Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: You just got told some tough truths about conifers that maybe you weren't ready to hear.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - F X


The two still being built in Georgia  are also no doubt going under as well, since Toshiba went bankrupt.

The irony is cheap fossil fuel (natural gas) is the cause.

That and the fact nuclear power has never been a viable economic source of energy,

While Japan lost another 9 billion dollars on it's failed fast-breeder reactor, they also are going to need 3.2 billion to get rid of it.

How many solar panels would 20 billion dollars have produced?  Two million houses (or businesses) could have been equipped with solar panels (10,000 dollar system), which sounds a lot better to me.

Count the cost of Fukushima, Three Mile island and Chernobyl, add another 5 million homes that could be using solar right now.  At least.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of
their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical
temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and
credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to
conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years
have been the warmest ever -despite current claims of record setting

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for
EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these
research findings.

The difference between actual quality data and the adjusted crap is pretty stark, and obvious.  The actual data shows the well known climate cycles, while the adjusted crap (or the UHI influenced data) has no natural climate cycle left to observe, hence it's not actually an observation of reality.

Note that this does not mean there has been no warming, because the actual data does show that, but it shows it as it happened, and where it has happened, and how it happened, unlike this bogus crap that is always being pushed by the agenda driven fuckheads.
CO2 theory says CO2 controls the earth's climate, increasing the SW radiation budget, which raises the global temperature as levels increase, and lowers global temps as it reduces. It's the feedback that allows small changes in solar insolation to change the global climate. AGW is the theory that the man made increase will result in drastic warming, due to a water vapor feedback effect from a small increase in LW radiation. The effect (enhanced greenhouse effect) will be observed more over land than oceans, more at high latitudes, and in winter more than summer. Further feedbacks from albedo changes due to warming will increase the warming by changes in the SW radiation budget.

The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.

Because the icebreaker got stuck in thick ice.  You couldn't make this up.

The Soap Opera / The numbers
Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza 42,827

Politics and Current Events 22,493

all other forums 13,639

total of all visible forums 78,959

Total Posts: 81,621

Difference in visible posts 2,262

Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) 20,902 Replies
OMG I made the mistake of looking at flat earth crap, and found the explanation for the tides.  OMG it's really hard to believe these people are for real. That it's not just a huge joke.


If you look on a flat earth map, the path of the sun through the year (tropic of cancer to the tropic of Capricorn) is exactly where all the most and extreme tides are found on earth.

wtf?  How can people be so idiotic in this day and age?  I weep for their children.

If you aren't prepared to offer backup for a prima facie outlandish display of idiocy, then you have to be prepared to be considered an idiot.
That's not actually true, since a real idiot isn't prepared for either situation.
Looking at that "data" is interesting, especially how they present their "findings", from a poll.

As is almost always the case with believers, they try to present all data as somehow supporting their belief, rather than an honest look at what they can observe.

For example

The results could be easily presented in a way that tells a different version, from the same data.

It's so obvious to a skeptic.

Rather than claim "Minority of U.S. adults see climate scientists' research and understanding in a positive light", they could be honest and state "A Majority of U.S. adults see climate scientists' research and understanding in a negative light", and displayed the data showing they lack of trust and belief in experts.

67% of those asked think climate scientist do not understand whether climate change is happening.

72% don't think climate scientist know the cause of climate change.

81% said climate scientist don't know how to address "it", with "it" not being defined, which is amusing considering the question is in regards to the previous ones. 

While 32% think research is influenced by the best evidence, 36% think it is scientists self interest that drives their beliefs.

But if you add the 27% and 26% that believe it's political or helping their industry, 89% clearly think it's not evidence that influences research findings.

Fascinating.  Of course PEW don't present their finding like this, which is ironic and humorous.

The bias is obvious.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sadiq Khan: London mayor says terror attacks 'part and parcel' of living in a major city

"You have to be kidding me?!" Trump Jr tweeted, quoting the headline: "Terror attacks are part of living in big city, says London Mayor Sadiq Khan".

The headline is
Donald Trump Jr called 'a disgrace' for tweet goading London mayor Sadiq Khan

So repeating what somebody actually said, is goading them?

Jesus fucking Christ

No wonder there is so much butthurt these days.

Authorities said five people died [see footnote], including a police officer stabbed by a lone attacker trying to enter the House of Commons. The suspect was fatally shot, and 29 people have been injured.

The tweet earned strong criticisms in the US and the UK, including from Wes Streeting, the MP for Ilford North and former president of the National Union of Students.

"You use a terrorist attack on our city to attack London's Mayor for your own political gain. You're a disgrace," Streeting wrote.

Political gain?  Really?  That's the real problem?

Jesus fucking Christ almighty
 Name that invisible friend a "god", and people praise it.

I noticed that an image in the current DDWFTTW thread was broken, and it seems the entire site is not working at the moment.
It's possible everything in the topic title is wrong, except for that the dam has failed.  That much is a fact, because it has.  It no longer can generate power, and it can't prevent flooding downstream, two main reasons for the dam.  As long as it doesn't completely fail it will still be a reservoir, but to repair the current damage will require water levels to go down, and the reservoir to be drained, both of which are a long way off.  Once the power lines can be repaired, and the river levels can be reduced, it may start generating power again.

