in nature. Entropy in simplest definition is the measure of disorder in a system.  So why would the evolutionary process not have to pay into that universal "cosmological tax" for existence.

It is not hard to see how species evolution might ironically lead to devolution.  The reason is plainly acceptable, if one understands evolution to begin with, more specifically how it works.  Evolution perfects the specie's ability to survive by a transactional relationship between chance mutations during and preceding competition.  Those with insufficient mutation, thus lacking skill, don't win.   And the trophy?  the trophy is not OLED TV's, Buggatti cars, Yaughts and palatial estates, dinners with celebrities ... fortune providing eases of living - in fact, no "eases" even short of that illustrious list of aspiration is part of the trophy - not to nature.

In nature, the trophy is the ability to have sex with the best possible partner and give birth to the healthiest possible children, that in turn will carry on the lineage of those competition (and chance) refined genetics. The children of that union thus possess greater and greater prospects to achieve the same... Many generations later, the species has improved.  That is what evolution is. Humanity is attempting, unwittingly, to take proxy away from the Darwinian process, and redraw it as "capital Darwinism" - which really isn't sustainable, because it has nothing to do with creating the best version of our species.  It's no wonder that now, after the last 200 some-odd years since the Industrial Revolution accelerated capital Darwinism, we find that having done so has procreated all these existential perils. 

That is also why we necessarily die.  That model provides we are receptacles of growing disorder that our offspring have a better chance to survive for being better equipped. However, they too are ultimately doomed to being receptacles; but their children may in turn be better suited ...and on and so on. Evolution is kind of an eerily genius adaptation to fend off entropy eventually eroding at a system to the point of demise.

There's a bit of a catch-22 to all this, where "eases of living" intrinsically lowers competition ( or necessity for the arrival of favorable mutation) stresses, which halts perfecting the system.  Attempting to perpetuate the intrinsic vitality of any species, while lowering challenges spanning successive generation, smacks like physically impossible due to the ever growing quotient of disorder; there are no longer needs to improve via adaptation. 

This is why species - probably - fail once they get to some ceiling of achievements along their legacy, whence feedback  lessens returns. That science fiction novel is easy to write.  They end up in a figurative cul-de-sac of immensely powerful technological capacity but oops... the Idiocrasy has slipped below the necessary intelligence to responsibly serve as custodian and operator. 

But... any such Fermi Paradox explanation needs to apply universally.   The above essay might intuitively fit humanity. Based upon all available evidence, that is.  Perhaps some other species has evolved the "genetics" - if their life form even uses genetics as wee know it ... - to always be compensating for lessening returns ( which otherwise leads to a build up in critical entropy).  At least in our case, that's not possible though.  But it is hard to imagine an alien evolutionary process that escapes the negative feed-back from lessening challenges of the Darwinian motif - or how. 

Every aspect of biology in any living organism serves a purpose. Evolution provided that.  Fits the biological model that living systems do not sustain cells and organs, etc, that are no longer being used. Everything in an organism is necessary.  For earth biology, as far as we can assume human kind being a part ... intelligence was an emergent property of all that. In our case, absolutely necessary for our rise out of obscurity. 

So, if the 'state of provision' and eases of living get in the way of needed intelligence, where does the intelligence go?   Just the last 20 years of recent modernity's surplus in 'how-to' and/or what-you-need-to-know at finger tips with nearly zero challenges, has managed to en masse vote a convicted criminal, harboring a dark triad narcissistic personality disorder ... into a position of self-fulfilling power.

 

I have an idea for how the limitations of biology can be overcome, what about inorganic bodies that can house our consciousness? Maybe that would enable the species to think more logically and not be so dependent on organic compounds (which is what fossil fuels are)?  We would be automatically immune from all diseases too.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/20/2025 at 9:05 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

Fermi Paradox explanation, incarnate if you ask me.

It is a personal hypothesis of mine; in it's simplest preface states, 'the species evolves the ability, and then the ability unwittingly devolves the species'.  Which yet even more succinctly equates to, 'species evolution emerges the devolution of the species'

Whether there is any veracity to that idea or not, we cannot deny the intuitive suspicion, nor the outright observation of the 'emerging Idiocrasy' phenomenon, and the precarious vision of that state of affairs being in charge of a climate future, nuclear armament future, biological toxicity future ...etc, etc.

