Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

And In Other News

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • jimmyjam wrote:

      I'm a believer in global warming. As a kid the lakes around here would freeze for at least four weeks in the winter and we would skate and play hockey. One guy used to drive his vw across the lake. They haven't frozen enough to skate on for even a day in years.
      I believe in climate change, it's been changing since creation and will continue to do so, how can you expect a heat source 8 million miles away not to vary a few degrees, hell, my home thermostat varies 2 degrees. I would like to hear what caused all the ice that once covered Europe to melt when there were no cars back then...to my knowledge.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • There have been astronomers who looked at our sun and stated it could be a long term variable. Other astronomers say no.

      I have seen solar output readings and they do vary over time. Just not like a variable star would. Of course humanity hasn't been doing solar output research long enough to pick out data showing it is a long term variable. Long term variable in this instance would mean century long cycle or longer.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • There really can't be any argument that man-made pollutants can affect weather, can there? From the ozone depletion and hole(s) to greenhouse gas, it all seems perfectly reasonable, from a scientific standing. Its not likely 99.5 percent of all reputable scientists woke up one morning and decided to be completely wrong...well...probably not likely....

      Take a look at what effect the eruption of Krakatoa in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere had upon the weather in North America for the next two years...

      The issue with this "temperature change" isn't the change, it's the rate of change. When you can talk about the dramatic change occurring within your own lifetime, not 1000's of years, then you have a problem. The Ice Age didn't happen in a single generation, neither did it end in one. Within your lifetime, you may see the oceans rise enough that major cities retreat from it's edge...it's that type of speed of change that scares the crap out of the scientists. And maybe should scare the crap out of everyone as well? Just sayin.....
    • Populist journalist to scientist: "Your data have error bars! Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about."
      Scientist to just about anyone with non-scientific evidence: "Your data don't have error bars. How could I possibly know whether they're significant?"

      I'm about 2.0-2.5σ sure that climate change is anthropogenic.
      I'm way beyond 3σ sure that it's happening, whether we did it or not, and we had damned well better be prepared to mitigate the effects.


      Just as with past near-disasters (Y2K anyone?) people afterwards are going to say that the whole affair was overblown, neglecting the fact that a great many very smart people worked very hard at ensuring that disaster wouldn't happen. Afterwards, those smart people are always decried as having been alarmist.

      At least a lot of very smart people are working very hard on this problem too.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • chief wrote:

      regarding the y2k analogy, let's not forget that many of the very smart people who diverted disaster were the very same very smart people who thought it was a good idea to represent years with 2 digits to save a little memory.
      I remember sitting at lunch with my boss back in 1984 or 1985 and telling him there is going to be a big issue coming up in 15 years.

      Yeah I was smart enough it coming many years away, but not opportunistic to make a lot of money off it like I could have.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • “What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”
      Neil deGrasse Tyson


      Now paraphrased as "Science doesn't care what you think."


      We often forget that stating your belief in climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, etc... is completely pointless. The problem is that many people hate the fact that this is the way science works. YOUR IDEAS ARE ONLY RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE IF:

      1. Use them to make predictions.
      2. Test to see if the prediction is correct.
      3. Submit the findings to other scientists for review.
      4. Publish the findings for everyone to access (assuming the step 3 review is successful).
      5. Have these tests and results repeated by other scientists.
      6. Check to be sure that all available information is consistent with your ideas.

      7. Have thousands of other scientists repeat this whole process over a period of many years using your ideas applied in different contexts.
      At this point your ideas can be used to make useful decisions, products, etc... Until then?
    • Astro wrote:

      chief wrote:

      regarding the y2k analogy, let's not forget that many of the very smart people who diverted disaster were the very same very smart people who thought it was a good idea to represent years with 2 digits to save a little memory.
      I remember sitting at lunch with my boss back in 1984 or 1985 and telling him there is going to be a big issue coming up in 15 years.
      Yeah I was smart enough it coming many years away, but not opportunistic to make a lot of money off it like I could have.
      Essentially, the programs that were coded with 2 digit years were never expected/intended to be used post-1999. The fact that nobody bothered to update the programs until right before the clock turned is a testament to the longevity of the original coding....

      You didn't really think in 1985 that nobody would see the problem before 1999 did you? That was the problem...