That too is a long way in the future.

No news outlets I could find are showing the current situation there, but ordinary concerned citizens has uploaded videos on Youtube, and they show what is actually happening.

The reason is simple enough, more rain than ever expected, and the usual government idiots in charge.
There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives.  The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action.

Jesus fuckchrist, I knew it was going to be a global warming issue.
It seems some people didn't believe the photos of the December snow in the Sahara.  Photographs were thought to be faked.
Even video didn't convince the skeptics.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yes, even Snopes had to get in on it.

They used Gizmodo as a source
The last major snowfall--if it can be called that--to hit Ain Sefra was in February 1979 when it snowed for a whopping 30 minutes. Subsequent dustings of snow also appeared in 2005 and 2012.

CNN (and others) reported the story as Snow falls in Sahara for first time in 37 years

It's almost all complete bullshit.

Then a month later, a meter of snow hits the same region. Sahara desert hit by biggest snowfall in living memory

A meter of snow.  Where it almost never snows.  Two snow events in a month.  (the temperature for the region on average about 74F this time of year)

The warmers see it as "a freak event", while the ice agers see it as evidence of the new ice age starting.

The problem is, it snowed in 2005, 2012, 2015, 2016 and now 2017.  In the Sahara desert.

How can everybody be so fucking stupid?  How can CNN and Gizmodo and even Snopes all be so fucking wrong about something that is so easy to check?

It's just one more reason I view almost everything, even TV news, as bullshit, served up to the masses with a heaping side order of advertising and more bullshit.

It snowed way more in 2005.  NASA even featured it on their Earth Observatory site.

Showing with scientific data the snow extent, which was massive compared to the 2017 snow event.

Here's an upload of the 2005 snow, maybe if NASA gets around to posting a high res image of the latest snow they can be compared.;topic=806.0;attach=527;image

It snowed for two days in 2005

The 2012 snow in the same areas was also quite a story, which even shows up on Wikipedia.

In the exact same town even, ,Ain Sefra: where it snowed on 4-6, 8 February 2012

Towns were covered in snow for weeks.

The 2012 snow was not a "light dusting", you fucking idiots.

It's why I said "It's almost all complete bullshit." up above.

There are Youtube videos and photos of all of, including the 2015 snow event.

So instead of "a rare freak occurrence", which is what the idiots actually "know" is true, instead of "the first snow since 1979", which the media spouted in December 2016, the story is completely different.

Remember Snopes claims "Subsequent dustings of snow also appeared in 2005 ".  The snowfall that paralyzed the region, buried towns for weeks, is described as "a light dusting".  (I will note the 2017 meter snowfall was not described that way.)

This is the light dusting.;topic=806.0;attach=527;image

It snowed for two days. 

How can these idiots be so wrong?  Over and over, almost always, they are wrong.

And pretty much when you find out they are, nobody actually gives a fuck

Science / Global warming is making for record cold
If it was a record warm December, that is global warming.

If it's record cold, that is also global warming.

Not that facts will matter, especially not from some college course on the issue.
Typical idiot response, no source for graphic.  Not that the facts are going to make any difference in this matter.
Pretty ironic, in light of bullshit like:
The Altithermal was 1 or 2 degrees Celsius warmer than current temps, with sea levels 3 meters higher.
What's your source for these claims?

We've been through this before.
No, no we have not, or I would have already provided the scientific source for the information.

By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today.
It was certainly not a  sea level 3 meters higher than current levels.

A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The challenge is still on the table:
What's your support for your claim that global sea levels were 3 m higher during the Holocene maximum.
Something beyond unlabeled graphs.


Of course an actual educational source will hardly matter (and the teacher certainly is no denier of climate change)

The story will just change, somehow VoxRat will just continue on (with the agreement of his idiot ass clown buddies) and it simply will not make any difference at all.

Such is the political nature of the science these days.

Five years after a tsunami damaged the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, radioactive wild boars are wreaking havoc in nearby towns.

According to a report in The Times, the boars are terrorizing residents in communities. There are estimates that $15 million worth of damage has been done to agriculture since the proliferation of the boars.

For some reason radioactive boars just screams to be made into a horror movie
Today I heard a woman refer to her own grandmother as "Italian." I was offended just listening to her spew this hate. I happen to know that her grandmother was born in this country. It was her grandmother's parents that immigrated here from Italy. It would be proper to say her grandmother is an American citizen with Italian cultural heritage. But why even bring up her ethnicity at all? Calling her grandmother "Italian" for no good reason is a racist dog whistle to my ears.

Wouldn't you agree?
Science / Global warming and the tides
OK I admit it, I just posted this to get a reaction from those who are familiar with several really long running topics.

However, there is actually research and studies on how different the tides were during the glacier building periods of our ice ages, and what affect they have on climate change, past and present  Both poles are influenced by the tides, both in breaking up sea ice in certain areas, as well as how they change as sea level changes.

Tidal forces do a lot of mixing of the ocean waters, especially deep water, as internal waves break on the sea bottom.  Changes in depth, especially in regions where the depth is shallow and bathometric conditions cause large tides, may be a feedback mechanism for the ice age transitions.

Sources provided on request.