Quark Blast wrote:
You're still using the term wrong. Like... you are literally wrong on this.
Yes, he's long railed against all modeling, unless it's done by Stephen Wolfram.
He argued that due to irreducible complexity (a term coined by Stephen Wolfram), the modeling isn't possible to do. Of course, this misunderstands Mr. Wolfram's definition of irreducible complexity, and so fails as a criticism of climate modeling. He thinks that the term means something can't be modeled, which is actually the opposite of how Wolfram uses the word. That argument took place about a year ago.
I agree that we aren't presenting his argument "as he presented it", but rather taking it to the next logical conclusion.
Quark Blast wrote:
You're citing a bunch of infighting amongst humans.
Do you have research findings from one of these people that you would like to discuss?
What findings of theirs that you think are credible and are being ignored by the scientific community? (note, I'm going to laugh if you link something that these people think warming will be less than 2.0, since that would directly contradict your own argument for the past 40 pages)
Quark Blast wrote:
Now, Judith Curry would reply that she doesn't find any of this conclusive that the issue is real... right? Also, she'd say we shouldn't listen to scare mongering from politically motivated scientists.
Quark Blast wrote:
Was she fired? Or did she quit?
Cause... you keep adding language around her situation to make it sound like she was forced out. But she wasn't. She chose to leave. Yes, she was unhappy with her situation... but that's her choice.
So, you are trying to b+*+&+++ this into proving your point, when it doesn't.
Quark Blast wrote:
It's the $$$ you got to follow. The numbers don't work out on wind farms over their supposed lifetime.
You've made this claim, but we've already pointed out all the flaws in the article you linked (which you didn't even bother following to the source, but we did and it has serious flaws).
Go ahead, look over the two reports. Tell me why the 3000 wind turbine study in the UK is better than the 20,000 wind turbine study in the UK. Why should we take the cherry picked one over the one that analyzed all wind farms? Why should we exclude the other 17,000 wind turbines from our analysis?
Quark Blast wrote:
Nothing you listed supports the article you posted as being credible. You didn't actually address anything I said.
Quark Blast wrote:
The school I'm at is ranked one of the better engineering schools (within the top 30), and I have the same library access as any of the eningeering students. I tracked that wind turbine article back to it's source, a Telegraph article that cites the a professors report, but lookin through online sources, it appears that it has not been peer reviewed or published yet. Not saying it is wrong, but we can't verify that it is right.
Further digging says the report is being published by the Renewable Energy Foundation.
The report was published in 2011, but has not been peer reviewed or published in any scientific journal.
Doing a quick search at the university library, I found this peer reviewed journal article.
This study does not cherry pick 3000 wind turbines in the UK and Denmark, but rather analyzes ALL wind turbines in the UK. This covers data from 20,000 wind turbines.
They find that there is a slightly larger than expected decline, but they did not feel it was worth abandoning wind over, rather that the cost of wind power should be updated. In the conclusion, they cite wind as costing 9% more over 20 years than originally estimated. Was the original estimate off? Yes. Was it off so much that we should abandon wind power? No.
It amuses me that you routinely claim that you cite so many sources that you should be trusted. Yet, every time I check one of your sources, I find you either misrepresenting at least one idea in it, or a source that should not be trusted. Most of your sources have been fine, but you use them to arrive at conclusions that they directly contradict. This time though, you actually cited a bad source.
I picked up a bottle of Aberlour 12, and it is delightful. It's a sherry cask whisky. I don't like the highland or speysides when they taste like raisins (I did a drain pour of a bottle of Glenfarclas 10 instead of packing it up for a move). The Aberlour definitely has the dried fruit taste, but it's not raisins, so I've been enjoying it. I haven't had any Macallan in a really long time, so I can't do a direct comparison, but I've been told the Aberlour is similar but a little cheaper.
The Evan Williams Single Barrel I bought recently was only $23 and I like it just fine. I even gave a bottle as a gift recently. There are actually a fair number of good bourbons that can be had for fairly cheap. I'm planning on bringing a bottle of Wild Turkey 101. I haven't had it in over 15 years, and I wasn't a bourbon drinker yet back then. Still a kid who drank to get drunk. I've ran across numerous reviews though that all extol its virtues recently, and I am curious enough to give it a shot.
Starting a group for blind tasting whiskey. We schedule our evening and pick a theme. Then, each person buys a bottle and brings it. We then pour them, without allowing each other to see them (half the group pours for the other half), and proceed to taste them. That way you don't have the labels, just the whiskey itself. See what you like, take some notes, and then we reveal what everything was.