Maybe human evolution has reached the point whence the Law of Diminishing Returns has kicked it. The law of diminishing returns, often referred to as the law of lessening returns, states that if you keep increasing one factor of production while keeping others constant, the additional output gained from each new unit of that factor will eventually decrease...    I mean ... we can see that with a modest interpretation of that we might be observing how more and more provision of resource, both physical or informed, is resulting in less productivity ( perhaps a perversion of "intelligentsia" for this context ). Less is coming back from the people being effected by all that provision.  Perhaps that's twisting things too much, but I don't believe so.  It's anecdotal, but an example: I've been finding vis-à-vis. more and more with this current version of humanity, when ideas like the  above are floated in mixed company, the points and/or abstractions fail to comprehended as readily as they once did ... decades ago.  I'm just now old enough to recall water cooler conversations where among the colloquy were sincere head nodders.  Now, you get a more gaped jaws under blank stares, followed by a some effacing joke about it being over heads.

Maybe in some analog ( if not physical) sense it is similar to entropy growing within the system - I kind of like that actually. Because we learn via formal academia that entropy does in fact gain in every system that exists in nature. Entropy in simplest definition is the measure of disorder in a system.  So why would the evolutionary process not have to pay into that universal "cosmological tax" for existence.

It is not hard to see how species evolution might ironically lead to devolution.  The reason is plainly acceptable, if one understands evolution to begin with, more specifically how it works.  Evolution perfects the specie's ability to survive by a transactional relationship between chance mutations during and preceding competition.  Those with insufficient mutation, thus lacking skill, don't win.   And the trophy?  the trophy is not OLED TV's, Buggatti cars, Yaughts and palatial estates, dinners with celebrities ... fortune providing eases of living - in fact, no "eases" even short of that illustrious list of aspiration is part of the trophy - not to nature.

In nature, the trophy is the ability to have sex with the best possible partner and give birth to the healthiest possible children, that in turn will carry on the lineage of those competition (and chance) refined genetics. The children of that union thus possess greater and greater prospects to achieve the same... Many generations later, the species has improved.  That is what evolution is. Humanity is attempting, unwittingly, to take proxy away from the Darwinian process, and redraw it as "capital Darwinism" - which really isn't sustainable, because it has nothing to do with creating the best version of our species.  It's no wonder that now, after the last 200 some-odd years since the Industrial Revolution accelerated capital Darwinism, we find that having done so has procreated all these existential perils. 

That is also why we necessarily die.  That model provides we are receptacles of growing disorder that our offspring have a better chance to survive for being better equipped. However, they too are ultimately doomed to being receptacles; but their children may in turn be better suited ...and on and so on. Evolution is kind of an eerily genius adaptation to fend off entropy eventually eroding at a system to the point of demise.

There's a bit of a catch-22 to all this, where "eases of living" intrinsically lowers competition ( or necessity for the arrival of favorable mutation) stresses, which halts perfecting the system.  Attempting to perpetuate the intrinsic vitality of any species, while lowering challenges spanning successive generation, smacks like physically impossible due to the ever growing quotient of disorder; there are no longer needs to improve via adaptation. 

This is why species - probably - fail once they get to some ceiling of achievements along their legacy, whence feedback  lessens returns. That science fiction novel is easy to write.  They end up in a figurative cul-de-sac of immensely powerful technological capacity but oops... the Idiocrasy has slipped below the necessary intelligence to responsibly serve as custodian and operator. 

But... any such Fermi Paradox explanation needs to apply universally.   The above essay might intuitively fit humanity. Based upon all available evidence, that is.  Perhaps some other species has evolved the "genetics" - if their life form even uses genetics as wee know it ... - to always be compensating for lessening returns ( which otherwise leads to a build up in critical entropy).  At least in our case, that's not possible though.  But it is hard to imagine an alien evolutionary process that escapes the negative feed-back from lessening challenges of the Darwinian motif - or how. 

