We just got to witness an amazing event.

[pontifex]

I was in Pennsylvania and New York state today didn't see a damn thing. It didn't get dark, not even for a second. Such nonsense.,

I'm in central PA. It got dark, I went outside to see if I could see anything. Nothing but clouds, then it started to pour down rain. so not sure if it got dark because of the eclipse or because of the clouds?

 

[zinfamous]

Climate change is in no way anywhere near an exact a science as the movement of celestial bodies. Just throwing the term "science" out there to act like they are the same is ridiculous. Humans have been predicting the movements of constellations and planets in the sky for thousands of years. You can't tell me if driving an SUV, overactive volcanoes, or solar activity is really the cause of warming. You can't tell me what the temperature of the ocean was 1000 years ago, but you could predict the position of the stars 1000 years ago without much effort. Climate change is the worst kind of science. It is political and funding comes from political sources.

while climate science isn't the most exact of sciences, your post is mostly rubbish, with particular attention to the greatest rubbish placed in bold.

 

[Pulsar]

Seriously? I'm an "idiot" because I note the difference between the movement of celestial bodies and climate change. You yourself noted that "we don't know exactly how large our contribution is." But I'm the idiot?

Yep. You're an idiot. I've gotten to the point where I'm tired of debating with people who can't see the forest through the trees. Limiting our effect on the planet can only be a net positive.

 

[kirbyrj]

Yep. You're an idiot. I've gotten to the point where I'm tired of debating with people who can't see the forest through the trees. Limiting our effect on the planet can only be a net positive.

Is there a special rule in the "Social" section of this forum that a ban on name calling goes out the window? No reason to be a jackass just because I only hold some of your environmental values.

 

[Paratus]

Is there a special rule in the "Social" section of this forum that a ban on name calling goes out the window? No reason to be a jackass just because I only hold some of your environmental values.

We'll name calling should really be limited to P&N.

Oh, and you're not receiving flack for having different environmental values than others. It's that you've stated things that are objectively wrong.

So just to clarify:

"You can't tell me if solar activity is the cause of warming" - this is an objectively wrong statement as I most certainly can.

"I feel unrestrained fossil fuel usage out-ways the benefits of not flooding costal cities." - this would be an example of a different environmental value.

 

[Paratus]

I saw someone use their blinker today.

Strangely someone just did an analysis of the cost of blinker usage per year.....

http://jalopnik.com/this-is-how-much-it-costs-every-time-you-use-your-turn-1798154893

 

[lxskllr]

Strangely someone just did an analysis of the cost of blinker usage per year.....

http://jalopnik.com/this-is-how-much-it-costs-every-time-you-use-your-turn-1798154893

If I were führer, I'd give *everyone* in the country a 30¢/year raise so they could afford to use their blinkers.

 

[Perknose]

But I'm the idiot?

Convincing an idiot like yourself that you are indeed an idiot is a Sisyphean task. As an idiot, you lack the intellect necessary to understand that you're an idiot.

I'm not rolling that boulder up Mt. Idiot.

 

[cbrunny]

BFD. KFC made a sandwich using fried chicken instead of bread.

 

[Geekbabe]

Big believer in science here. Immunotherapy, keeping this cancer patient alive.

 

[OverVolt]

Oh dear lord did the OP take a turn for the worse.

Science is not some abstract all-encompassing authority of knowledge.

 

[Paratus]

Oh dear lord did the OP take a turn for the worse.

Science is not some abstract all-encompassing authority of knowledge.

Different branches of science conduct their business in different ways.

Climate science is just GIGO modeling in my opinion. Whereas when they test drug analogues or create mAb's, one of them has to actually work

Your new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

 

[Paratus]

Interesting article at Ars about how motivated reasoning overcomes science literacy on some controversial politicized topics like climate change and evolution but not others like the Big Bang or GMOs

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...sial-science-a-little-knowledge-is-a-problem/

In fact more science literacy makes politicized folks even more wrong as we see in this thread.

 

[OverVolt]

Your new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

Ugh. My conclusion on global warming is mostly that the land temperature record is contaminated by development. You're measuring development, not the climate. Asphalt retains heat in the same way that global warming is supposed to be happening (mostly higher lows, nominally higher highs)

 

[Paratus]

Ugh. My conclusion on global warming is mostly that the land temperature record is contaminated by development. You're measuring development, not the climate. Asphalt retains heat in the same way that global warming is supposed to be happening (mostly higher lows, nominally higher highs)

K,

There's an increase of 30x10^22 joules of energy in the oceans. Construction there too?

Edit: not to mention they take development into account at each individual ground station. It's not like you are the first to think of that.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm in central PA. It got dark, I went outside to see if I could see anything. Nothing but clouds, then it started to pour down rain. so not sure if it got dark because of the eclipse or because of the clouds?