      I was using an Apple in 1978. I never thought that much of it at the time. I figured somebody, anybody would come up with a better o/s and hardware....
    • Astro wrote:

      chief wrote:

      regarding the y2k analogy, let's not forget that many of the very smart people who diverted disaster were the very same very smart people who thought it was a good idea to represent years with 2 digits to save a little memory.
      I remember sitting at lunch with my boss back in 1984 or 1985 and telling him there is going to be a big issue coming up in 15 years.
      Yeah I was smart enough it coming many years away, but not opportunistic to make a lot of money off it like I could have.
      It's like politicians.....I wont be in office then any way.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • ScareBear wrote:

      There really can't be any argument that man-made pollutants can affect weather, can there? From the ozone depletion and hole(s) to greenhouse gas, it all seems perfectly reasonable, from a scientific standing. Its not likely 99.5 percent of all reputable scientists woke up one morning and decided to be completely wrong...well...probably not likely....

      Take a look at what effect the eruption of Krakatoa in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere had upon the weather in North America for the next two years...

      The issue with this "temperature change" isn't the change, it's the rate of change. When you can talk about the dramatic change occurring within your own lifetime, not 1000's of years, then you have a problem. The Ice Age didn't happen in a single generation, neither did it end in one. Within your lifetime, you may see the oceans rise enough that major cities retreat from it's edge...it's that type of speed of change that scares the crap out of the scientists. And maybe should scare the crap out of everyone as well? Just sayin.....
      I don't discount the fact that every tank of gas or camp fire we make has "some" impact on the earth...every breath we take for that matter, what I see though is people blowing things out of proportion to benefit them....and ounce someone lies to you how do you believe them again. It's amazing how easy it is to be brain washed by a TV set.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • Drybones wrote:

      ScareBear wrote:

      There really can't be any argument that man-made pollutants can affect weather, can there? From the ozone depletion and hole(s) to greenhouse gas, it all seems perfectly reasonable, from a scientific standing. Its not likely 99.5 percent of all reputable scientists woke up one morning and decided to be completely wrong...well...probably not likely....

      Take a look at what effect the eruption of Krakatoa in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere had upon the weather in North America for the next two years...

      The issue with this "temperature change" isn't the change, it's the rate of change. When you can talk about the dramatic change occurring within your own lifetime, not 1000's of years, then you have a problem. The Ice Age didn't happen in a single generation, neither did it end in one. Within your lifetime, you may see the oceans rise enough that major cities retreat from it's edge...it's that type of speed of change that scares the crap out of the scientists. And maybe should scare the crap out of everyone as well? Just sayin.....
      I don't discount the fact that every tank of gas or camp fire we make has "some" impact on the earth...every breath we take for that matter, what I see though is people blowing things out of proportion to benefit them....and ounce someone lies to you how do you believe them again. It's amazing how easy it is to be brain washed by a TV set.
      But, although you don't "discount" the fact that a tank of gas has "some" impact, do you know what that impact is? Let's just look at CO2, shall we?

      How much CO2 does a gallon of gasoline produce?

      Twenty pounds.

      How much CO2 does a human produce in 24 hours?

      Two pounds.

      So, when anyone starts a discussion on the topic by bringing up the fact that humans generate CO2, it is the worst red herring, ever.

      If you drive enough to burn just two gallons of gas a day, you have generated FORTY TIMES MORE CO2 THAN YOU WOULD HAVE BY JUST LIVING. FORTY TIMES MORE.

      And, we aren't even talking about particulate matter pollution, CO pollution, NOx pollution, hydrocarbon pollution and SO2 pollution. And, that's just in burning a gallon of gasoline. What pollution was caused in the discovery of the crude oil, the acquisition of the crude oil, the transportation of the crude oil, the refining of the crude oil, the transportation of the refined gasoline and the energy to store and dispense the refined gasoline? Now, riddle me about how many pollutants were generated by manufacturing the car that burned the gas that Mobil sold that Phillips refined that was shipped crude by BP that came from a Shell well that...

      Yeah. So, what was this about how man isn't changing his atmospheric environment? Or at least accelerating its change like a chihuahua on crystal meth?

      Oh, and brainwashing...let's see...who advertises on TV? Mobil. Phillips. BP. Toyota. Now, without advertisers, what happens to TV? So...remind me again how TV has a vested interest in cutting the cajones off its advertisers in order to brainwash it's watchers? How does that work? TV brainwashes people into believing in fake global warming so they can harm their revenue stream? Wait. What?

