Quark Blast's page

1,979 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,979 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.

Pats Thomas gently and reassuringly on the head
Can I just get chocolate?

Chocolate Here:
One Healthy Chocolate Bar: 1 = 1

The Arctic's sea ice cover: trends, variability, predictability, and comparisons to the Antarctic.

Mark Serreze wrote:
...the skill of seasonal forecasts from predictors such as those described above continues to be limited by the unpredictability of weather patterns beyond 7–10 days.

That is a more pedestrian example of why I don't put much stock in particular predictions from climate models.

Scientific Question:
When will the Northwest Passage open up in the Arctic?

Scientific Answer:
Who the #### knows! We don't know this year from the next, nor this decade from the next. We can characterize the system and, assuming it's been parameterized about right, show that clear passage will be more or less frequent, for longer or shorter periods. But an actual forecast that one can pin business decisions to? No, not happening (unless your business is setting odds for weird things people can wager on).

Models might help us put upper limits on certain things - barring tipping element/points being engaged - but they are more useful in setting lower limits and for exploring systems that can show nonlinear behavior at unexpected places.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Who can tell? You only highlight your bias/disability with criticism like that. Obviously thejeff and several other (now inactive (lurking?)) posters have no problem comprehending my arguments.
Someone isn't comprehending.

At times, sure. We definitely disagree on several particulars over the course of this thread. But when we do it isn't because you mis-characterize my arguments as certain others here have done.

thejeff wrote:
I find your arguments contradictory and incoherent and have said as much many times recently, if not in quite so many words.

I found I echoed not a few statements from the book Climate Casino, having just recently ran across a copy. Not sure how I missed it except that there is a deluge of publishing in this topic, and no doubt that contributes to the lack of progress in meeting Kyoto/Paris/Katowice pledges.

Back to the topic of my apparent incoherence:
I've also noticed others being swayed by the incompetent/slanderous rewording of my arguments and so you can attribute some of your confusion to posts of uncertain utility.

thejeff wrote:
Good to know you agree with my understanding of them though.

See my interlinear comments above.

When you restate my opinion from your own reading, yes I do believe you understand me, minor corrections allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

paul,

I just posted that I think Thanos was right, Galactus would be okay with eating the human race, and that QB clearly is ignoring me.

Also thank you Devon.

Pats Thomas gently and reassuringly on the head


Then there's this from Scott Thorne:

ICv2 wrote:
Wizards of the Coast's Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set is one of the best marketing tools any company in the Gaming Industry currently uses, and is a wonderful example of using this concept. Get people to try out a low-cost version of the game, and then, when they find they like it, upgrade them to the more expensive version.

The guy's an econ prof and has been running a gaming store for decades. This one also seems hard to miss.

Did Paizo do this for PF2?

OK, I see I missed this thread here:
How soon can we expect a Beginner Box
Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

...aaand the answer seems to be a hard no for now. Try back again in two years.


CBDunkerson wrote:

<snip> Insipid tangential stuff </snip>

Quark Blast wrote:

Doesn't bifurcate huh?

So the words glacial and interglacial ought to be banned by the scientific community? Is that what you're saying?

As I suspected, you don't know the difference between the climate 'cycling', 'oscillating', or 'fluctuating' between glacial and interglacial periods and it somehow "bifurcating" in to glacial and interglacial at the same time.

Talk about asking to be labeled with "word salad"!

:D

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
This bifurcation, as indeed seen reflected in the trend of atmospheric CO2 level, is this an indicator of the CO2 following or driving? Or is there more going on than a simple linked covariance.
More word salad. You ask whether CO2 is "following or driving", but don't specify what... temperature? Are you talking about Milankovich cycles? Ocean outgassing? Who can tell.

Who can tell? You only highlight your bias/disability with criticism like that. Obviously thejeff and several other (now inactive (lurking?)) posters have no problem comprehending my arguments.

CBDunkerson wrote:
The "following or driving" thing also brings to mind an old (and extremely stupid) climate denier claim that temperature always drives atmospheric CO2 level, but if that is what you are referring to... then you are contradicting dozens of your own past posts.

If this were the first page of exchanges for us on this topic thread I could almost imagine someone having the difficulty you do and responding with poorly veiled snark like that. As it is, I don't get why you aren't more straightforward with your attempts at character insult. No one is fooled. Are you going roundabout to avoid the forum rules on good manners?

However, for those who've become confused by your ill-mannered reposte, the real interesting question is:
Does CO2 "follow or drive" the change of global climate state between glacial or interglacial.


thejeff wrote:
It's really kind of amusing that while QB agrees with the basic theory of global warming (and a fairly extreme version at that), he seems to regularly echo and use "skeptic" arguments in between citing papers that agree with him. Obviously the whole "climate scientists are biased" thing we went through over the last week or so, including Climategate!, but the focus on climate as a chaotic system is another one that's a big skeptic talking point, but not really in mainstream climate science.

Apparently Stephen Wolfram's concepts are hard to write into a grant.

:D

Srsly though, getting grants and getting published and keeping your job all hang together for most major scientists. Rocking the boat just doesn't pay off short, or medium term. Unless getting seen as pariah is the "payout" you're aiming for.


