Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • You aint got eight telescopes and a house in Monterey. I aint got a healthy heart. We all have our crosses to bear.

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

Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?

Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.

"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey--all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.

"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."

But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth. This means a population "bottleneck" is only a partial explanation at best.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that--at all times in evolution--the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."
Read more at:

How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
There is another view.  Instead of just claiming it's a fact, maybe more research is needed.  For example, I don't buy that figure, especially since the number of beetle species dwarfs all other species (mammals are around 4000, beetles well over 350.000)

Are they saying most beetles evolved around 200,000 years ago?

Plus the number of extinct species are not included, and that is a huge number as well.

Science / Newly-discovered human organ
One team had expected to find that the bile duct is surrounded by a hard, dense wall of tissue. But instead, they saw weird, unexplained patterns. They took their findings to Neil Theise, a pathologist at New York University School of Medicine.

Shock absorbers
When Theise used the same endomicroscopy device to look under the skin of his own nose, he saw a similar result. Further investigation of other organs suggested that these patterns are made by a type of fluid moving through channels that are everywhere in the body.

Theise reckons that every tissue in the body may be surrounded by a network of these channels, which essentially form an organ. The team estimate that the organ contains around a fifth of the total fluid volume of the human body. "We think they act as shock absorbers," says Theise.

This organ was likely never seen before because standard approaches for processing and visualising human tissue causes the channels to drain, and the collagen fibres that give the network its structure to collapse in on themselves. This would have made the channels appear like a hard wall of dense protective tissue, instead of a fluid-filled cushion.[/quote

Mind blowing actually
Thanks to another redditor, an xkcd comic, and the SCP Foundation,  I have had a vision of an internet that is a lot more fun, and way less frustrating.

Instead of arguing, reasoning or trying in any way to educate, change or even reason with the batshit crazy online, just try to one up them.

Instead of trying to reason with nutjobs,  you make their lunacy seem tame by comparison. If someone tells you the moon landing was faked, the correct response is "You believe in the moon?!  Jesus man, you are so delusional.  There is no moon."

Or if someone is promoting the flat earth, you laugh at that, you start explaining why the earth is actually a cube.  (or a hot dog shape, or whatever the craziest shit you can come up with)

Then go after them for being so stupid to not believe in the hotdog earth.

There are several threads here that could benefit from this approach.

The Soap Opera / Who deleted the topic?
You fuckhead.  I had just replied.

Just move it if you your feelings are butthurt.  But don't delete.  Or move to your private secret forums.

Science / Longwave oceanic heating
 Of course a topic on winter turned into the never ending global warming battle.
The problem is penetration depth and temperature gradients.  Water is effectively opaque at CO2 IR emission band frequencies and penetration depth is a few μm only.  The energy then is being deposited in a very thin skin where evaporation is the dominant thermal driver and the additional energy from downwelling radiation is carried into the atmosphere as latent heat of vapourisation.  In addition there exists a sea surface temperature gradient such that the top approximately 1 mm skin is cooler than the bulk below.

Where (a) is night and (b) daytime temperatures.

It isn't thermodynamically possible for a cooler surface layer to heat a warmer subsurface bulk via. radiation, conduction, convection or mechanical mixing.  Note that all of the downwelling IR energy is being deposited in the first few microns of that cooler surfaace layer whereas shortwave solar heating is what is driving the increased bulk ocean temperatures below during daylight hours.

This paper for which I only have the abstract confirms the cool ocean skin effect and here it is being used to demostrate a mechanism for enhanced CO2 uptake in the oceans.  As so often in modern climate science where everything is about the single parameter of carbon dioxide it simultaneously topedoes any chance of downwelling IR ocean heating.

I found a paper posted on Judith Curry's blog which attempts to make an extremely tortuous case for IR oceanic heating.  You perhaps will discount this paper out of hand since it features on a heretical blog but from my perspective it fails owing to the rueful admission

The problem is that we don't know how the air above the ocean changes when we go from no forcing to forcing. Two extreme cases have been considered: (i) the air does not change as the ocean warms, and (ii) the air temperature above the ocean tracks the ocean surface temperature and the relative humidity remains constant as the air temperature rises. Unfortunately, the calculation turns out to be extremely sensitive to this assumption, and as a result it is impossible to make accurate quantitative estimates of ocean warming without much better data on the changes that occur in the air above the oceans.

All of which is why I say there is no consistent hypothesis for a longwave oceanic heating mechanism, let alone any supporting data.
It's not my area of study, but it's interesting.  It seems warmists think the oceans have warmed due to CO2 forcing.
Computers and Technology / I joined the modern world
Finally broke down and bought the latest iphone ( my first smart phone ever)

Fucking thing is a dream, and it allowed me to make 2000 dollars in two weeks, as well as starting a network of fun and profit. Damn if these things are not sweet.  Working on an app that might rival twitter or instagram in the next year.

Still sucks for posting on forums, but for the real world, it is amazing
Bye bye Al, you are fucked.

An accusation is one thing, but when there is an actual picture?  The usual tactics aren't going to allow him to escape.
If it were a conversation with actual people, terms like "rotational grazing" and "enhance" would be defined and at least roughly quantified.
Explains how and why rotational grazing enhances quality, for example proper management enhances "PUF, potential
utilizable forage and RFQ, relative forage quality"
Explains what is meant by Rotational Grazing
Explains almost everything about it
Explains how it is an advantage
More explaining

Science / The Tides ... Take 5
But then I remember the tides ...

Speaking of which, remember that oceanography textbook you quoted while flailing around trying to support your FysiX?  The new edition has been corrected.

Science / NH winter cooling
I almost replied in the topic, but hey, not every topic has to turn into the eternal global warming argument thread.
Well, both sides are right on that one, because it's not happening.
What do you mean by "it"?
I mean
colder winters (with more snow of course).
Of course. And I mean that as a global average of course. Of course you will always find regional variations in any global pattern.
If the NH winter (boreal winter) cooling trend was just regional cooling, natural variation, where small areas showed cooling rather than the expected warming, it certainly could be handwaved away and ignored. 

The best handwaving is to say "yeah, but it's not global" which is almost the last bastion of the true believer in "global warming is a fact no matter what any evidence shows".  The next to last one is "you have to look at a longer trend". (the very last bastion is "So what?")

If I show a twenty year trend of boreal cooling that actually is global, then we get the "you need a longer trend".  After that is explained, and why the theory matters, and why a 20 year cooling trend matters, that's when the "So what?" shows up.

I know this because this happened multiple times in 2015, and those conversations are still there.

It simply will not matter to a true believer, no matter how carefully the evidence and sources are provided, no matter how logical and scientific the argument is, it actually won't make any difference.

I used to think maybe one person would grasp it, but the MRI research has showed that the brain itself is wired to prevent any evidence from even getting through to the part of the brain that could think about what it means  Long before that the mind snaps shut, and an angry response blocks the rational discussion.

Like the quoted response in this post.  A dozen carefully presented graphs, from actual real sources (NCDC, GISS and the satellite data sets), that despite the adjustments still show a 20 year boreal winter cooling trend, globally, won't even make a dent.

That part at least is easy enough to show, but the irony is, even that won't get through to a believer.  It's goddamn hilarious on many levels.

Forum was gone (or the internet couldn't connect to it) for me until just a few minutes ago.  Don't know when it started, but it was missing 8 am EST until just a few minutes ago.
Politics and Current Events / Fuck all white people

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