Every aspect of biology in any living organism serves a purpose. Evolution provided that.  Fits the biological model that living systems do not sustain cells and organs, etc, that are no longer being used. Everything in an organism is necessary.  For earth biology, as far as we can assume human kind being a part ... intelligence was an emergent property of all that. In our case, absolutely necessary for our rise out of obscurity. 

So, if the 'state of provision' and eases of living get in the way of needed intelligence, where does the intelligence go?   Just the last 20 years of recent modernity's surplus in 'how-to' and/or what-you-need-to-know at finger tips with nearly zero challenges, has managed to en masse vote a convicted criminal, harboring a dark triad narcissistic personality disorder ... into a position of self-fulfilling power.

 

There is a way around the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) as far as the universe is concerned.  In the cyclic model this is achieved by the universe coming back *empty*.  In other words all of the universe's matter becomes part of a black hole.  The black hole represents the maximum state of entropy possible.  But..... with a specific type of black hole called the Kerr Black Hole (a spinning black hole), this maximum state of entropy can give birth to a new universe.  The recent discovery of our own universe spinning is strong evidence in this regard (just like it is strong evidence of a multiverse, for our universe needs an outside frame of reference it is spinning in comparison to.)  If this is correct, our universe itself is inside a spinning Kerr Black Hole inside a larger superverse.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/20/2025 at 9:05 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

Fermi Paradox explanation, incarnate if you ask me.

It is a personal hypothesis of mine; in it's simplest preface states, 'the species evolves the ability, and then the ability unwittingly devolves the species'.  Which yet even more succinctly equates to, 'species evolution emerges the devolution of the species'

Whether there is any veracity to that idea or not, we cannot deny the intuitive suspicion, nor the outright observation of the 'emerging Idiocrasy' phenomenon, and the precarious vision of that state of affairs being in charge of a climate future, nuclear armament future, biological toxicity future ...etc, etc.

Maybe human evolution has reached the point whence the Law of Diminishing Returns has kicked it. The law of diminishing returns, often referred to as the law of lessening returns, states that if you keep increasing one factor of production while keeping others constant, the additional output gained from each new unit of that factor will eventually decrease...    I mean ... we can see that with a modest interpretation of that we might be observing how more and more provision of resource, both physical or informed, is resulting in less productivity ( perhaps a perversion of "intelligentsia" for this context ). Less is coming back from the people being effected by all that provision.  Perhaps that's twisting things too much, but I don't believe so.  It's anecdotal, but an example: I've been finding vis-à-vis. more and more with this current version of humanity, when ideas like the  above are floated in mixed company, the points and/or abstractions fail to comprehended as readily as they once did ... decades ago.  I'm just now old enough to recall water cooler conversations where among the colloquy were sincere head nodders.  Now, you get a more gaped jaws under blank stares, followed by a some effacing joke about it being over heads.

Maybe in some analog ( if not physical) sense it is similar to entropy growing within the system - I kind of like that actually. Because we learn via formal academia that entropy does in fact gain in every system that exists in nature. Entropy in simplest definition is the measure of disorder in a system.  So why would the evolutionary process not have to pay into that universal "cosmological tax" for existence.

It is not hard to see how species evolution might ironically lead to devolution.  The reason is plainly acceptable, if one understands evolution to begin with, more specifically how it works.  Evolution perfects the specie's ability to survive by a transactional relationship between chance mutations during and preceding competition.  Those with insufficient mutation, thus lacking skill, don't win.   And the trophy?  the trophy is not OLED TV's, Buggatti cars, Yaughts and palatial estates, dinners with celebrities ... fortune providing eases of living - in fact, no "eases" even short of that illustrious list of aspiration is part of the trophy - not to nature.

In nature, the trophy is the ability to have sex with the best possible partner and give birth to the healthiest possible children, that in turn will carry on the lineage of those competition (and chance) refined genetics. The children of that union thus possess greater and greater prospects to achieve the same... Many generations later, the species has improved.  That is what evolution is. Humanity is attempting, unwittingly, to take proxy away from the Darwinian process, and redraw it as "capital Darwinism" - which really isn't sustainable, because it has nothing to do with creating the best version of our species.  It's no wonder that now, after the last 200 some-odd years since the Industrial Revolution accelerated capital Darwinism, we find that having done so has procreated all these existential perils. 