James Jacobs wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
What is your favorite '80s TV show?

Hmmmmmm.

At the time, growing up in the 80s, I was a big fan of the D&D cartoon, Knight Rider, The A-Team, Miami Vice, the remake of Twilight Zone, and Tales from the Crypt.

But my favorite is probably Unsolved Mysteries.

I've seen a few episodes. What exactly about this cartoon puts it on your 'favs' list?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Paleoclimate studies don't have high enough temporal resolution to determine short term changes like your 2030 example, but energy balance equations, historical trend analysis, and other methods do.

True.

CBDunkerson wrote:
You could eliminate climate models entirely and most of what we know about global warming would not change. What the models provide is the ability to crunch vast amounts of data to come up with projections which are highly detailed for both time and geography. They also give us 'big picture' results... but those results match what we get from multiple other methods.

"Highly detailed" but also total guesses as the details get eaten by the chaos that is our global climate.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Consider this Climate Sensitivity chart... climate models are only one of the methods listed for estimating climate sensitivity and yet all of the methods get results within overlapping uncertainty ranges.

They also have ad hoc adjustments (a process helpfully called "parameterization" to disguise the inherent ambiguity) which makes the models give coherent answers (often so that they more closely agree with preordained theory).

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
The Earth's climate for the last 800ka, at least, seems to follow a bifurcating path. Meaning it functions as if it's controlled by a strange attractor. Now, some of the things global humanity is doing might just be pushing the climate system off of the usual bifurcations.
I can only conclude that you don't know what several of those words actually mean, because there is nothing bifurcated or 'following a strange attractor' about Earth's climate over the past 800,000 years. Rather, there is a very simple and obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 level and temperature. Nothing chaotic about it at all. It certainly doesn't bifurcate.

Doesn't bifurcate huh?

So the words glacial and interglacial ought to be banned by the scientific community? Is that what you're saying?

:D

So then the more interesting question:
This bifurcation, as indeed seen reflected in the trend of atmospheric CO2 level, is this an indicator of the CO2 following or driving? Or is there more going on than a simple linked covariance.


FWIW - The manager at one of my FLGSs, the one that still carries significant Paizo product, has said his experience and that of the other store owners he knows (not sure how many but a half a dozen?), matches what Amazon is telling us. Which is still a guess but one with regional implications if not national or global.


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

I genuinely don't understand this (ie, I'm not just being snarky :-)). If you reject the models then how can you reasonably have ANY clue as to what the climate will be 10 or 30 or whatever years from now?

The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Almost don't have the energy for this reply, but here goes.

Look and see the part of my answer (that you quoted just above) where I've now taken the relevant words and ital-and-boldified so they're easier to spot. Reread that and then let me know if you need further help to understand.

Ok, now YOU are being offensively snarky.

Don't mean to be. Though it's also true I hardly care that I am perceived so. At least on this forum against my usual detractors.

pauljathome wrote:

Yes, I need further help to understand. Amazingly. I DID read your entire post. And it is still really unclear.

As in which parts and to what extent the models are right and wrong is a pretty key point that you can't just avoid by saying "particulars". Are you just disagreeing with the error bars, are you disagreeing with the conclusions, what are you disagreeing with?

One can't really disagree with error bars. Assuming the stats were done right, they are what they are.

Sometimes I think they are measuring the wrong thing but mostly it's this:
All Climate Models spit out values for how the Earth's climate will change due to AGW. All of those particular values are wrong and even taking the average of all the (30 or so) good models won't eliminate the kind of error that chaotic systems manifest. What the average global temperature will be in the year 2100 is anybody's guess given certain assumptions.

The Earth's climate for the last 800ka, at least, seems to follow a bifurcating path. Meaning it functions as if it's controlled by a strange attractor. Now, some of the things global humanity is doing might just be pushing the climate system off of the usual bifurcations. If so then our climate models are even more useless than I think at present.

There are also certain limits on how much heat can be trapped by the Earth's atmosphere, whatever it's composition. The limits are the part I find most useful because they can set a minimum (aka floor) temperature that can be reasonably expected. These limits tell me the year 2100 will be at least +2.5°C over the preindustrial average.

The climate models don't tell me anything useful about what the average annual evapotranspiration potential will be in Cape Town circa the year 2100. They don't tell me what a typical summertime high around 2100 will be in Novosibirsk. Nor do they tell me what the sea level will be at Portsmouth that year.

Those and similar particulars.

pauljathome wrote:
Or (and now I AM being snarky) are your various opponents in this thread (of which I am actually NOT one) right that you're just making up your position as you're going along

Mostly, excepting thejeff, they misunderstand and/or purposefully misrepresent what I'm arguing and then go on ad nauseam about how ridiculous I am for arguing those points - which I'm not actually making!

There's at least one who's a total ###hat to just about everyone at one time or another and I mostly ignore that poster because whenever I think of responding it just makes me sad to consider someone, who is an adult (chronologically), acts like that habitually.

