Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The aspies on this board post long posts about being aspie, and the ADHDers can't read to the end of them.

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.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
Let's clarify what we mean when we talk about destroying ecosystems or enhancing ecosystems.

The simplest definition would probably involve a simple count of the number of living cells per unit area.

For example the number of living cells per unit area in the Amazon rainforest is vastly greater than the number of living cells per unit area in the Sahara Desert.
So the more densely populated an ecosystem is the healthier it is? Think about what you're saying here, Dave.
2
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
<FX>
See? I told you it wouldn't make a difference!
</FX>
3
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Okay, whatever. :dunno: Have fun.
4
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I hope that doesn't make him feel obligated to take me off ignore.  :ohdear:
5
So that's a concrete prediction? Within, say, 3 years, they will be in prison?

5?

20?
Yeah ... 3 years is probably about right.

OK, so from my perspective, this prediction is completely batshit insane.

The NSA spying on Americans was illegal, but Bush (under whose administration it started) never underwent any indictment, and was never prosecuted.
Worth mentioning again. The fact that these people think Obama and Hillary (for some reason) are going to jail because the FBI might not have given as much information as it should have about its sources when applying for a FISA warrant is just so far removed from reality I can't even imagine how one gets there.
Well of course there's much more to it than that. Our hypothesis is that Obama himself along with Hillary conspired to throw a presidential election.

Oh, right, there's also supposed to be some sort of convoluted thing about the info in the Steele dossier coming from Hillary in the first place? Because Steele got some info from an associate of hers? Even though that was an entirely separate dossier, and Steele told the FBI who it had come from and that he couldn't vouch for it even though it appeared to corroborate what he had learned from independent sources.

So is the idea that this Hillary associate (Cody Shearer?) and Steele and/or whatever other sources he had gotten info from were all working under orders that ultimately came from Obama/Hillary to fabricate evidence that could be given to the FBI as a pretext for getting a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign members? And the endgame of that was just to try to make it look like Trump was in bed with Russia so that people wouldn't vote for him?

And do you have any reason for believing this conspiracy theory other than wishful thinking?
6
It was (and still is) "sow as much discord as possible" and especially undermine Clinton, so it's not surprising that anyone in a position to do that (Sanders/Stein supporters, obviously Trump supporters) would be targets for influencing.
... which makes me wonder what the goal might be for the 2018 elections.
Whom will they want to help, or hurt, for maximum chaos?

Anyone or anything they perceive as being the extreme point of view on both sides of any issue. NPR had a good piece about this earlier today...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/16/586361956/as-an-american-tragedy-unfolds-russian-agents-sow-discord-online
7
So that's a concrete prediction? Within, say, 3 years, they will be in prison?

5?

20?
Yeah ... 3 years is probably about right.

OK, so from my perspective, this prediction is completely batshit insane.

The NSA spying on Americans was illegal, but Bush (under whose administration it started) never underwent any indictment, and was never prosecuted.
Worth mentioning again. The fact that these people think Obama and Hillary (for some reason) are going to jail because the FBI might not have given as much information as it should have about its sources when applying for a FISA warrant is just so far removed from reality I can't even imagine how one gets there.
8
Don't worry, I'm sure CTH will have a piece explaining why it's great news for Trump and Hillary is going to jail soon.
9
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
After 8 years of what you believe to have been clearly explaining and providing evidence for whatever it is you're trying to demonstrate on this topic, have you persuaded anyone here of it?
I see your confusion.  You think I have a goal of persuading you.  Now that is funny.
I assume you have the goal of communicating something in your posts. Has anyone here ever given you acknowledgement that you successfully communicated whatever it was you were trying to communicate? Or if my assumption is wrong, why do you post here?
Have you considered that the problem might not be me?
I don't consider you a problem to be solved.
Did you genuinely not understand that my question meant "Have you considered that you might not be a very good communicator"? Or was that just a joke? Is English not your first language?
10
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Did you see some headline like this...
https://phys.org/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html
Quote
Airplane contrails worse than CO2 emissions for global warming
...and not realize it was just referring to the CO2 emissions from the airplanes and not CO2 emissions in general?
11
Whereas our heads (which we all know were designed for lice) are much better ecosystems. Therefore, per Dave logic, our entire bodies should be like our heads.
12
It's borderline unbelievable that you can't make the connection between that specific anecdote and the general rule that you should be aware of what plants are growing on your property. Do you think that just because that particular plant is found at the edge of the forest, no other poisonous plant could possibly be growing anywhere else? Are you really that stupid?
13
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
After 8 years of what you believe to have been clearly explaining and providing evidence for whatever it is you're trying to demonstrate on this topic, have you persuaded anyone here of it? Has anyone said, "Oh, yes, I now see that you're right, FX. You've explained your position clearly and supported it sufficiently"?