      Worst. Conspiracy. Theory. Ever.

      If TV had an interest in brainwashing you, it damn sure would brainwash you into believing climate change WAS A HOAX....

      SMH...

      The post was edited 1 time, last by ScareBear ().

    • And in other news...

      A $200 hairbrush. Holy cow.

      "The on-board technology allows the Kératase to monitor brushing patterns, identify wet or dry hair, and let you know if you’re brushing too hard. But it’s the microphone that’s the most important component, apparently, as it listens to brushing patterns and detects “manageability, frizziness, dryness, split ends and breakage.”
      In life there are no limitations. Except stupidity. If you're stupid, you're screwed.

      Stephan Pastis
    • chief wrote:

      regarding the y2k analogy, let's not forget that many of the very smart people who diverted disaster were the very same very smart people who thought it was a good idea to represent years with 2 digits to save a little memory.

      Nope. I was business managers who told programmers to not use more than two digits for the years as space on the Hollerith cards was priceless, only 80 columns. And that such software wouldn't be in use to cause a problem when the julian date rolled over.

      The programmers were hired to fix the manager errors I have listed above.

      But note that some countries claimed they didn't update their siftware and nothing happened. My memory of the discussion we had at work was those nations didn't have any airlines, and only a few banks. More second world naitons than first.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • ScareBear wrote:

      Astro wrote:

      chief wrote:

      regarding the y2k analogy, let's not forget that many of the very smart people who diverted disaster were the very same very smart people who thought it was a good idea to represent years with 2 digits to save a little memory.
      I remember sitting at lunch with my boss back in 1984 or 1985 and telling him there is going to be a big issue coming up in 15 years.Yeah I was smart enough it coming many years away, but not opportunistic to make a lot of money off it like I could have.
      Essentially, the programs that were coded with 2 digit years were never expected/intended to be used post-1999. The fact that nobody bothered to update the programs until right before the clock turned is a testament to the longevity of the original coding....
      You didn't really think in 1985 that nobody would see the problem before 1999 did you? That was the problem...

      I was using an Apple in 1978. I never thought that much of it at the time. I figured somebody, anybody would come up with a better o/s and hardware....

      My Amiga computer and the MacIntiosh are certainly better than a Windows computer... I don't think they dealt with the year correctly either.

      Note that the Unix julian date rolls over in 2038. Many more computer systems will be affected than the year 2000 julian date roll over.

      Dates were stored in an Int, integer, location. A LongInt, a larger storage space, would have been a better idea. It can store larger numbers. An Integer is a number with no decimal places.

      Some examples:

      A nibble can store a number as large as the number 8, unsigned it can go to 15.

      An octet can store a number as large as the number 127.

      A ShortInt can store numbers as large as the number32,767.

      A LongInt can store mnumbers as large as the number 2,147,483,647.

      So if you want to store the number 33,000, you need a LongInt. Otherwise it rolls over and can crash software because the memory location in the computer has something else there.

      There are more things going on there, but I'm trying to keep it easy to follow.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by JimBlue: info ().

    • ScareBear wrote:

      There really can't be any argument that man-made pollutants can affect weather, can there? From the ozone depletion and hole(s) to greenhouse gas, it all seems perfectly reasonable, from a scientific standing. Its not likely 99.5 percent of all reputable scientists woke up one morning and decided to be completely wrong...well...probably not likely....

      Take a look at what effect the eruption of Krakatoa in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere had upon the weather in North America for the next two years...

      The issue with this "temperature change" isn't the change, it's the rate of change. When you can talk about the dramatic change occurring within your own lifetime, not 1000's of years, then you have a problem. The Ice Age didn't happen in a single generation, neither did it end in one. Within your lifetime, you may see the oceans rise enough that major cities retreat from it's edge...it's that type of speed of change that scares the crap out of the scientists. And maybe should scare the crap out of everyone as well? Just sayin.....

      Uhm... not exactly.

      Mammoths have been found flash frozen deep in permafrost. One possibility is they were frozen when it suddenly, calendar wise not geologicaly wise, turned much colder.

      Termites produce 75% of all methane, a green house gas. Humans raising cattle and rice make up the rest.