One of the things global humanity will need to do to mitigate AGW is cooperate on a massive scale. A scale totally unprecedented in human history. We on this thread (who all agree AGW is a thing and that this thing is worse now in 2019 than it was in 2009, worse in 2009 than it was in 1999, etc), can't even cooperate. That is, BTW, another facet of my sociological argument as to why we won't be effectively limiting AGW circa 2100 any better than if the Kyoto/Paris/Katowice never happened. At this point all progress is based in greed. Fancy summits and pledges don't mean a ###### thing compared to what greed will do for us. Follow the $$$ and the $$$ is in renewables.
:D


Kevin Mack wrote:
Joana wrote:
It did on the day after release.
for about an hour (actually if memory serves they kinda kept switching places with each other for a lttle while)

Oooo... yeah, that's not great. Guess we'll see what the numbers say in another 3 months.


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

I genuinely don't understand this (ie, I'm not just being snarky :-)). If you reject the models then how can you reasonably have ANY clue as to what the climate will be 10 or 30 or whatever years from now?

The models are absolutely central to the science. Reject them and there really isn't much left.

Almost don't have the energy for this reply, but here goes.

Look and see the part of my answer (that you quoted just above) where I've now taken the relevant words and ital-and-boldified so they're easier to spot. Reread that and then let me know if you need further help to understand.


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
irontruth wrote:
Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately.
"Sorry"? "Sorry"?! OMG! OMG! The end of the world is nigh!

I know that things have gotten pretty personal between you two but that is pretty uncalled for.

He made a mistake. He then acknowledged that he made a mistake. No waffling or trying to change the subject, he flat out admitted that he made a mistake and apologized for doing so.

Its how adults argue.

You saw that as an apology?

Hmmm... either your sense of humor is far more subtle than I suspected or...


thejeff wrote:
Your position is understandable, but incoherent.

Yes, you see my position as incoherent. I agree that's the way you see it. I disagree with that conclusion.

thejeff wrote:
There's no conspiracy, but the results are skewed by group think bias, except when they agree with you.

The Climategate emails, the emails not some Guardian summary of some part of the whole affair, shows a rather sad reflection on several high status climate researchers and their unambiguous petty biases.

More importantly, it's not 'when they agree with me', but when they put forth cogent and substantial work, then, and only then, I'm obliged to agree with them.

thejeff wrote:
And exactly as predicted, you're using the (decade old, iirc) paper CB found when challenged to find a critique of wind power (since that wouldn't be allowed by the group think) to discredit his post about the affordability of renewables without ever engaging with the new paper he linked.

What I'm using from that paper, what you didn't bother to look up (apparently), is the scale of the problem. That paper outlines the scale of the problem rather extensively, though it doesn't show that in the Abstract. So if all you've read is the Abstract, you won't understand my point. And the thing is, the scale of the problem has actually gotten greater since the paper was published. Sometime in the early 2030s that will no longer be the case and a dedicated move to 100% renewable power will be a useful global project to undertake.

Look at a graph for the price of cobalt over the past two decades. Those spikes you see are spikes of unwarranted optimism about the pace of EV production. Going to 100% renewable power right now is a fancy of unwarranted optimism too. You can try it but you'll get several crashes until it's actually the right time. Thinking a boom is a steady trend is how Venezuela is where it's at today. The downside of those spikes bring a metric ####-ton of suck. If you don't mind the globe looking like that country for a good chunk of the next 40 years. Go ahead "make the world" go 100% renewable power now. But I warn you, it's a bad risk.


thejeff wrote:

1) Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.

2) The whole argument about "gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion" in the field started as a way to discredit any defense against his attack on wind power. It has nothing to do with calling his sources into question of course.

3) Your take on his position is at least coherent, but it doesn't seem to match what he's posted. That's why I started harping on how his conspiracy theory take discredited his own arguments.

1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.

2) Not "any defense". I've already admitted that there are many near-shore installations that make sense. Essentially none of the off-shore ones do. Most of the inland projects, particularly the remote ones, are a net waste of money. This says nothing of future wind power installation; what with all the lawsuits and other negative press for all the raptor slaughter and Chiroptera slaying, I think some sense is finally starting to get into the wind power project planning process.

3) Thank you for clarifying my position to others who seem to refuse to listen to me. And I think you know, at this point at least, that I don't advocate a conspiracy approach in my skepticism. Proving conspiracies is practically impossible but I think any reasonable person would see the Climategate emails (and Judith's and John's testimony) as proof that important journal editors and reviewers are willing to set aside good scientific practice for age-old group think.

.

Devon Northwood wrote:
If you constantly try to defend yourself by saying "you guys all missunderstand me" and then never pointing out WHAT we are not understanding, then I have a very good idea who the troll is.

You can say that but given that thejeff has just proven my position is clearly understandable I call BS on your argument here (and generally elsewhere for that matter).

.

CB wrote:
In short, this study found that not only is 100% renewable power possible... but starting full scale conversion to such a system now would be cheaper than continuing with what we have. Indeed, wind, solar, and various forms of storage are the least expensive option available to us, and would only require minor additional infrastructure/planning to eliminate any problems from rare extended periods of low wind and solar generation.

It's not that this can't be done. It's not that it doesn't make economic sense. It's that it doesn't make sense this year, or next year or even next decade. Sometime in the 2030s? Yeah, maybe.