Have you considered that the problem might not be me?
14
Oh wait... Did I say destroying our planet? I forgot that people here think that our planet would be just fine if all land surfaces looked like the Sahara Desert... Because hey! The Sahara Desert is a beautiful ecosystem!

Can you cite a post from a single person who has ever said anything remotely resembling that, Dave?

Because I can't.

Why did you lie about this, Dave?  I realise it was an attempt at humour, but that kind of hyperbole is only ever funny if it bears SOME relation to reality.

What position, or whose position, were you attempting to satirise?

Or have you really misunderstood what people mean by biodiversity quite this badly?
I didn't lie. I perceive this to be your view about the Sahara Desert as best I can determine it from statements you have made.
Then you're an idiot. Just observing that the Sahara is a beautiful ecosystem doesn't mean the planet would be fine if all land surfaces looked like it. Nor does observing the same of the Rocky Mountains. You really should learn some basic logic one of these days.
15
How do grazing animals avoid getting killed by poisonous plants in nature? For that matter how do they avoid getting diseases?
Dave, did one of your HMG gurus tell you that animals in nature never eat poisonous plants or get diseases? Or is that just one of your own idiotic beliefs? Because it's really idiotic.
16
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Of all the questions you've pointedly ignored, I think this might be the most telling...
Even in the contiguous U.S., one of your all-important "areas where a lot of people actually live," if you extend the trend by just 4 years, making it 1994-2017, it's a warming trend. So why is a 20-year cooling trend more significant to you than a 24-year warming trend that encompasses it?
Because it's an idiots question. You make assumptions, then demand somebody explain your errors.  And when you are ignored you claim ignoring your idiocy means you must be correct.  Because you are an idiot.
Alternative explanation: You're the idiot. You don't understand my question. You've expressed yourself so unclearly that any plain reading of your position comes off as a misinterpretation to you.

Why don't you try explaining what incorrect assumptions or other errors you think I'm making? Just saying "you are an idiot" isn't much of a case.
17
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
The real problem is the lack of current papers on the greenhouse theory of climate change, especially ones on the CO2 theory.
Or possibly you just aren't aware of them. Here's one...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
I'm sure there are others.

I'm noticing a decided lack of "the only thing that actually matters" here.
Quote
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

"most important" and "control knob" should be a clue.  That you don't get this is hilarious.
Well, again...
Quote
CO2 isn't the only knob on the climate controls
Quote
Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
It seems like you just ignore what you don't want to see. I'm not sure if that's hilarious or sad.

How does an increase in CO2 warm the oceans?
Well, I posted one possible explanation earlier in this thread...
Meanwhile, in the real(climate) world...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Quote
Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a 'smoking gun' for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here - how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The 'skin layer' is the very thin - up to 1 mm - layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

Thanks for your unsupported opinion on that. I still find the consensus position of the people who actually study this stuff more persuasive.
No, you don't.  In fact, you don't actually know anything about it.  The "people who actually study this stuff" are the source of how we know contrails and the cirrus clouds from them are warming much of the world.
And that CO2 is the most important (but not the only) cause of the current warming...
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Far more than CO2 forcing. 
That remains your unsupported assertion.
18
In bad news for Dave's plans for TRUE FREEDOM, it looks like some progress might be underway on the hydrogen fuel front. We may be ridding ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuel "slaves" only to replace it with dependence on hydrogen fuel "slaves." Will we never be TRULY FREE (from affordable energy sources)?