      Myself, they should have called it climate change as the climate changes all of the time. Some periods of the Jurrasic Age were hotter than our current temperatures. Higher oxygen levels to. That is how the 3 foot wingspan dragon flys were able to live.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      ScareBear wrote:

      There really can't be any argument that man-made pollutants can affect weather, can there? From the ozone depletion and hole(s) to greenhouse gas, it all seems perfectly reasonable, from a scientific standing. Its not likely 99.5 percent of all reputable scientists woke up one morning and decided to be completely wrong...well...probably not likely....

      Take a look at what effect the eruption of Krakatoa in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere had upon the weather in North America for the next two years...

      The issue with this "temperature change" isn't the change, it's the rate of change. When you can talk about the dramatic change occurring within your own lifetime, not 1000's of years, then you have a problem. The Ice Age didn't happen in a single generation, neither did it end in one. Within your lifetime, you may see the oceans rise enough that major cities retreat from it's edge...it's that type of speed of change that scares the crap out of the scientists. And maybe should scare the crap out of everyone as well? Just sayin.....
      Uhm... not exactly.

      Mammoths have been found flash frozen deep in permafrost. One possibility is they were frozen when it suddenly, calendar wise not geologicaly wise, turned much colder.

      Termites produce 75% of all methane, a green house gas. Humans raising cattle and rice make up the rest.

      Myself, they should have called it climate change as the climate changes all of the time. Some periods of the Jurrasic Age were hotter than our current temperatures. Higher oxygen levels to. That is how the 3 foot wingspan dragon flys were able to live.
      Not really sure where the heck you get your data. Termites only produce 12 percent of the NATURAL emissions of methane gas....maybe you could use a good read on methane. It even comes with peer-reviewed journal cites!!! Real facts! Not alternative facts!

      whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

      ....and, ummm....how cold do you reckon it got all of a sudden to freeze an animal that, by its evolution, was designed to be the coldest weather capable mammal of all time? It essentially had anti-freeze for blood....
      And, to add irony to an already hilariously enough argument is the fact that it wasn't the Ice Age that doomed the mammoth, but rather the global warming that followed the end of the Ice Age. The mammoth survived the Ice Age...one of the few mammals to do so from start to finish...
    • Drybones wrote:

      My dog is destroying the atmosphere...at least the part I breathe.....you don't know methane till you meet Ruger.
      So when naming a dog, I will avoid "Thor" next time. The current "Thor" really is all about the thunder...just sayin....thunder and methane...last night was so bad I wondered if he ate a rotting skunk carcass....or a head of cabbage dipped in sriracha....
    • odd man out wrote:

      We often forget that stating your belief in climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, etc... is completely pointless. The problem is that many people hate the fact that this is the way science works. YOUR IDEAS ARE ONLY RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE IF:
      [...]
      6. Check to be sure that all available information is consistent with your ideas.

      That one is never satisfied. There are always outliers in any data set. "Preponderant evidence" is generally the test - and discrepant evidence is where new science starts.

      In any case, Mother Nature is going to do what She is going to do, whatever you think about Her.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • ScareBear wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      My dog is destroying the atmosphere...at least the part I breathe.....you don't know methane till you meet Ruger.
      So when naming a dog, I will avoid "Thor" next time. The current "Thor" really is all about the thunder...just sayin....thunder and methane...last night was so bad I wondered if he ate a rotting skunk carcass....or a head of cabbage dipped in sriracha....
      My dog was eating horse hoof trimmings at the barn today, this never ends well. Either she is going to get sick and throw them up, or they will stay in her system and the resulting gas will fumigate the entire house.

      I may need to shut off the pilot light in the furnace just to be safe. <X
      >>>Advertise here! Affordable rates and no long term contracts. Send a PM for more details!<<<
    • ScareBear wrote:

      You didn't really think in 1985 that nobody would see the problem before 1999 did you? That was the problem...

      I was working on Wall Street in 1975. The house I worked for had a two-digit-year crisis because of all the corporate bonds with 25-year maturity dates. (This was before deregulation, so investment banks weren't carrying 30-year mortgages.) There were a lot of nights and weekends put in getting that sorted out.

      The worst part was that the COBOL code became full of:


      Source Code

      1. MOVE YEAR TO YEAR4.
      2. IF YEAR4 IS GREATER THAN 70 GO TO C20.
      3. ADD 2000 TO YEAR4.
      4. GO TO C21.
      5. C20.
      6. ADD 1900 TO YEAR4.
      I bet that garbage is still in production somewhere.

      JimBlue wrote:


      Note that the Unix julian date rolls over in 2038. Many more computer systems will be affected than the year 2000 julian date roll over.

      I've been building to a 64-bit time_t for quite some time now. I'm not worried about bugs in year 292 million and some.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      chief wrote:

      regarding the y2k analogy, let's not forget that many of the very smart people who diverted disaster were the very same very smart people who thought it was a good idea to represent years with 2 digits to save a little memory.
      Nope. I was business managers who told programmers to not use more than two digits for the years as space on the Hollerith cards was priceless, only 80 columns. And that such software wouldn't be in use to cause a problem when the julian date rolled over.

      The programmers were hired to fix the manager errors I have listed above.

      But note that some countries claimed they didn't update their siftware and nothing happened. My memory of the discussion we had at work was those nations didn't have any airlines, and only a few banks. More second world naitons than first.
      Yep, it was a memory thing.
    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      odd man out wrote:

      We often forget that stating your belief in climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, etc... is completely pointless. The problem is that many people hate the fact that this is the way science works. YOUR IDEAS ARE ONLY RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE IF:
      [...]
      6. Check to be sure that all available information is consistent with your ideas.
      That one is never satisfied. There are always outliers in any data set. "Preponderant evidence" is generally the test - and discrepant evidence is where new science starts.

      In any case, Mother Nature is going to do what She is going to do, whatever you think about Her.
      I suppose you are correct. But more often than not, the "outliers" turn out to be bogus or wishful thinking by the naysayers (like all those "human" footprints along side the dinosaur footprints)
    • odd man out wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      odd man out wrote:

      We often forget that stating your belief in climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, etc... is completely pointless. The problem is that many people hate the fact that this is the way science works. YOUR IDEAS ARE ONLY RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE IF:
      [...]
      6. Check to be sure that all available information is consistent with your ideas.
      That one is never satisfied. There are always outliers in any data set. "Preponderant evidence" is generally the test - and discrepant evidence is where new science starts.
      In any case, Mother Nature is going to do what She is going to do, whatever you think about Her.
      I suppose you are correct. But more often than not, the "outliers" turn out to be bogus or wishful thinking by the naysayers (like all those "human" footprints along side the dinosaur footprints)
      Well, I hear there's this "creationism" museum thing...and it has cavemen fighting dinosaurs, just like on TV, so it MUST be true archeological history!
    • JimBlue wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      meat wrote:

      And in other news...scientists cooked the books

      google.com/amp/reason.com/blog…manipulated-temperatu/amp
      Once upon a time science searched for truth...now they search for validation of an opinion.
      I think there have always been scientists like that.
      Sadly, a lot has to do with who's funding their work.
      Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
    • JimBlue wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      meat wrote:

      And in other news...scientists cooked the books

      google.com/amp/reason.com/blog…manipulated-temperatu/amp
      Once upon a time science searched for truth...now they search for validation of an opinion.
      I think there have always been scientists like that.
      As previously reported, science doesn't care what you think.

      thebulletin.org/truth-vs-post-…-global-temperatures10241

      arstechnica.com/science/2017/0…at-noaa-manipulated-data/


      Or if you don't want to be bothered with real science, here's the take home conclusion:


      "The article on the Daily Mail website is headlined “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data," but the list of those “duped” seems to be limited to the author of the story and any readers who make the mistake of trusting it."
    • Mountain-Mike wrote:

      I just don't get this didgetal age. I thought it would be nice to send a message to all my old girlfriends. I can now understand why they are confused & keep calling; When I said "I hope you enjoy sharing VD with your new BF!" they thought Best Friend & not boy friend! ?(
      Uh, I think it might have been the first acronym that really got their attention.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • Energy companies get their ox gored by the politicians, but fancy hotels and resorts with beach front property and/or insurance companies may suffer losses as sea level rises. Construction companies that create sea walls, levees, and dikes are likely to benefit. Will global warming happen fast enough to make an investable trend? Maybe Datto has an opinion on that.

      Shipping companies are likely to benefit from higher water levels, fewer icebergs, and new trade routes which are no longer blocked by ice.