@HobbitGamer: The temps for the next few nights here (barring this evening) will all be down below freezing! I left with highs in the 50s and returned to Highs that are barely pushing 40. It doesn't help that it got up to the low 60s in Philly yesterday.
Actually, I just checked. It will barely get above freezing on Tuesday. When did I move to the Yukon?
It's just me and a senior IT staffer in our building this morning. We just spent the better part of an hour talking about Warframe, where he explained all the different things. Now I'm more excited to play it on the 20th. And I see that I have 13 emails...
#MudStrongs
Switch Friend Code: SW-7842-2075-5515 | My Nintendo: HobbitGamr
@ReaderRagfish
Meanwhile, it has started rainy season in my country Indonesia.
Last evening i was shocked for sudden heavy rain when i was going back to my house with my bike.
@Tyranexx The media keeps screaming "warmest year on record" every year, and yet to anyone with any kind of memory, notice winter keeps getting longer and longer and longer? They keep saying this past summer was the one of the top 10 hottest....having lived through quite a few summers, it was one of the coolest (albeit humid) I can recall with only 2 weeks of any serious heat.
Funny what happens when you put the measuring stations on an airport tarmac as they proudly boast continuously increasingly airline travel, in the middle of an every increasing concrete-asphalt city radius with a known heat island effect.....
Notice when temps are 10 degrees above normal the forecast descriptions go on about "well above normal temperatures" and "unseasonable warmth", but when temps are 10 degrees below normal the wording is "near normal", "cooler air", or just "a trof" or "high pressure influencing the area". The new narrative is cold is normal, warm is scary.
On one hand it could be about just "selling global warming", but they renamed that "climate change" so they could freak everyone out about warm and cold weather. So when they need to use mass communications to alter perception that makes me worry. Why are they trying so hard to make everyone think perpetual coldness is normal....how cold is it going to get and how long have they known?
About global warming, yes the last few years were extremely hot and, at least here, winter is less cold every year.
This year it seems like it will be a bit cooler though.
The nice thing about cold is that humans can add layers of clothes to tolerate it. With hear you can only go so far before it becomes public indecency.
@Yosheel I think I'd rather be where you are Winter here went from short term with modest snow except when a big storm happened to spanning 6 months of the year. Spring and Fall have just been replaced by more Winter, and Winter now reaches lows that hadn't been reached in 150 years.
"climage change" aside, the sun is going into a perfectly normal dormant cycle...but last time it happened humans were an agrarian society....the modern pace and systems can't really take that kind of weather. There's a reason Russia is Russia.
@Yosheel As someone who hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates hates winter, every day of winter is a task of suffering and misery I spend 2 months dreading before it happens, suffer through, barely enduring, on a day by day basis, and then take 2 months to recover when it ends, every single year leaving about two months a year of not being miserable....I notice when winter is a day too long.
@NEStalgia They didn't ''rename'' it. You can blame the media for that. The term climate change has been around since the late 1800's. I could go on a 100-page rant on the effects that the science-illiterate media has on science communication, it's quite frustrating, no matter what field you're working in.
Thousands of people have been running tests for the last century, and the effects are pretty well understood. For example, carbon dioxide, among other, is great at capturing heat released by the sun. The more of it exists in the atmosphere, the less energy gets released back into space. Air can also hold more water vapor as its temperature increases, and water vapor is another greenhouse gas. Melting ice caps means less reflective surface, and the more water and rock is exposed, the more heat is captured through the surface as well. It's effectively a downward spiral. But effects are that on average the temperature is increasing globally; and since we're breaking last year's record pretty much every year, it's on par with the predictions. Anecdotal evidence hardly counts unfortunately; last year felt pretty cold here as well, but I know that when looking over a long period of time, there's definitely a trend towards warmer winter, and hotter, and drier summers. Half our country's crop got destroyed by the long periods of heat this year, and I fear it's only going to get worse.
Anyway, even if you ignore the effects on the global temperature and atmosphere. Another big issue is the acidification of our oceans. Coral reefs don't handle this very well (on top of the increased water temperature). And we're witnessing massive scale coral bleaching all over the world. They don't only house the biggest variety of marine species compared to other ocean habitats, but they also nurture a lot of the commercial fishes we depend on. And most marine fish populations are already at fractions what they used to be...
Anyway, almost nobody cares about the full picture. Media isn't interested in it, they're more concerned with click-bait articles and 1-minute ''shocking new stories''. It's why nobody believes food science, media jumps on every story they can find, discard any context, and cherry-pick the information that gets people's attention: ''this causes cancer'', ''that causes cancer'', ''this is actually good for you!''. It's like the recent ''discovery'' of the exomoon Kepler-1625b I. Science channels and news outlets immediately jumped on it: ''FIRST EXOMOON DISCOVERED!''; even though the paper made it very clear that it was far from being ''confirmed'' at the moment. The chaps doing the research even have their own YouTube channel on which they regularly post updates, and they explain it all very well. But they hardly get any views, the irony...