Problem is we needed to be on this path in the late 1990s to get to a +1.5°C year 2100.

To go all in now, like right now, like scrap all non-100% renewable projects in favor of this approach... yeah, that's a recipe for disaster. The disaster might only last a couple of decades but by then we'll be a couple more decades behind on the old CO2 problem.

In particular see the discussion around figures 3 and 4 in the paper cited by CB, the one titled:
"Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar"

.

Irontruth wrote:
Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately.

"Sorry"? "Sorry"?! OMG! OMG! The end of the world is nigh!

AHHHHH!!!! Run!... Run for your lives!!

:D


John Napier 698 wrote:
Well, as I see it, Aragorn wasn't really casting a spell. He was using a ( corrupted ) magic item, just like Pippin did accidentally.

Ah... but Aragorn, he controlled the Palantir and 'mind-wrestled' with the Dark Lord via the Palantir.

Pip was along for the ride. Scary ride at that!

And don't forget Aragorn's nature skills. If the elves of Rivendell are magical, then so is Aragorn. He brought back Éowyn from the dead, using a bowl of hot water few leaves of Kingsfoil weed. A weed! How is that not magical?


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.

In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.

Honestly, I don't even need evidence of "juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues". Scientists are human and engage in such stupidity in private. Is it broad enough throughout the field to be effective at shutting valid science out of the field? That's the question.

According to several (previously) respected and published researchers, both in Europe and NA, the answer to your question is an emphatic "Yes".

pauljathome wrote:
If this article in the guardian is correct you're absolutely right. Scientists are human too. At worst, some questionable acts. The worst email (suggesting they'd suppress some evidence) did NOT actually happen as the evidence was NOT, in fact, suppressed

My point with the Climategate is not that it shows a conspiracy (because how the hell can you either prove or disprove a conspiracy without the conspirators frank admission of guilt (either intentionally or unintentionally, and we don't have that here)?), but that it shows gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion. Your Guardian article isn't really trying to report that angle. I'm talking the dump of texts themselves, taken as a whole; they are a rather poor reflection on the majority community.

Further, had there been a dozen other such email hacks, of other majority opinion holders, I've no doubt you would get similar results. Not a conspiracy but pervasive A##hattery to the minority scientists. In other words, corroboration of the testimony of the likes of Judith, John, etc.


Ed Reppert wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I always thought rangers casting spells in 3rd edition and beyond was kind of silly, blame Drizz't and Aragorn for that.
My memory must be failing me. What spells did Aragorn cast?

Think Palantiri.

And his nature lore was preternatural.


Oh wait! We're talking about the next D&D movie.
:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Cyclops is lawful neutral, leaning to good. He wants to be a hero and do good, but he is too boorish and practical to be a paladin.

The dude likes to blow #### up that's for sure.

I never saw him as boorish just immature. For all that Professor X groomed him for leadership he should've behaved better. Small irony with Logan's transformation towards paladinhood... in at least one timeline.


thejeff wrote:
...I don't buy Curry's claims in the first place. You're the one feeding the denier's "climate scientists can't be trusted" line here.

Could be but from what I can tell, IRL and on the Interwebs, literally anything one might say feeds a conspiracy theory. So to the extent your accusation is true I'm not feeling it. I'm just trying to understand the science.

pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
That they would be hounded is sad (you saw the "Climategate" emails so you cannot deny they were hounded in a group-think/juvenile/middle school sort of way)

I may be misunderstanding you, but I THINK that you're citing "climategate" as evidence of this cabal/conspiracy/hounding.

If so, you've definitely been drinking the koolaid. Climategate was pretty thoroughly shown to be absolutely nothing of the sort

I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.

In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on who the writer was. Kind of like it depends on who the player is.
Paladins they are but not always well understood by those who would characterize them.


Devon Northwood wrote:
And third, I know we all want to believe we are the one shining light of reason, the galileo in a sea full of ignorant popes, but 4 out of 5 time, when everybody constantly misunderstands you - then the problem is YOU, not them.

You're srsly positing this?

You know the modern Internet is the natural habitat of social trolls right?
So stats like that, even granting that they're accurate, do not support your conclusion.

Also, "everybody" doesn't misunderstand me. Just a few people, who do so on purpose (to be clear I'm excepting thejeff in large part on this accusation, as always). People I know IRL? People who are highly education and respectful of others, they don't see me that way. Even when we disagree.

I'll take the reflection of who I am from quality people like that any day over the spew that is the Internet.

But thanks for trying.
:D


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet

Notice the contrast in these expressed "expert" opinions from the same article:

Nature wrote:
While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreement reached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says.

.

Nature wrote:
“It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.”

.

So do we need to be "radical" or "might" we only be needing to think about being more sustainable as a species?

It's funny too because it's like these guys aren't aware of their colleagues' work, and it's their job to know ! Just yesterday I posted this:

Climate Home News wrote:
The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
But isn't that just these scientists being forced to toe the line? I'm sorry: involved in group-think, caught in their own hype, in the interest of their careers?

Which scientists?

There is a shift going on as to what the consensus is. I've been posting about it for pages now. The shift? We see formal publications moving from, "AGW is bad but here's how we get a handle on it", to, "AGW has us so ###### that if we don't go vegan and stop breeding now the planet is totally screwed for thousands of years".