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/2/16/16926950/hydrogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage
19
If the stuff they say ends up being true then I'll know they are good sites. If the stuff they say ends up being false, then I will know they are bad sites. Not rocket science here.
Get specific. What's something they've said that might be false? How will you know if it is?
20
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
If you don't know CO2 is the claimed control knob for climate, now and in the past, you are an idiot.

Not to use an overly technical term here, but there's a neat paper in this week's Science that explains clearly why carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main agent behind changes in the Earth's climate--now and in the geologic past.
Quote
CO2 isn't the only knob on the climate controls

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature
Quote
Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
I'm noticing a decided lack of "the only thing that actually matters" here.
Using a paper that lays out a version of the CO2 theory as a source for the CO2 theory is how science works you fuckhead.
It depends on what you're saying about it. Another way science works is by advancing. Climate science has definitely advanced since 1955. The reason it was a bit of a red flag for me is that it's such a common creationist tactic to quote something from Origin of Species and say that Darwin got something wrong, therefore evolution is false. Not saying you were necessarily doing that here, but it's always something that makes me wary.
21
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Something is responsible for the observed planetary temperature excursions and we know it certainly isn't carbon dioxide from the ice core data.
Since the discovery of the vast global climate changes (especially the ice ages) there have been theories with out end.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/



"A Few Misconceptions" would be a pretty good title for Joanne Nova's whole blog.
22
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
The CO2 theory of climate change (the AGW theory, climate change, global warming, or any of the other names for it) claims CO2 is the main reason, the only thing that actually matters.  The control knob, the thermostat, the driver, the actual reason that changes from the sun can cause the drastic global changes in climate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf


From the abstract (my bolding)...
Quote
The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO, band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6" C if the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8' C if the CO, amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance.
Doesn't quite seem to square with your assertion that CO2 is considered to be "the only thing that actually matters," does it?

(Also, it's kinda weird to talk about "AGW theory" in present tense and use a paper from 1955 as support for your characterization, but whatever.)
24
Here's one reason - of many - that CTH seems (I said "seems") reliable to me, i.e. the careful, honest wording to ensure the author does not mislead readers to think that concrete evidence exists for a particular item when in fact it does not ...

Quote
As a reminder (for context and discussion).  The only people who have actually seen the FISA Title-1 Application are:

♦The officials in the DOJ and/or FBI who assembled it.  Those people are unknown but presumed to be from the DOJ - National Security Division. (Possibly: John P Carlin, Mary McCord or similar).

♦The presiding FISC judge who approved the application. (Possibly: Judge Rudolph Contreras - though no concrete evidence therein).

♦The three congressional representatives who have viewed the application as presented by the DOJ for the construction of the various memos:

•HPSCI member Trey Gowdy;
•HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff;
•and House Judiciary Chairman ¹Bob Goodlatte.

¹Chairman Goodlatte has viewed the FISA application as presented by the DOJ and is requesting to see the same application as presented by the FISA court.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/15/fisa-court-presiding-judge-rosemary-collyer-responds-to-chairman-nunes-and-chairman-goodlatte-request-for-fisc-documents/#more-145933
So the one reason, among supposed many, that you can point to as to why this unhinged ranting "seems" reliable to you is...that the author admits he doesn't have evidence for his speculations. The fact that he flat-out says his unfounded speculation is exactly that, unfounded speculation, is somehow evidence to you that said speculation is reliable.

Do you have any idea how insane that sounds? Any at all?
25
Poisonous plants are not myths. It's just that HMG practitioners are smart enough to know that animals managed properly won't kill themselves by eating them.
How does HMG protect animals from poisonous plants, Dave? If you understand HMG so well, it should be a snap to explain how it can infallibly keep animals from ever dying from poisonous plants. Keep in mind that you have defined HMG as "bunch, move, rest." What part of that keeps the animals from dying from poisonous plants? Is it the bunching, the moving, or the resting? Is it some combination? All three? How does it work, Dave? Can you explain it in a way that doesn't sound like you're using the words "HMG" or "holism" as hand-wavey magic spells?