That is also why we necessarily die.  That model provides we are receptacles of growing disorder that our offspring have a better chance to survive for being better equipped. However, they too are ultimately doomed to being receptacles; but their children may in turn be better suited ...and on and so on. Evolution is kind of an eerily genius adaptation to fend off entropy eventually eroding at a system to the point of demise.

There's a bit of a catch-22 to all this, where "eases of living" intrinsically lowers competition ( or necessity for the arrival of favorable mutation) stresses, which halts perfecting the system.  Attempting to perpetuate the intrinsic vitality of any species, while lowering challenges spanning successive generation, smacks like physically impossible due to the ever growing quotient of disorder; there are no longer needs to improve via adaptation. 

This is why species - probably - fail once they get to some ceiling of achievements along their legacy, whence feedback  lessens returns. That science fiction novel is easy to write.  They end up in a figurative cul-de-sac of immensely powerful technological capacity but oops... the Idiocrasy has slipped below the necessary intelligence to responsibly serve as custodian and operator. 

But... any such Fermi Paradox explanation needs to apply universally.   The above essay might intuitively fit humanity. Based upon all available evidence, that is.  Perhaps some other species has evolved the "genetics" - if their life form even uses genetics as wee know it ... - to always be compensating for lessening returns ( which otherwise leads to a build up in critical entropy).  At least in our case, that's not possible though.  But it is hard to imagine an alien evolutionary process that escapes the negative feed-back from lessening challenges of the Darwinian motif - or how. 

Every aspect of biology in any living organism serves a purpose. Evolution provided that.  Fits the biological model that living systems do not sustain cells and organs, etc, that are no longer being used. Everything in an organism is necessary.  For earth biology, as far as we can assume human kind being a part ... intelligence was an emergent property of all that. In our case, absolutely necessary for our rise out of obscurity. 

So, if the 'state of provision' and eases of living get in the way of needed intelligence, where does the intelligence go?   Just the last 20 years of recent modernity's surplus in 'how-to' and/or what-you-need-to-know at finger tips with nearly zero challenges, has managed to en masse vote a convicted criminal, harboring a dark triad narcissistic personality disorder ... into a position of self-fulfilling power.

 

Breeding itself is by definition a diminishing return because of limited resources and finite land (unless we colonize space). It results in overpopulation. The road to evolution is also the road to the destruction of the evolving species. Human nature itself is unsustainable. The planet will be fine, it has a natural tipping point to take care of the offending species  It will always choose biodiversity over the dominance of one species, it self regulates just like the Gaia Hypothesis conjectures.

 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

There is a way around the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) as far as the universe is concerned.  In the cyclic model this is achieved by the universe coming back *empty*.  In other words all of the universe's matter becomes part of a black hole.  The black hole represents the maximum state of entropy possible.  But..... with a specific type of black hole called the Kerr Black Hole (it spins), this maximum state of entropy can give birth to a new universe.  The recent discovery of our own universe spinning is strong evidence in this regard (just like it is strong evidence of a multiverse, for our universe needs an outside frame of reference it is spinning in comparison to.)  If this is correct, our universe itself is inside a spinning Kerr Black Hole inside a larger superverse.

 

That's precisely ... I tacitly embedded that idea with 'death as necessity' 

Life gets passed the 2nd law by reproducing, where the offspring are - it is hoped, but succeeds more than 50% of the time - at least as good a copy as the progenitor. And, because mitosis ( by the way...) via gamete union has a natural ability to factor out imperfections, there's a chance the copies are improvements. 

 

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

That's precisely ... I tacitly embedded that idea with 'death as necessity' 

Life gets passed the 2nd law by reproducing, where the offspring are - it is hoped, but succeeds more than 50% of the time - at least as good a copy as the progenitor. And, because mitosis ( by the way...) via gamete union has a natural ability to factor out imperfections, there's a chance the copies are improvements. 