OK, I exaggerate the degree but it's heading that direction. No more calm reassurances and BIG international conferences (with 30k members and press all pledging to do stuff - in the future), now we are told to "get it in gear people or the #### will hitteth the fan forthwith".

All that aside, Judith/John Christy/ et al were, in part, simply criticizing the limited data being presented as conclusive, and/or criticizing the extrapolation of data, and/or criticizing linear interpretations of our very non-linear reality.

That they would be hounded is sad (you saw the "Climategate" emails so you cannot deny they were hounded in a group-think/juvenile/middle school sort of way) but, given what the Internet is transforming our global society into (everything must be expressed as an outrage ! ), it's not too surprising anymore. My college ethics professor regaled us with real situations/conflicts that have gone on since he became professor 30+ years ago (with names helpfully redacted and/or actuall situations somewhat remote from the present to protect the guilty) and I must say humanity is a sad lot. We're talking Ivory Tower "woke" PhDs that can't get along in the most petty and demeaning ways.

It's no small irony that the institution designated to teach ethics to our future leaders practices ethics so poorly.


Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet

Notice the contrast in these expressed "expert" opinions from the same article:

Nature wrote:
While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreement reached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says.

.

Nature wrote:
“It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.”

.

So do we need to be "radical" or "might" we only be needing to think about being more sustainable as a species?

It's funny too because it's like these guys aren't aware of their colleagues' work, and it's their job to know ! Just yesterday I posted this:

Climate Home News wrote:
The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.


thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

The fact that other people also believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories does not make your belief any less ridiculous.

It is also just absurd that you are now arguing that there is a world wide scientific conspiracy to 'fake' global warming... while previously having cited any and every paper which you thought supported your claims that global warming is so bad that we can't possibly stop it from causing catastrophe.

Pick a false reality already. Your logical inconsistency is getting out of hand.

I think pretty much the only response to any of QB's links necessary from this point on is "But that's just because those scientists are being forced to toe the climate change line."

Oh no! Not "forced to". I think the majority of climate scientists are not the lest bit skeptical; in the interest of their own jobs/careers if for nothing else. Nope, they believe their hype, which is why they have no compunction about shaming/shunning minority opinions. Just another group involved in group-think.

Also, a word about the word conspiracy:

Just a friendly reminder to those who purposely misread my posts (that would be pretty much everyone except thejeff):
"climate establishment" ≠ "conspiracy".

But of course they already know that.


Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

Spiegel wrote:

After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field....

.

The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report's findings as "less than helpful" and added, "actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate-skeptic media side."

Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards....

.

Pielke elaborates, "In a democracy people will organize around all sorts of shared interests, as they should, and many will share values that I don't. So what? Bengtsson's justifications for associating with GWPF are perfectly legitimate. That he was pressured by his peers with social and other sanctions reflects the deeply politicized nature of this issue."...

.

Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado and Pielke Jr.'s father, says, "Unfortunately, climate science has become very politicized and views that differ at all from those in control of the climate assessment process are either ignored or ridiculed. From my experience, I agree 100 percent with the allegations made by the very distinguished Lennart Bengtsson."...

.

Climatologist Michael Mann even speaks of "climate wars." For years, he says he was the subject of attacks by conservative groups skeptical of climate change, especially after the "Climategate" scandal, when his e-mail correspondence was published illegally. The other side is not pulling any punches either -- at least when it comes to vitriol. One Austrian professor has gone so far as calling for the death penalty for climate skeptics.

Miller says that scientists were politicized more than anything else by having to seek a consensus on results for the 5th IPCC report. "Global warming is taken as dogma. Anyone who doubts it is bad," says the renowned researcher, who was branded a "climate skeptic" after questioning the scientific validity of computer simulations.

.

And then there's John Christy:
Though Scorned by Colleagues, a Climate-Change Skeptic Is Unbowed

NYT wrote:

“I detest words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” he said. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”

Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly...

.

And while his work has been widely published, he has often been vilified by his peers. Dr. Christy is mentioned, usually critically, in dozens of the so-called Climategate emails that were hacked from the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center, the British keeper of global temperature records, in 2009.

“John Christy has made a scientific career out of being wrong,” one prominent climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote in one 2008 email. “He’s not even a third-rate scientist.”

Another email included a photographic collage showing Dr. Christy and other scientists who question the extent of global warming, some stranded on a tiny ice floe labeled “North Pole” and others buoyed in the sea by a life jacket and a yellow rubber ducky. A cartoon balloon depicts three of them saying, “Global warming is a hoax.”...

.

He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.

“There’s a climate establishment,” Dr. Christy said. “And I’m not in it.”

Judith was not a lone crazy person but is a genuine scientist not afraid to go where the data leads her.

I find it telling that statements critical of her, posted just up thread, are only statements from her staunchest critics and/or people who really don't know her or her scientific work.

A "climate establishment" indeed!


Now for a far more important announcement:

Scientists: Window for avoiding 1.5C global warming ‘closed’

Climate Home News wrote:
“The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
Nature wrote:
The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Normally I love being right. This time? Not so much.