Our first night, we're doing bourbons that have a shelf price of less than $25. I want to try some cheap bourbons, see if I get a new favorite. Also, I wanted an easy entry for our first night.
I was expecting to get 2 other people, but it's snowballed quickly into 7 total.
It's one of those things that kinda makes sense on a small scale. When biodiesel largely consisted of home mechanics converting their vans and making deals with local restaurants the benefit was basically all positive.
At scale though, the benefits clearly start to diminish. It's not possible for cooking oil to replace all gasoline/diesel usage. Even if we did, it's still carbon emissions.
Also, I don't deny that deforestation for palm oil production is bad. But the numbers would indicate that EU demand for used cooking oil is not the primary driver of demand.
Double checking some numbers, worldwide, palm oil production is roughly 63 billion liters, which accounts for roughly 31% of all oil/fat production in the world. Rapeseed oil, which can also be used for biofuel, is produced at about 2/3's the rate of palm oil, so roughly 100 billion liters between these two oils per year.
UK's UCO consumption is roughly 0.1% of this.
The UK's UCO consumption is not even close to being a primary driver of deforestation.
If a hectare of deforestation is the same as 530 people flying from Geneva to NY, and the total deforestation is roughly 1.6 billion of these passengers, the UK's yearly UCO consumption is responsible for about 1.6 million of those.
100 million people fly internationally leaving the US every year.
The carbon footprint of deforestation as a result from the UK's yearly UCO consumption is about the same as 6 days worth of international flights leaving the US.
I'm not a fan of biodiesel. It's not a solution.
That said the article is leaving some numbers out to fully understand the situation.
How much cooking oil does China use?
Best as I can tell, China is importing 7,570,000,000 liters of palm oil. (note, that this doesn't even represent all of China's used cooking oil)
The UK is then importing 117,000,000 liters of UCO.
The UK is importing 1.5% of the oil that China imported first. Are we really attributing ALL of the deforestation for palm oil to biofuels in the UK? That seems a little bit ridiculous.
I don't deny that the EU demand for biofuels is increasing the demand for palm oil, but it would appear to me based on the actual numbers to be a drop in the bucket of palm oil production. If the EU banned importing palm oil for biofuels (used or new) right now, the overall drop in demand for palm oil would pretty minimal.
For comparison, the UK's yearly consumption of Chinese palm oil is equal to 5.4 days of China's consumption of palm oil.
Will's protestations to change are also representative of a desire to return to the way things were. While his friends have witnessed and experienced trauma, Will has certainly undergone more. His attempt to hold onto a pre-Upside-Down world is his attempt to take himself back to his existence before that evil entered his life. Sexuality could be part of it, but very easily it could just be PTSD. His s3 arc ends with acceptance of change, which is accepting the experiences that have happened to him as being part of his life. He's no longer denying his trauma, and allowing himself to grow after it.
Also, as one of the only unmarried people in my gaming groups, I'm looking forward to the memes and gifs of Will from this season.
Steve and Robin
I disagree about Steve's romantic journey. When we first met Steve he's this super suave, sexually successful (for lack of a better description) guy. The overall moral of his story with Robin is in some ways similar to his story with Nancy. In both cases, the reason the relationship failed didn't really have much to do with him. He's had to learn to grow as a person.
By the writers 'taking him down a peg' in this way takes him from idealized male sexual prowess into a more everyman character. He's just a dude living a pretty average life dealing with all these weird situations (the extra-dimensional monsters).
In addition, the show is about friendship, not romantic coupling. Romantic coupling is more likely to be an obstacle in the characters path than a goal by which to measure success. In some ways it would have been weird if Steve and Robin got together in the last 2 episodes. Eleven and Mike started together, and kind of rekindled at the end, but for the most part their relationship was a wedge, not just between them, but for all those in their orbit as well.
Because the show is more about friendship, having their romantic coupling fail AND result in a deeper friendship is exactly what the show is about.
You changed the verb. Changing the verb radically alters the meaning of an idea.
I said predicting the future is b#!!&*@%. I didn't say I'm unwilling to discuss it.
Since it's relevant, think of it like weather prediction. We are very very accurate 3 days out. Very accurate 5-7 days out, and it quickly drops off from there. A 10 day forecast is fairly good, but 20 days is close to a shot in the dark.
When we go way out... like predicting next year, we can only go with general trends. In North America, June tends to be warmer than May. That won't be true if we compare each day of both months against each other, but it will right more often than it's wrong given sufficient data. With all of the climate data, we can make probability statements about trends, and that is it.
The further out we go, the less conclusive we can be about our statements. Especially when we get to anything involving large groups of humans. We know the 2020 election will be contentious, but I think if anyone says they know who will win, they have as much chance of being right as if we let a monkey throw a dart at all the candidates pictures. So much is going to change in just 16 months, that it isn't an answerable question right now. Of course, the closer we get to it, the better our predictions will be (even if just a winnowing of options).
Now, I don't want to debate politics (unless we are conspiring to shut this thread down permanently). But, which party controls the white house, senate, and house of reps, will be a major determining factor in the consequences of climate change. A dedicated president could do a lot to institute change that could prevent global warming. Even if they don't solve it in 4-8 years, we could be on a path towards a solution. On the other hand, if DJT wins, we will make zero progress towards any solution (from the federal government side of things), and likely as not the problem will potentially be worse.
Since we can't predict the outcome of the 2020 election (16 months away), I don't see how we can make a prediction about what efforts will actually be in place to mitigate climate change in 2023 (4 years from now).
edit: all that said, it's still useful to talk about what efforts will be necessary and/or possible.
I think anyone making predictions about human history 4 years into the future is full of s!#%, let alone 80 years into the future.
There is a chance they are right, but it would purely be by chance. QB's explanation for why he "knows" what will happen demonstrates to me that he doesn't understand the past or present in regards to politics and culture. If someone doesn't understand the past or present, then I fail to see how their predictions for the future should be considered reliable.
A favorite example of mine, back in 1987 a market analyst correctly predicted the Black Monday crash. When someone asked him how he knew it was going to happen, he said, "I've been predicting it every week for the last 10 years."
When it comes to his analysis of politics, he doesn't look at the evidence and see where it takes him. Instead, QB knows what the result is going to be, and looks for evidence to back him up. Anyone who starts at the conclusion will always find ways to justify their conclusion. It is a bad way to identify the truth though.
You do realize that we all agree that global temperature and sea level are rising... and these are both issues that are dangerous to humanity. Excluding the random climate denier that comes into the thread 2-3 times a year... we all agree that these are problems.
Do you understand this?
** spoiler omitted **
Just because commentary can be realistic, or plausible, does not mean it is welcome or done well.
It's a major problem whenever anyone not from a targeted group attempts to portray the experience or aspect of an experience of that targeted group. As a white male, I could write a story about how a black man suffers racism, but then I'm immediately going to run into all sorts of problems. For one, I'm just reiterating what is already going on. I'm not adding something new, or edgy. I'm just taking someone else's pain and putting it in my story. Most likely I won't represent it well, or fully. Or give it the nuance that makes it interesting for a black audience to experience (it'll just be more of the same of what they get in real life).
I'll see if I can give someone else's analogy justice.
If my house burns down, and I tell a joke about it. That can be funny (Humor in tragedy and all that). If I burn someone else's house down, and I tell a joke about it. That is just cruel.
Quark Blast wrote:
You do realize that every living organism dies in the course of it's life cycle.... right?
You haven't done the work to show that plastics are an extinction level event. I agree with you that it is difficult to estimate, but you haven't even shown us some studies that actually point to it at all. Yes, there is massive evidence of harm. Show me that the harm is having an effect on population levels (or even something suggestive of it).
I'm not even saying that what you've claimed is impossible. You might actually be right. My point is that so far on this issue, you have not demonstrated the validity of your claim.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Oh, there are times I am extremely uncivil. I just know how to turn it on and off.
Quark Blast wrote:
I agree with you that plastics are a big problem. It's a massive leap to say "plastics are a health risk to marine life and anything that eats them (ie humans)" to extrapolate that into "plastics are an extinction level event".
So far, you have provided lots of examples of the first one, but you have not yet shown a single scientific source that backs up the second claim.
I'm with you that plastics are a problem. In fact, I agree with you on pretty much everything you say about them.... except for your claim of an extinction level event. That is a pretty specific and large claim, and I don't think you've shown a single piece of evidence that supports it.
Also, you should reread some of your posts on page 58. You've routinely used the fact that you get A's in classes as proof that you can't be wrong about anything in this thread. Your complaints that I don't listen to anyone else and assume that I am always right sound an awful lot like projection.
No, I don't think you did. I didn't say anything about him, my point was about the things he said. Yes, he's included in that, because within the sentence I am structuring my sentences with active verbs.
"Bob missed the free throw."
I guess I could just say: "The free throw was missed," but if we have all the facts about who took the shot, then we still know who did the missing. Using an active verb doesn't make a statement inherently an Ad Hominem. So no, I don't think you succeeded in showing that I was insulting him.
If you want to go back a few pages, you'll find plenty of insults though.
Which prediction of yours is coming true? And if you're just copying other people's articles... are you really making predictions?
I could be wrong, but I don't remember a single person disagreeing with you that plastics are a problem. So, I'm not even sure who you're trying to say "I told you so" to.
Here's how to know if the end of the series was good or not:
Did something happen that surprised you AND you felt was exactly what you needed to see?
For example, everyone expected Cleganebowl. It wasn't surprising, so even if you felt like you needed to see it, doesn't count.
Example two, Bran is made king. If you're surprised, and felt ambiguous about it... it doesn't count as a good ending. (No offense, if you have to create entire fan theories of things not supported in the actual show, IMO that sounds like reach and hence... ambiguous)
Lest you think that I'm cynical and think this kind of thing can't exist: Avengers spoiler:
I did not expect Captain America to wield Mjolnir. For one, I thought it was destroyed. In the back of my mind I knew it was a possibility, but I wasn't expecting to see it AND it was a cathartic release for me. I really, really loved it.
The comparison is fairly valid IMO too. The MCU and GoT started about the same time, both have held a central place in pop culture for a while, and while the MCU will continue, it essentially ended a whole set of story lines with Endgame. Endgame is how you do that pretty well, GoT is how you do it wrong.
I don't think anything happened in the last episode meets these criteria. In the entire season, the only moment that fulfills it is the knighting of Brienne, but honestly that is a pretty minor thing. I like the character, and glad she got knighted, but all the benefits of that scene get tossed out the window when the show treats her like a crying housewife two episodes later.
Nothing about the last season was really surprising, nor did any of it even feel necessary.
With that, I will cease my b*$+@ing.
Anyone want to start a pool on which actors will get recast into new roles in the new series that will be made in 20 years after the books are done?
I started a campaign recently and we kind of did this (I'm the GM).
1. We did a character funnel. So each player had 4 characters. Character race and background were determined randomly (2 characters were on one limited chart, 2 characters on a super open chart). Roll 3d6 in order.
2. During the adventure, the PLAYER earned tokens. Once the adventure was done, they chose one surviving character to be their character for the campaign. They chose their class. Then they could spend the tokens to increase stats. They earned the tokens by doing heroic things, critical successes, and generally participating in the game. Spending the tokens on lower stats had more impact than higher ones (like a 7 or lower got to add 1d4+1, while a 14 or higher added a single +1).
Players ended up with cool combos they wouldn't have otherwise, and have enjoyed their characters so far.
The themes of Jaime's story aren't bad. It was basically a story of addiction. The problem is that it was poorly executed. He went through all these things that should have given him a chance to redeem himself, but like an addict who succumbs to addiction, he failed. That's fine.
The problem is that he was doing fine. He was doing fine. He was doing fine. Then without warning he dropped off a cliff. A defense could be made that this is "realistic", but just because something is realistic doesn't mean it's a good story.
Grass growing is realistic. I'm not watching 8 seasons of grassing growing though.
The defense someone will probably give is that with the shortened season, they just didn't have time to develop it properly. I will remind you that we wasted time:
Cut all that out and we easily have 20-30 minutes of running time to put in other useful story stuff that would have dramatically enhanced the show. It would have allowed for any single failed story line to suddenly have lots of time to develop and be really cool, OR could split that up to improve multiple story lines moderately each.
It also occurred to me, the EP4 naval scene was pretty pointless. The exact same things (excluding Grey Worm's personal hatred) could have been achieved by folding that dragon's death into EP5. Dany rides triumphantly into the battle, and one of her dragons gets killed. Now all of a sudden her in the moment cruelty makes more sense, heightens the tension within that battle and makes both episodes better.
Also, they should have folded Varys poisoning attempt into EP 6 more. Let Tyrion learn of it, and he tries to persuade Jon that if he isn't comfortable with killing her with a sword, he can find some poison in Varys' personal effects (he can comment that he found a note on how to do it). Jon can be disgusted with it, but then later he realizes that her death is still necessary, and it ups the ante on his choice to do it in a more personal way (face to face, with the dagger).
Was she advocating for never-ending revolution?
I don't think she was. Point in fact, when someone tried to rebel against her, she quashed it pretty hard.
Stop trying to bring your politics into this.