 

Yes this analog is perfect to describe how death and birth are part of a (nearly) endless cycle.  I don't think the cycle is truly endless though, at some point the entire mechanism runs out of fuel (as it were).

By the way, for the cyclic model of the universe there is a specific requirement to get around entropy, it is that the next new universe has to be larger than the one preceding it.  I'm not sure how this applies to offspring although maybe there is something in there that eventually drives the whole process to a halt.

I don't think true immortality is possible or that we should ever even desire it.  It would probably just create a spike in the suicide rate.

[Typhoon Tip]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes this analog is perfect to describe how death and birth are part of a (nearly) endless cycle.  I don't think the cycle is truly endless though, at some point the entire mechanism runs out of fuel (as it were).

By the way, for the cyclic model of the universe there is a specific requirement to get around entropy, it is that the next new universe has to be larger than the one preceding it.  I'm not sure how this applies to offspring although maybe there is something in there that eventually drives the whole process to a halt.

I don't think true immortality is possible or that we should ever even desire it.  It would probably just create a spike in the suicide rate.

i know, and related to that, I find the inflation idea of our universe' supposed first eras of existence as eerily similar to the 'next is larger' ...  like, hmm... just maybe the inflation they're theorizing is actually that size recreation taking place -   wild idea perhaps

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i know, and I find the inflation idea of our universe' supposed first eras of existence as eerily similar to the 'next is larger' ...  like, maybe ... just maybe the inflation they're theorizing is actually that size recreation -   wild idea perhaps

Yes this is how that would work, each inflationary period has to last longer.  Here's something else interesting, the finding that dark energy oscillates and is now slowing down.  We might be at the cusp of a contracting universe as the cosmological constant doesn't seem to be constant anymore.

The universe might be hitting middle age as it were.

By the way something else that goes along with this whole cosmic DNA idea is that a universe with life is more likely to give birth to another universe that has life in it. It transfers at least some of its physical properties to its offspring.  There might be some random cosmic mutations that make certain things different (just like we have in biology). These could be the *improvements* you mentioned (in some cases.) Do you know what one improvement might be? Have life develop more early in the universe's history and even sentient life earlier on.  That might make it easier to travel between systems and get around some of the unsustainable aspects of life (and at an earlier stage of the universe there was likely much more energy available to use as a resource.)

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-super-arctic-climate-weather-extremes.html

[ChescoWx]

Some rare fair and balanced climate views....

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2025/10/16/activism-has-damaged-the-climate-science-debate/

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-super-arctic-climate-weather-extremes.html

The paper describes precisely what one would expect when the linear stability of a complex system begins to erode. The “pushing and triggering” forces are now overwhelming the Arctic’s stabilizing feedbacks. As a result, the ocean–ice–atmosphere system is reorganizing into a new regime that is defined by higher temperatures, diminished sea ice, accelerated ice-sheet loss, and increasingly frequent and intense climatic extremes.

On account of  of Earth-system hysteresis, once a new state emerges, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have to fall well below current levels merely to restore the Arctic to its present state. Such a reversal appears extraordinarily unlikely in any plausible future scenario. Despite clear scientific evidence and full awareness of the consequences of amplified greenhouse forcing, humanity continues to pursue a trajectory of intensifying emissions.

During the Mid-Pliocene, the Arctic was roughly 7°C to 10°C warmer than the pre-industrial baseline, even at CO2 levels comparable to today’s. This suggests that substantial additional warming lies ahead. Humanity’s climate-engineering effort, which can no longer be described as inadvertent given today's state of knowledge, has already driven the Arctic roughly one-third to one-half of the way toward a Mid-Pliocene state. In that period, Greenland’s ice sheet was drastically smaller, and the Arctic Ocean was seasonally ice-free. 

Given the constraints of human cognition and the deep inertia shaping collective decision-making, it is difficult to imagine this paper will meaningfully alter society’s choice to continue to dump vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

[donsutherland1]

27 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Some rare fair and balanced climate views....