@Octane Yeah, I'll agree that the media makes a mess of all science. Regarding "climate" however, the prevalent problem in science today is that 1) All studies must be funded, and the condition of such funding is more often than not to seek to achieve a specific finding. Meaning most science conducted is in fact not actually science in the current century. 2) We don't even have enough understanding to line up the atmospheric conditions to figure out with any true reliability the actual unfolding of weather 24 hours from now, with the margin of error still being extreme. These are the same methods being used to tell us what will overall happen in 100 years. 3) Science is incapable of saying "insufficient information at this time." (See also, #1.) In the absence of information, they take hypotheses and just try to prove them without attempting to disprove them, and then for both ego and funding, discarding information that could disprove them. Then the media takes a profitable avenue and runs with it.
I said in another thread, we're living in the post-science, post-ethics world.
Ultimately there's very much a lack of the kind of long term information gathering required to make any kind of reliable predictions about much of anything, and so much of the "science" is tainted by agendas, that much of it should really be thrown out and started again from scratch. Meanwhile the people who originally formulated most of the warming hypotheses keep trying to correct all the hysteria that they were looking at much more subtle effects over centuries to millennia, not all this radical "the oceans are rising" hysteria, that if their hypothesis was right, in the distant future, there could be big problems, thus the need to research. Instead the world decided to monetize and politicize by featuring every shift as an "action-item" the public should address with money (to themselves.)
It's a valid and interesting hypotheses. It may be right. It may not be. Instead of studying, analyzing, and studying over the required period of time, which might be generations, if not centuries, they instead created a new industry to "prove it's true" (which is the opposite of the Scientific Method), tried to legislate it, and determine most of this by using the same flawed computer modeling approaches that are telling me that it's not raining right now.....while water pours before me. Meanwhile they ignore that the planet has gone from a molten ball of ash, to a lush tropical jungle, to a ball of ice, to a thawed world, back to a ball of ice, and eventually into the current state, and base all predictions around the assumption the current state is somehow a normal that shouldn't change. When called on that all they have is "well, humans are making it change faster"? Maybe. But how fast? 50 years? Doubtful. 2000 years? Possible. 1million years? Makes a lot of sense. Worth researching. Worth understanding. Selling our current understanding is laughable. It's a mockery of science. We should go back to witch doctors and priestesses.....it would be more scientific.
We're at a point you can't even reliably do your own background checking. If you check "the long trend" of historical weather date you have to keep in mind that with US data at least they keep getting caught tampering with the data. They continuously are adjusting past temperatures downward to "make them more accurate", while leaving current thermometers in known hot locations to "make them more consistant" They've frequently biased readings around stations known for dodgy, inconsistent readings. Once you get to the point that the data you can base research on is tampered with, you no longer have science.
Which is unfortunate, because now we'll never know. Ever. If there is no human caused change, then all this hysteria and money was for nothing and natural change will wipe us out anyway. And if there is human caused change we'll never know the extent because all the data has been manipulated so much simply to get poltical and monetary goals met, we won't know what the real effects are.
If there is human caused chagne (humans are a natural function of the environment, which the activist portion typically presumes humans are a form of invader) how much will the planet correct naturally? And how much is based on false assumptions? (Remember the "ozone hole" crisis in the 90s? Turns out it's actually a natural phenomenon...has nothing to do with aerosols. It changes size regularly as well. Remember when humans were destroying the spotted owl and all kinds of protection was put into effect to limit human activity? Turns out humans had nothing to do with it. They were being preyed upon by the wood owl that was thriving. These "social science" issues tend to be too pushed by anti-human agendas. Which I don't know why such groups don't just take up arms and seek to exterminate the human race. That tends to be their actual desired outcome: A world free of human interaction.)
And even if there isn't human caused change, this planet is going to change, dramatically, all on its own, at some point, and humans will not be capable of surviving on it. And absolutely nothing can change that (except maybe mass scale intentional global cooling...or warming....assuming it's possible to actually cause either...which we'll never know, because the science has been tainted.)