Now, I understand that some entities can overshoot their INDCs and that continued improvements in tech will allow that to happen with increasing relative ease, such that a lower median can be achieved, but that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Namely, that current targets+efforts will get us to a +2.5°C year 2100, or more, baring near-miracle tech.

I'm still hyped on fusion cause that will actually allow CCS to be profitably engaged in and without some sort of CCS even a +2.5°C year 2100 is simply out of reach.


So now I see CB has arrogated to himself as the 'answer-man' for thejeff.

Unfortunately, as always, he "misunderstands" virtually everything I post.

As a worthy rejoinder to his most recent "contribution" to our dialog, let me say this:


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whatever the setting, and they should pick a setting:
Then introduce a core adventuring group and a number of peripheral characters. The core group then go on to level up over the course of several movies. The peripherals can be brought in as things develop over the many adventures. And at lest one of the main cast characters should die and not be resurrected.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Why not see how Ewoks have evolved in the last several decades?

As long as they're still cannibals who slow-roast sentient beings, I'm in!

:D


thejeff wrote:
"This mainstream scientific criticism of renewable energy not only proves I'm right about wind not being viable, but that scientists get shutdown if they dare criticize climate science." Do you even know what you sound like?

Do I know what I sound like?

Since that "quote" isn't from me I'm not sure what you're driving at, except maybe slander.

thejeff wrote:
You're doing exactly what you were accused of above, except more so by taking both tacks in the same post.

I'm stating the facts. Judith was hounded for her position. A position argued from the data.

The link I posted just up thread, this one here: Mother Jones telling it like it is.

The overall issue can be summed up: 'It's us, not them'.

Though I admit the title isn't one to engender much resonance from the accused: <cough> Liberals and Climate Change: Not Yet a Happy Marriage </cough>

Stating the scientific equivalent of that will get you shunned. Because it's your peers that are reviewing what you are submitting and they aren't going to want to hear those kinds of facts no matter how nicely you phrase it. Nor does it matter what data you bring to the argument.

thejeff wrote:
Have the scientists who dared submit that evaluation been shunned and driven out of their jobs? Have those who Curry claims contacted her to express their similar concerns come forward or are they just hearsay from her?

The one's speaking up were either also retired or nominally working as "professor emeritus". Wind power is a boondoggle for the majority of the large scale installations and saying so isn't a career enhancing move. That's why the only negative published studies are by biologists who talk about dead birds. But alas none of them will put a dollar value to those dead birds, or to any of the other drawbacks of large scale wind power projects.

The paper criticized was titled "Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes" and just about every word in there is a flat out lie. And not difficult or obscure lies to ferret out.

That "solution" proposed in that paper in fact is not "low-cost", does not offer a "solution to the grid reliability problem", cannot hope to get "100% penetration" even by 2050, and has not a ghost of a chance to be used for "all purposes".

How did such crap get published by PNAS?

I don't think it's a conspiracy but there is a monstrous dollop of complicity among the peer group.

thejeff wrote:
Remember, once you start accepting Curry's argument that credible scientists lose their jobs for criticizing climate science, it's not just the claims you don't like that you have to question, it's everything. Not just the evidence against wind being a good source, but the evidence against climate change in the first place could be suppressed. That's what she claims. It's certainly possible, but it's also been the first claim of kooks in every field for decades and it's rarely held up. Potentially on a small scale, but nothing like these claims.

People look the other way for all sorts of reasons. Some of them self interest (money or prestige), some of them out of "laziness" (I've got 40 requests to review papers in the last month), some out of ignorance (If you're a specialist on sub-glacial melting, professionally what do you care about the hidden inefficiencies of wind power installation? ).

thejeff wrote:
To be honest, that Evaluation of the Jacobson study looks like how science works to me. Someone publishes a study. Someone else publishes a critique. Others critique the critique - There's a letter linked in the Evaluation responding too it. And so on.

Yes, "and so on"... and now we have dozens of wind power installations doing nearly nothing for AGW while costing plenty (taxpayers are out, soaring birds are out, bats are out, blades not turning because there's no wind and/or because there's no demand when there is wind, etc.).

Better energy efficiency standards set 25 years ago would've made far more impact on global CO2 than all the wind farms combined. Even something modest like 3% improvements per year (in refrigeration, or MPG, etc.), or a switch to an obviously better technology (LED instead of incandescent for most applications).


Werthead wrote:

Worth noting that the only things on the resume of the writer of CHERNOBYL were instalments of the HANGOVER and SCARY MOVIE franchises, and the director had pretty much only done music videos.

So you can have a poor track record and then do brilliantly when the right project comes along.

I'm more constantly befuddled why they're not adapting one of the multi-million selling novels in the universe, which would bring in a much bigger fanbase and get people more excited, rather than constantly risking things on the random writer's idea of what D&D should be. That hasn't worked out well so far.

Truth!

Preach it brother!


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
As for science limiting free inquiry. We don't need to imagine "conspiracy" to have that happen. Group-think is a thing, even among the highly educated. That in fact has happened many times in the past and is happening today across several different fields. Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema.