I'm in Eastern PA and it got a bit darker here during maximum magnitude.

 

[cbrunny]

Ugh. My conclusion on global warming is mostly that the land temperature record is contaminated by development. You're measuring development, not the climate. Asphalt retains heat in the same way that global warming is supposed to be happening (mostly higher lows, nominally higher highs)

So you don't believe humans are causing global warming because everything is warmer because of humans ....... ?

 

[fenrir]

Strangely someone just did an analysis of the cost of blinker usage per year.....http://jalopnik.com/this-is-how-much-it-costs-every-time-you-use-your-turn-1798154893

Except the alternator already has a load on the engine because it is belt driven, so how does it use any more fuel just because you turn your blinker on? If the alternator had a clutch system like the air conditioner compressor where load increases when the clutch engages, then the data could be true but I do not know of a alternator in the majority of vehicles that has this type of system.

 

[Paratus]

Except the alternator already has a load on the engine because it is belt driven, so how does it use any more fuel just because you turn your blinker on? If the alternator had a clutch system like the air conditioner compressor where load increases when the clutch engages, then the data could be true but I do not know of a alternator in the majority of vehicles that has this type of system.

Putting a load (like a turn signal) on a generator creates an electro-motive force in the opposite direction, slowing the generator. This is in turns puts more load on the engine through the belt requiring a bit more fuel and air to be used to turn the belt.

It's a tiny load, no doubt, but there's no free lunch.

 

[Pulsar]

Putting a load (like a turn signal) on a generator creates an electro-motive force in the opposite direction, slowing the generator. This is in turns puts more load on the engine through the belt requiring a bit more fuel and air to be used to turn the belt.

It's a tiny load, no doubt, but there's no free lunch.

Exactly. That's why when a generator - like a gasoline powered stand alone generator - suddenly gets loaded you here the RPM actually go DOWN. It's because the load is increasing and the motor is actually having to work. It's a little counter-intuitive, so I understand why it's be confusing for someone not studied-up on it.

 

[OverVolt]

So you don't believe humans are causing global warming because everything is warmer because of humans ....... ?

Well partly. I think the effect of CO2 is overstated and so are the consequences.

For awhile its always been that "Global Warming is killing the the ocean reefs" and now its starting to seem like Roundup/glyphosate run off may actually be more to blame.

http://www.trinfinity8.com/studies-link-monsantos-glyphosate-to-ocean-death/

Their source:
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/12592.pdf

Basically there is a huge divergence between computer data and the real world. The data is garbage IMO.

Some of the data points in the land temperature record from 1880 was probably a guy standing outside and licking his finger. Somewhat kidding, but consistent data collection in 1880 isn't what it is today and they merge all that data into one data set. Sure, its in the same format, highs and lows, but the collection is different. Nowhere else in science is it okay to merge data like that. Hence climate science is the only science allowed to make such sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations. And its proven wrong at a later time again and again and again. Like the role of pollution in coral reef die off. Or how the models have to be constantly adjusted when their predictions are wrong.

I don't disagree we are trashing the planet I just don't think our understanding of the climate is any better than GIGO. We're arguing over statistical artifacts and no one really understands the system as a whole IMO. We're much better off fixing one problem at a time, the big picture approach (worrying about the knock on effects of changing climate chemistry) is the wrong approach.

 

[Paratus]

So you don't believe humans are causing global warming because everything is warmer because of humans ....... ?

Overvolt doesn't believe in mainstream climate science so he cherry picks questionable sources to support this belief.

Let's see how he does it:

Well partly. I think the effect of CO2 is overstated and so are the consequences.

For awhile its always been that "Global Warming is killing the the ocean reefs" and now its starting to seem like Roundup/glyphosate run off may actually be more to blame.

Ok. It's plausible that glyphosate may negatively impact coral reefs. Although I'll point out that glyphosate in no way prevents the negative effects of increased ocean acidity and increasing temperature.

http://www.trinfinity8.com/studies-link-monsantos-glyphosate-to-ocean-death/

Their source:
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/12592.pdf

So he links us a blog post about a scientific study. The study itself looks pretty good. Showing how aquatic life can be negatively effected by glyphosate. It does not however mention climate change.

The blog post on the other hand ranges from a reasonable description of the study to a hot mess.

From the blog post and the part I'm sure Overvolt keyed on:

What if we’ve gotten the whole global warming theory backwards? What if burning fossil fuels isn’t the primary cause of climate change, but toxic chemicals ARE through a natural chain reaction? Global warming activist Al Gore was recently interviewed by Fox Newscaster Chris Wallace in June of this year. Gore admitted that on a global scale “emissions have stabilized and are beginning to decline”. So if we’ve cut down on fuel emissions, while being taxed and regulated to use these resources (the Carbon Tax), why are we not seeing any real difference? In fact, it seems to be getting worse according to Gore.