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2025/10/16/activism-has-damaged-the-climate-science-debate/

This is a patently misleading piece. While it correctly observes that “climate-related deaths… have declined by 98%,” it omits the critical context that renders the statistic meaningful. These deaths have not fallen because the climate has become more stable or benign. They have fallen because humanity has vastly improved its capacity to anticipate and withstand disasters through through advances in forecasting, infrastructure, public health, and global wealth. Without these four variables, the claim would be indefensible.

The article also misrepresents the scientific community by alleging that climate scientists “suppress” inconvenient facts. In reality, the scientific literature is filled with discussions of uncertainties, feedbacks, and trade-offs. Vigorous internal debate is a defining feature of climate science, not evidence of censorship. What is not in dispute is that the primary driver of ongoing climate change is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. That conclusion is based on converging lines of empirical evidence and fundamental physical principles.

Given this state of knowledge, the burden of proof now rests squarely on self-described skeptics. If they wish to challenge the established consensus, they must produce a credible, coherent, and empirically validated alternative theory. Their theory must be capable of explaining the observed climate evolution at least as well as the current scientific framework. Mere objections are not sufficient. 

That won't happen. To succeed, such skeptics would have to overturn the basic physics of radiative transfer and atmospheric thermodynamics that underpin understanding of anthropogenic climate change. 

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is a patently misleading piece. While it correctly observes that “climate-related deaths… have declined by 98%,” it omits the critical context that renders the statistic meaningful. These deaths have not fallen because the climate has become more stable or benign. They have fallen because humanity has vastly improved its capacity to anticipate and withstand disasters through through advances in forecasting, infrastructure, public health, and global wealth. Without these four variables, the claim would be indefensible.

 

I don't see anywhere it saying that deaths have declined because of the climate becoming more stable - if you do please show it.

"Benign" however is another matter.    Yes part of the reason at least that deaths have decreased is in fact because it has become more benign.   This is not due to the climate changing, but rather our ability to deal with climate-caused problems, like flooding, hurricanes, etc. has increased many-fold over the last 150 or so years.   So in that sense yes - the climate has become more benign, and yes that has resulted in fewer deaths than otherwise.   And yes - that is due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels - e.g. machinery in construction of dams to control flooding, construction of better buildings to withstand hurricanes, etc.    It's due to better weather prediction capabilities due to satellites that are put into orbit by fossil-fuel-burning rockets.    

In short - greater prosperity brings less deaths, and the burning of fossil fuels has brought about greater prosperity.    That is the point.   You say "without these four variables the claim would be indefensible" - but you can't just remove variables that are key  parts of the interconnected system like that!

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

I don't see anywhere it saying that deaths have declined because of the climate becoming more stable - if you do please show it.

"Benign" however is another matter.    Yes part of the reason at least that deaths have decreased is in fact because it has become more benign.   This is not due to the climate changing, but rather our ability to deal with climate-caused problems, like flooding, hurricanes, etc. has increased many-fold over the last 150 or so years.   So in that sense yes - the climate has become more benign, and yes that has resulted in fewer deaths than otherwise.   And yes - that is due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels - e.g. machinery in construction of dams to control flooding, construction of better buildings to withstand hurricanes, etc.    It's due to better weather prediction capabilities due to satellites that are put into orbit by fossil-fuel-burning rockets.    

In short - greater prosperity brings less deaths, and the burning of fossil fuels has brought about greater prosperity.    That is the point.   You say "without these four variables the claim would be indefensible" - but you can't just remove variables that are key  parts of the interconnected system like that!

The op-ed aims to use selective statistics stripped of context to make the reader question the seriousness of climate change. The author claims that “climate-related deaths from floods, droughts, storms and wildfires... have declined by an astonishing 98%.” This statement is presented as a fact-based contrast to what he calls “alarmist narratives” about the climate. By highlighting this statistic, the author suggests that while the planet might be warming, it hasn’t made life more dangerous.

This strategy of "implied argument" is intended to lead the reader to infer that the impacts of climate change are exaggerated. It is a dishonest tactic. That tactic is based on material omission of the very reason climate-related deaths has fallen, which has nothing to do with the author's thesis that the climate change threat is overstated.

Finally, I didn't remove those four variables. The author did in order to make his misleading claim through implied argument.

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-overshooting-15c-climate-inevitable-chief.html