It's exactly the same conspiracy theory that climate skeptics use to explain why the science isn't on their side: Research that doesn't agree doesn't get funded or published. "I know I'm right and if the scientific literature doesn't agree, then there must be something wrong with the process. It couldn't be that I've got it wrong."

Mind you, solar is great too. I certainly wouldn't argue against solar. Though, doesn't solar have the same problems with intermittency as wind and need the same kind of power storage solutions? One advantage to having both is that they're differently intermittent. They peak at different times and shut down at different times.

My link to the travails of Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry were simply to show that credible scientists at good universities were shutdown for even daring to significantly criticize climate science. Once she announced her retirement, and why she retired, she was contacted by a number of colleagues in the US and Europe who expressed similar concerns - who dared not speak up for fear of losing their jobs. My original source was listening to an interview of Judith and not the particular link I posted above. That interview is apparently not on the InterWebs, hence the link just to show I wasn't making stuff up. I'm moderately certain I was streaming something from BBC when I listened to that interview.

As for the paper CB linked to just recently. Namely, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar , it is a rather telling study.

PNAS wrote:
The conclusions reached by the study* about the performance and cost of a system of “100% penetration of intermittent wind, water and solar for all purposes” are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved. In contrast, the weight of the evidence suggests that a broad portfolio of energy options will help facilitate an affordable transition to a near-zero emission energy system.

In short, the idea of getting over to only wind and solar (with a minor amount of hydro and geothermal) in the USA, even by 2050, is a canard. The paper* by Jacobson et al is a sad commentary on the state of inquiry in the field today. A professor like Judith gets slammed for reasonable doubts while Jacobson et al actually get published (in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences no less!) despite the risible quality of the paper they wrote.

I am not expressing a "conspiracy" regarding the feasibility of wind power, but merely stating certain "inconvenient truths" (and yes CB I know I just plagiarized Al Gore, sorry... no, actually not sorry :D) that show most large scale installations to be boondoggles. Because they are.

* {Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:15060–15065}


Marc Radle wrote:
Heck, there was even humor in the Lord of the Rings movies!

####ing Dwarves and Hobbits, always goofing off when there's a MacGuffin to destroy!


thejeff wrote:

And even if we don't get to the point where we can always cover all the peak needs with renewables (even with batteries) and occasionally have to ramp up that fast natural gas peaker, that's still far better than using the natural gas for the base load.

But mostly I just find it funny that QB's jumped on the same conspiracy theory that deniers cling to, except he's using it in sort of the other direction.

@CB - I'll read that article and get back to this thread at some point.

Otherwise I don't know that wind is "far better" than natural gas.

Solar? I think so. Mainly because recycling old panels has got to be easier than the scare-mongers intimate.

Scaled battery storage will matter most for the base load issue. Without that wind will always fail relative to solar (except in polar regions at least half the year). I expect molten salt batteries to outperform Li-ion or whatever rare-earth batteries that can be scaled.

As for science limiting free inquiry. We don't need to imagine "conspiracy" to have that happen. Group-think is a thing, even among the highly educated. That in fact has happened many times in the past and is happening today across several different fields. Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema.


Because it's the 3rd quarter of the year with nothing major being launched for 5e (just the usual roll-out that's been going on since late 2014), and I have no idea what Paizo marketing is doing for PF2, and because Starfinder already occupies the #2 spot, there is no chance PF2 will be less than #2 in this quarter.

Will it take the top spot? If it does Paizo marketing gets all the credit imo.


As expected: ICv2 - Top 5 Roleplaying Games

Rank, Franchise, Publisher

1 - Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards of the Coast

2 - Starfinder, Paizo Publishing

3 - Star Wars RPG, Fantasy Flight Games

4 - Vampire, White Wolf Publishing

5 - Pathfinder, Paizo Publishing

Though does anyone know anyone who plays Vampire? I use to know one person who said he used to play but that was years ago now.


The real reality is that no one has met even half my criteria. I say half to appease thejeff's claim that I've set up a "no win" situation (whereas actually I just call it as I see it... but whatever).

Here's a couple of people who spoke at TEDx, videos I had not watched before today, that make two of the points I've made here recently.

Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

From "What If" to "What's Next" in Nuclear Energy | Rusty Towell | TEDxACU

You don't like my reasonable claims? I can keep rubbing your noses in it for as long as you care to read my posts, OR you can enlighten yourselves a little and signal a little lot less.


thejeff wrote:
Did you even read that post? You set up the no win situation and you're complaining he didn't fall for it.

It's "no win" because wind power does actually cost more than we get out of it, when all real costs are factored in.

Something not true of solar* (PV), or hydro, or geothermal. Although biofuels are much worse.

* Except for those stupid solar roadways.


Another little blurb pointing in the same direction by ROLLING FOR INITIATIVE -- A LOOK AT GAMING INDUSTRY NUMBERS
Column by Scott Thorne

ICv2" wrote:
...roleplaying games increased 18%, still overwhelmingly driven by sales of Dungeons & Dragons. However, at less than 10% of the overall market, RPG sales account for a fraction of the amount generated by trading card games or even miniatures games.


Devon Northwood wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

But if you want to show me up:

Find a peer reviewed paper, published in a top journal, from the last decade, that is written by climatologists and is critical of wind power.