"Breaking the record" every year may or may not be true, we don't know, because as long as they keep reducing former numbers, it's pretty easy to keep breaking the record. We're also not accounting for patterns shifting rather than changing. EG, rotating. We don't effectively monitor significant portions of the planet's surface over the water so we have only a spotty picture of what weather is where. We also know the magnetic poles keep trying to reverse....we know when they try it opens up holes in the upper atmosphere that allow some pretty nasty cosmic rays in. Nasty enough that some of the oceanic monitoring stations get their solid state memory wiped when it happens. Enough to affect human cancer rates? They don't mention that. We don't know if "ice caps are melting' They keep saying they are but then don't account for the ice caps growing in other locations. Plus we're still exiting the last ice age (and hopefully not entering a new one.) Before that the earth was a sweltering jungle. Isn't returning to that post-ice age the expected natural result? And comparison data that goes back to the 19th century or before is using poorly captured baseline data coupled with the last Solar Grand Minimum....of course temperatures would be steadily rising out of TLIA. There's too much we don't know, too much information we don't have, too many systems involved we know next to nothing about, and too many variables for our limited understanding to plot at this time.
And even if we DO figure out we can change it, and even if the natural changes the planet definitely will experience necessitate it, and even if we do successfully prevent it. The sun is simply going to go red giant at some point and melt the whole planet into a pool of lava after vaporizing everything on the surface. And absolutely nothing can change that.
TL;DR You already know all this but, modern science is so much junk science due to funding conflicts of interest, climate science is so badly tainted it's unusable to everyone who isn't paying for the result they want, the data is a mess, and even if it weren't, proper research of such things takes centuries if not millennia of meticulously recorded data, not a 30 year council. Even if it's all true, and we've doomed ourselves.....predicting it now is a lucky guess, not science. We've barely even started actual research.
Meanwhile that Maraunder Minimum approaches...... if you have any coal factories, I suggest burning EVERYTHING....coal, wood, humans as fast as possible...just in case we actually can influence the climate that quickly. We're going to need it. Badly.
Side note: With food science, salt is the fun one. The original researcher was studying a tribal people in, I think the East Indies. She noted their long lives, and noted that they seemed to have an absence of salt in their diet, and that that correlation warrants research. Immediately the media ran with "salt is bad for you" and both legislative, economic, and medical changes were all made around it. But the reality is we don't actually know that salt is bad for you at all. Because it was never even researched, because the world implemented changes based on one researcher notating that it warrants investigation due to a correlation she noticed in some off the map tribe that lives long, and then "science" jumping to do studies to prove it's true.
Mmmm I love freshly baked bread. And is it just me, or does anyone else love the smell of baguettes? I'm talking about tearing them open, shoving it up to your nostrils and just inhaling. I flippin love that smell.
#MudStrongs
Switch Friend Code: SW-7842-2075-5515 | My Nintendo: HobbitGamr
@NEStalgia Starting with the last paragraph. Yes, an example like that perfectly demonstrates the unwillingness of the media to do any actual research themselves (and I mean literary research, like reading the paper before you post something about it). MSG is another fun topic. Anyway; concluding with ''but we don't know'' isn't true at all. There are thousands upon thousands of studies conducted on the effects of salt on the human body. We know quite a lot actually. The big difference is that there are too many variables to predict what the effects are on a single individual. Because that's what people want to know. ''If I eat this much salt every day; is it bad, and if so, what kind of diseases will it cause?'' Well, I don't know. Will smoking cause you lung cancer? I don't know, nobody knows. But we do know you're considerably increasing the risk. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad conducted research. Context is important.
Anyway, funding. Yes, it can be an issue. But there are also many non-profit organisations funding research, same applies to universities. Plenty of institutes with no real agenda. If there was, you'd expect widely varying results. Saying that our understanding of tomorrows weather isn't accurate, let alone the weather a year from now is kinda irrelevant. There are certainly trends you can observe, you can make accurate predictions. The chance that a random day in August is warmer than a random day in January in the northern hemisphere is incredibly high. Hurricane season, rain seasons, etc. are all predictable. Will it rain on January 15? That's impossible to tell, but that doesn't mean it's all meaningless. And I'm not sure how many scientific papers you read on a day-to-day basis, but I can tell you that if I got a penny for every time I read about ''insufficient information'' in the conclusions, I would be a rich man.
Anyway, it's unfortunate you think the bias is that strong, in every field. I won't bother you with writing an equally long reply going in-depth on every single point! Let's be honest, it won't make a difference! But I think it's good to know that most people pursue a career in science to learn and expand their personal, but also our global knowledge. I'm not denying that bad research doesn't exists, I'm not denying some results have been tampered with, or presented in a biased way, but I do think it's important to know that these cases make up a very small minority of all the research conducted around the world.
I like a few inches of snow on and off for a couple of months (ice is a different story), but I would be a very happy person if there was any scientific way to get it in 70+ degree weather. Discounting indoor facilities, of course.