The oceans are trying to tell us something, if we would only listen. Oceans play an important role in keeping the Earth’s carbon cycle in balance. If we are killing off the oceans due to glyphosate run-off, which causes widespread plankton and aquatic death and ocean acidification, which causes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise along with climate temperature, then perhaps a better solution can be offered. Place a worldwide ban on glyphosate and stop it from poisoning our Earth.

Al Gore did not say emissions are beginning to decline. Increases in emissions are beginning to plateau. The blog author is trying confuse the issue. We are stilling adding megatons of carbon to the atmosphere but the rate of increase is slowing.

This hypothesis of theirs also doesn't pass simple tests. We know how much carbon we put into the air from fossil fuel usage. We can confirm it by the change in ratio of radioactive C14 in the atmosphere. New CO2 from plants and aquatic organisms has C14. CO2 from fossil fuels does not.

There's also no method for "toxic" chemicals in the oceans to describe the temperature changes we've measured.

So I don't trust this blog post. But maybe the author is an expert in the field of climate science and I should give them the benefit of the doubt?

Nope

Dr. Kathy Forti is a clinical psychologist, inventor of the Trinfinity8 technology, and author of the book, Fractals of God: A Psychologist’s Near-Death Experience and Journeys Into the Mystical

She's a psychologist who writes about mystical near death experiences....

Basically there is a huge divergence between computer data and the real world. The data is garbage IMO.

Here's an unsupported opinion.
In reality climate models are complex but can accurately predict shorter term climate change:
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...got-el-nino-right-also-show-warming-slowdown/

Some of the data points in the land temperature record from 1880 was probably a guy standing outside and licking his finger. Somewhat kidding, but consistent data collection in 1880 isn't what it is today and they merge all that data into one data set. Sure, its in the same format, highs and lows, but the collection is different. Nowhere else in science is it okay to merge data like that. Hence climate science is the only science allowed to make such sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations.

This is also incorrect. Data sets can be created from multiple different methods as long as the margin of error is understood. Data from the 1880s has a larger margin of error but climate scientists take it into account and the data is still useful.

And its proven wrong at a later time again and again and again. Like the role of pollution in coral reef die off. Or how the models have to be constantly adjusted when their predictions are wrong.

Here he uses the blog posts incorrect representation of the study to erroneously support his belief.

Plus study after study confirms the same basic climate sensitivity to CO2 that was theorized 40 years ago.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-exaggerate-warming/?comments=1&post=33201083

I don't disagree we are trashing the planet I just don't think our understanding of the climate is any better than GIGO. We're arguing over statistical artifacts and no one really understands the system as a whole IMO. We're much better off fixing one problem at a time, the big picture approach (worrying about the knock on effects of changing climate chemistry) is the wrong approach.

Finally direct measurements of CO2s effects confirm that this is no "statistical artifiact".

https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/


So just because Overvolt will use the opinions of authors of mystical experiences to convince himself he's right doesn't mean we have to.

 

[OverVolt]

Only climate science would assert a spectrometer in Alaska proves why a reef is dying in Australia.

 

[sandorski]

Only climate science would assert a spectrometer in Alaska proves why a reef is dying in Australia.

If CO2 was the cause, why wouldn't it?

 

[zinfamous]

So you don't believe humans are causing global warming because everything is warmer because of humans ....... ?

the asphalt is natural, yo. didn't you read the proper bible?


"land temperature readings are contaminated by development" ...either that's willful ignorance that god gave us concrete and asphalt, "therefore it's all natural," or one believes that the control data is compromised because you don't find comparable climates in undeveloped regions.

OK.

This means that modeling doesn't work, across the board. This means that we can't effectively track weather patterns, local, annual, and ancient, based on data that has dozens of tiers of confirmability. This means that we really can't keep synthesizing insulin, and save millions of diabetics, because modeling in science, based on dozens of tiers of confirmability, simply can't be trusted. This means that the lowly frut fly, that provides the basis for all that we pretty much know about genetics, heritability, and modern biology, is a waste of environmental capital. Let's toss it all out, all of it, because we haven't yet performed the exact same tests (ripping out gonads from larval/infant forms and blending them into soup to make genetic models) millions upon millions upon billions of times, ...in humans. Don't trust models. They need to not exist, because we can easily and morally do that same work in direct systems as much as fiction has convinced us that we need to do it.

Toss it all out. It isn't proper. It doesn't work. Fuck science, really. what has it ever taught us? FYGM. This planet sucks, anyway. There are probably better ones.