No. Why should I?

Either I find a paper - then you will claim that you have been right all along about wind energy not being efficient.
OR
I don't find a paper - then that is proof that "big science" has suppressed everything, as you always said - which is even more proof that wind energy is not being efficient.

It's called a closed worldview. It cannot, by definition, be disproven.

With the Internet at your fingertips, if it were true it would be easy-peasy to show me up.

Since it's not true, you take the low road of impuning my character to justify your inaction.

Argued like a true ideologue. Another thing you have in common with CB. Sadly.

I like the way Mother Jones stated the overall issue: 'It's us, not them'.


Only two Nexus-6 remain.


For the record: I got an "A-" once.

@Devon - None of the citations by CB talk $$$. The studies critical of wind power talk dead birds, and it's biologists who are making that obvious (and now decades running) claim. It's the $$$ you got to follow. The numbers don't work out on wind farms over their supposed lifetime. Then you factor in other costs, like the value of dead birds, and it's not even close. Solar is by far the better "green" choice, even at relatively high latitudes.

Nuclear doesn't pencil out either if you run the plants like the ones at Chernobyl or Fukushima. That's why I say let the United States Navy run them and site them on military bases to leverage the security already there that might be needed against terrorist types. Still I prefer Thorium reactors to the current standard and fusion to those (and everything else), if we could ever get one working and scaled.

As for everything else you recently posted:
Meh, you read for comprehension about like CB so no point in a more detailed reply.

But if you want to show me up:
Find a peer reviewed paper, published in a top journal, from the last decade, that is written by climatologists and is critical of wind power.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
No, I want an intelligent investment of money in nuclear power.
No, apparently you missed my point... that, from a climate change viewpoint, there aren't any "intelligent" investments in nuclear power any more. Nuclear power research maybe. Nuclear power with existing technology... no. Every dollar spent on such could be better used to produce more clean energy from wind and or solar faster.

This reply gets its own response.

Why?

Cause your third link up there says this:

BioMass Paper CB Cited wrote:

Wind turbines produce electricity from the kinetic energy of the sun-driven wind, and will not be considered here.

...

We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible.

You should read your own citations.

:D Snort! wipes away more tears of mirth


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Oh yes, so many citations it will take me a moment to read them all. Oh wait, there aren't any.

Some things seem obvious, but hey... its you. I shouldn't have assumed.

Citations proving the existence of scientific studies critical of wind power;

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320713003522?via %3Dihub
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70170860
http://gaia.pge.utexas.edu/papers/CRPS-BiomassPaper.pdf

Your "obvious" citations failed to talk $$$, only bird numbers. Numbers, which on a per-turbine basis, we've had a good handle on for decades btw. It's the value of those dead birds that no one has systematically looked at. Biologists aren't economists it seems.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
If they don't plan on connection and maintenance needs perhaps they deserve the derision I'm heaping on them.
Actually, you were claiming that wind power plants are "corrupt"... and your specific point here was that wind power built away from an existing power grid requires the extra cost of building out the grid. I pointed out that rural people deserve electricity too... and now you're on some tangent about your derision towards them.

Hey, if they can't do even minimal accounting due diligence... yeah, that's corrupt.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Maybe even a cooperative to encourage efficient use as well.

Yeah! Those darn people in China! Why can't they be more communist!

Heh.

No, the correct question is: Why can't they be more capitalist?

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
It's not the number of animals killed that worries me, it's the particular species. And those big wind turbines are putting the smack-down on some very rare birds.
A potentially valid point (who are you, and what have you done with QB?). Any evidence to show that wind power kills more of... precisely which species are you so concerned about? Or is it more in the 'completely unsupported conspiracy nut ravings' category?

Whoa! It seems I finally made a point in language simple enough that you were forced to comprehend it. Nice change. Keep it up.

As for the answer to your questions, let me plagiarize quote you:
"Some things seem obvious, but hey... its you. I shouldn't have assumed."

I would've cited some of my own but I'm certain you don't read my citations, so go find your own on this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slaadish Chef wrote:

Sweet potatoes cut into fries; fried in peanut oil; and seasoned with some seasoned salt, cumin, and teeny bit of cayenne powder are mighty good.

Not fond of grits itself, but poured into a baking dish, chilled until it sets up, then cut into squares and fried (there may be a pattern here) are pretty good with crispy bacon and shrimp.

Or you could just eat the crispy bacon!


Well it looks like the answer to the OP is now 20 quarters at least.

'MAGIC' SALES DRIVE HASBRO Q2 GROWTH
Hasbro's Total Gaming Up 26%

ICv2" wrote:
Hasbro Gaming sales were down 8% to $123.4 million for the quarter from $134.3 million in the year ago period. Increases in sales of Dungeons & Dragons, Yahtzee, and Connect 4 were not enough to offset declines in other brands, including Pie Face and Duel Masters.

The big test will be the quarter that starts here in a week.


Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months

BBC wrote:

Do you remember the good old days when we had "12 years to save the planet"?

Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Exactly this. The ball is rolling along at a good clip now. We'll see if it bounces into a thicket or increases momentum.

1 to 50 of 1,979 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>