While I don't deny that climate change is happening, I've tried looking up how much of it is truly human-caused vs. natural; from what I can tell, the jury is still out on that one. Plus, temp records have only been going on for a little over 100 years with plenty of margins of error. I'm not as skeptical as NEStalgia on some of the data, but there is a lot of pseudo-science (if some of it can even be called science) when the media steps in and overhypes about everything.
Regardless of how much climate change is natural or unnatural, I do believe we should be stepping up our efforts to take care of the planet we live on. Humans have been changing the environment to suit their needs for centuries, more often than not to its detriment.
Unfortunately, for all sides of this debate, money talks. For better and for worse.
Edit: Annnnd there's now a Winter Weather Advisory for my area.
@OctaneThat's kind of the problem though. As you say, we don't know anything about the individual variables by person. "X increases risks of Y" is meaningful except when it isn't. That's one problem I have with the world of science overall. It gets so lost in its own bubble of statistics and probability I think most scientists are about as obvlivious as Blizzard and mobile as to how non-helpful most of thost statistics are to the average person. Going back to weather (not climate) every weather forecast is perfectly scientific, it gives all kinds of statistics and probability. There's a 30% chance of rain with a 50% chance that will result in thunderstorms, but a 15% chance it goes north and remains cloud, but may even be sunny, and the rain may change over to snow in the evening, or it might not. And then no matter what happens they get to pat themselves on the back and be proud of a forecast well done that hit one of the factored statistical outlooks. The problem is that has worse than zero value to the people looking to actually use that information. That extends to medical and everything else, but that's the most prominent example. The meteorologists are almost always wrong, yet because all they do is provide statistical outcomes, they're technically always right, no matter the forecast! The systems involved are to complex with too many dynamics we don't sufficiently understand to make actual projections that more parts of more days lie in the outlying probabilities. Of course big dangerous storms like hurricanes are a little easier to get right because they're going to be the dominant affecting force in their path with less things that can interact against it in a significant way, which is handy.
I haven't encountered many non-profits and universities that don't have agendas. Often non-profits exist explicitly to advance an agenda as their primary focus. Universities are 50/50 along with corporations (which sometimes want a specific result, and other times want actual understanding.)
Repeating patterns, such as seasonal outcomes, are predictable. Trends, in weather, do not have enough long term data. There's a reason they use a 30-year average, because the trends vary up and down over different periods of time. We simply don't have any knowledge of the real long term trends of even 10,000 years let alone millions of years of this planet, and what we do know of the extreme long term is that there has been volatility of extremes since before humans existed.
And, again, to be clear, I'm neither supporting nor refuting the validity of the human-affected weather hypotheses, there's a certain sense to the idea, at least over extreme lengths of time, but I do refute that we have anywhere close to the long term data required to actually make any conclusions, or even educated guesses. The data gathering period can't be less than centuries, and even that is too short. 100-200 year periods can easily be anomalies when considering climate, and 500 years can be a short term trend that reverses. We barely have 70 years worth of ok data, and still currently don't even have truly comprehensive data gathering. There's also a massive distance between climatology and astronomy, when there can't afford to be. It's an interesting field, but it's going to be well beyond the lifetime of anyone on this forum before anything of meaning can be made of it. So much of what they do have is based on the models. The models are hot trash. they are useful tools but should never be used for actual predictions. They show possibilities. Run the same model 8 times in 2 days just for weather, you get 6 different results, and 3 of them twice in alternation. They are a reflection of our own lack of understanding of the dynamics. They omit important factors we're often not aware of. They lean too hard on things acting a certain way that often don't. For meteorology they're merely reference beyond 48 hours. Sometimes they were right all along, sometimes they're not. Nobody would actually rely on that information, and often even within 48 hours they're in dramatic conflict. The methodology of the modeling as it presently exists isn't suitable for long term prediction, and the modeling depends entirely on human and sensor input getting the details and their implications right. And of course not being tampered with which is already a lost cause in that field.
And no, I don't think it applies to every field, certainly. Just the profitable ones. Climate, medical, radio/communications. Most of the others are just fine outside specific cases. I trust the geologists and physicists aren't too interfered with. Astronomers are safe for now, until they get pulled into climate and then all bets are off. You're in chemistry, right? I don't think (presently) there's much bias incentive there (in the 1960s that was a different story.)
@NEStalgia
Oh you have Nooooo idea how bad Higher Education community is nefarious, working at several for many decades now, yes, you are right, but it is a lot deeper and complicated than you realise, ESPECIALLY the "Not-For-Profit" schools, they are greedy ass, shady Mo Fo's fore sure, the Illuminati ain't got NOTHIN' on most of these places
"If failure is the greatest teacher, how come we are not the most superior beings in the universe ???"
Forums
Topic: The Chit-Chat Thread
Posts 23,181 to 23,200 of 97,812
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic