| Author | Message | ||
     Torquehd |
Dark matter sounds like, "We know everything, and we have the math to prove it. OK, we know our math doesn't work, but here - we made up some additional math to explain the math that doesn't make sense. As long as you accept that our made up math is real, then our original math will make sense too. This new math is based on something that can not be experienced with any of your five senses - it has never been observed. But trust us, it's real, and it has some fascinating qualities! That we don't know anything about". | ||
| Reepicheep |
That solar sunflower is cool. That's approaching things that might work. It's a great reality check too. While that thing is very good in terms of efficiency and packaging, do the math. You have this monstrosity out in your back yard, and at peak performance and efficiency, it is making as much power per hour as... ... about half a 250cc motorcycle ... So again, don't get me wrong. I love this thing. But it looks to me like a $10,000 device that can make a very small motorcycle go pretty slow for about 8 hours. So good reality check for solar power. Do it, it's awesome, but don't think it's the end all and be all of addressing the energy needs of human beings. | ||
| Sifo |
I disagree that science is simply pointing to dark matter as a fix for what they don't understand. The gravitational forces that they are dealing with, that dark matter attempts to explain are just as real and measurable as the gravity that would make an apple fall on Isaac Newton's head, if that ever really happened. It is just a theory though. It's a theory that makes the math work. This same principle has been applied to all sorts of subatomic particles that have been proven to exist. The math points to either our current understanding being all wrong, or certain particles must exist. You then figure out the physical experiments to prove the particles are real. Black holes were also little more that a theoretical object required to make the math work, until we figured out how to look for them. Now the have been confirmed as something that we barely understand. Not really any different from dark matter. Of course, it's entirely possible that dark matter is just wishful thinking. You still need something to make the math work though. | ||
| Aesquire |
Dark matter or ether. Either makes the math come out right. Could be the same thing. DM doesn't require you to rethink general relativity, so it's more popular right now. We may have experimental proof soon. If the Chinese start selling EM drives then it's ether. I suspect we'll still be arguing if it works when I can order one on eBay. | ||
| Sifo |
Back to organic farming... I got this email yesterday from my brother's brother-in-law...
| ||
| Aesquire |
As I said the last number I read was 30% less output per acre for organic. Tod has posted a study that states it can be near equal at best. That near equal figure uses best farming and soil conservation practice, but that's not the current norm for organic or modern farming. Organic May be better for the soil..... if done right. Again I have no data for percentage in the real world. So. Arbitrary I'll say 25% less yield. Could be wrong. 6+ billion people. So 1.5+ billion will starve if we go organic. Call that worst case. Hard Greenies would welcome such a culling, being sure they would not suffer. Too bad about the dead. We produce enough food today. People starve because their rulers won't let food get to them or steal it. If we go Soylent Green hot or mini ice age cold we can't feed the planet. It's simple. Brutal and true. | ||
| Ducbsa |
Unexpectedly! http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/25/ca rbon-offsets-may-have-dramatically-increased-emiss ions/ | ||
| Aesquire |
Predictable, and predicted. Don't recall who, many years ago, accurately predicted that selling Medieval Indulgences would lead to more sin... ( may have been Martin Luther ) and that Carbon Credits would just be a scam for the dishonest to make money ( may have been Jerry Pournelle ) but it's not surprising, even the tiniest bit, to me, and several million other people trained in Engineering, Science and Statistics. Al, The Prophet, Gore, claims his extravagant lifestyle in "carbon neutral" because he buys carbon credits. From himself. I.E. he buys into his own "green" investment companies and simply takes money from one pocket, puts it in another, and no doubt takes a tax break in the process. Al uses more fossil fuel, more electricity, and demolishes the environment far more than the average American, even if we ignore his flying private jets around the planet to tell us how freaking sinful it is to fly private jets around the plant. You also have to ignore the SS entourage, with the convoy of gas guzzling armored SUV's that haul this paragon of virtue where ever he goes. That, after all, is not "his fault". ( never mind he actively sought the job and the perks.. ) According to the last public record of electricity use alone, Al uses more in a month than I do in a year. ( he may use more in a week ) He certainly uses more fossil fuels in a typical week than I use in a year. But he is the Aristocracy, and we are just peasants, and should be satisfied with our lot in life. Seriously, anyone surprised that the carbon credit program is a scam to take money from taxpayers and make the dishonest rich, either wasn't paying attention, or is blinded by ideology or propaganda. You may have noticed that the Climate Exchange, in Chicago, is staffed by major contributors to the Reigning President, ( and, to be fair, politicians of both parties ) and exists to separate you from your money... For The Sake Of the Children! | ||
| Ducbsa |
A nice summary of The Regime giving our children's money to unicorn green failures. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialrepo rts/solyndra-scandal/ | ||
| Aesquire |
To be fair, the same economic and tax and business policies that have given us increasing unemployment since 2008 have been a major factor in Green companies going bankrupt. Solar cell and battery companies, despite demand, have to compete with foreign companies, notably China. China famously refuses to enforce foreign patent and property rights, and has been financed by western industry seeking the largest untapped market in the world. Solyndra had a more efficient cell, technically, but was unable to compete with cheap, often crappier imports, and perhaps the greed of the leaders who used company money to bribe this Administration to get massive loans. I don't know the status of the investigation begun when they closed the plant. So I could be thinking bad things about Solyndra management that is undeserved. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.doesnotplaywellwithothers.com/comic/pwc -0281 | ||
| Sifo |
The science may be settled, but they are still adjusting the data... https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/noa a-massively-ramps-up-their-temperature-fraud-ahead -of-paris/ I like when they do a gif like this where you can easily see the changes that were done from just a year ago. You can easily see that recent temps have been adjusted up, and temps from over 100 years ago have been adjusted down. Of course, without these continual adjustments, the lie that it's getting warmer simply fails the reality test.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Hold it! If the methodology is the same..... how can the results be different with old data?? Unless........... I should point out that M. Mann, of hockey stick graph fame, was cleared of fraud charges by the President of Pennsylvania State University. It would be unkind to point out that she also ignored years of child rape charges by an assistant coach of the Other big money maker at her school. Accurate, but unkind. ( I read she did jail time for that. Please correct me if I'm wrong ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/37721 | ||
| Aesquire |
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-o bama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6 i5gZfj RICO? Screw that. I Demand, DEMAND! to be labeled as an Arch Heretic. Perhaps they can get the Pope to excommunicate me. Or send Exorcists. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hikers-capture-photo-rare -optical-illusion-mount-rainier/story?id=33925209 Check your facts ABC. This is not a rare illusion. People see this from airplanes every day. Hikers in the hills see it too, and sometimes it's quite striking. People have had religious experiences. But it's just refraction. You stand with your back to the sun and look at your shadow on a cloud, or dense fog, and you get a rainbow around your head, the scientific term is "the Glory". In fact if you stand next to another person the Glory only forms around your head, and he/she sees it around themselves only. When you are in an airplane over a cloud, you see the plane's shadow outlined. I've even seen the shadow of my head with the circular rainbow, AND the aircraft's shadow with one, when I was lined up so the sun shone past me at the ( fairly close ) cloud. It is quite pretty. Looks like ABC doesn't have anyone who took science courses while they were parroting their Journo Profs. Or perhaps they just went for the name that sounded tougher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocken_spectre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon) | ||
| Ducbsa |
It is always so nice to hear that hard-working climate hoax scientists are not bought off by Big Oil and merely pick the taxpayers pockets: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/22 /lead-climate-scientist-behind-obamarico-letter-se rious-questions-answer/ | ||
| Ducbsa |
More faked data by the hoaxers: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almo st-all-us-temperature-data-used-in-global-warming- models-is-estimated-or-altered.php | ||
| Tod662 |
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys- gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html Gore must own like all of the worlds media. | ||
| Aesquire |
Untrue story. Australia is catching on. Don't ask me which party. No one with a brain denies climate change. Many notice the Cult lies. Wanna bet on warmer or colder this winter? | ||
| Sifo |
Wanna bet on warmer or colder this winter? Is that before or after the adjustments? | ||
| Aesquire |
Well..... 2016 is going to be the "warmest year on record" even if we have major volcanic activity and no summer..... so....... before "adjustment". | ||
| 86129squids |
(Message edited by 86129squids on September 28, 2015) | ||
| Aesquire |
| ||
| Aesquire |
Tod, imagine a guy is trying to sell you, say, stock in his company. He shows you an earnings report, that shows the company is making record earnings, and it's been a steady rise. Great! Right? But you look at last years earning reports, and the years before, and you notice that the numbers don't match up. The 2001 number is different in every years report. In fact none of the numbers are the same, year to year. And the ONE common feature is every report shows a record profit. Even the reports from years like 2008, where there was a market "correction", show no sign whatsoever of tracking with the rest of the planet's economy. And he denies changing anything, insist the "corrected" numbers are real, and accuses you of being a Nazi, tries to get you fired, and actually wants you arrested for pointing out what sure seem to be years of outright lies for the purpose of selling his stock. The AGM Climate guys put out exactly that kind of sales pitch. "The Hockey Stick Graph" which supposedly used tree rings to determine average temperatures, doesn't have the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice age, ( that in 1350 had the Vikings abandon the Greenland colony ) The Roman warm period, or any of the well documented climate changes in European Historic times. The gif Sifo posted above is a small slice of what they put out every year. The past gets colder, and the present gets warmer, and the numbers never match up. The only common factor is to make the current year "the hottest on record". And if you question them........ they attack you and claim you're a shill for the evil oil companies, try and ruin your reputation, and never, never, change the "solution" to the problem of climate change. Which has been the same since the 1970's. More taxes, use less oil, centralized international government control over your life. ( you know, to distribute food and wealth during the emergency ) I'm all for use less oil. Screw the evil oil companies, they don't give me a dime. What do Petra, the Anasazi, Greenland, and Blue Holes have in common? | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio _cycle The 18O/16O ratio provides a record of ancient water temperature. Water 10 to 15 °C (18 to 27 °F) cooler than present represents glaciation. As colder temperatures spread toward the equator, water vapor rich in 18O preferentially rains out at lower latitudes. The remaining water vapor that condenses over higher latitudes is subsequently rich in 16O.[2] Precipitation and therefore glacial ice contain water with a low 18O content. Since large amounts of 16O water are being stored as glacial ice, the 18O content of oceanic water is high. Water up to 5 °C (9 °F) warmer than today represents an interglacial, when the 18O content of oceanic water is lower. A plot of ancient water temperature over time indicates that climate has varied cyclically, with large cycles and harmonics, or smaller cycles, superimposed on the large ones. This technique has been especially valuable for identifying glacial maxima and minima in the Pleistocene. http://uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/icecore_ temp_uwinhs_schoenemann_draft_lowres.pdf "vostok ice core temperature data" google it and look at the pretty images. | ||
| Tod662 |
So if you say screw big oil, what is the problem with green technologies, a couple years ago you bitched about Tesla cars and what a waste of money that was for the government, do you stand by those words? What is the down side of advancing green technologies? Guess where the whole "18 years with out climate change" BS came from... The Heritage Foundation ... where do they get their money?- Kochs And yes BS, it has been shown that they took an outlying year to skew the results. But you are probably right, NASA, The Pope, China, 97% of scientists and basically every person on earth except the GOP and the Bad Weather Brain Trust got it wrong. | ||
| Hootowl |
97%. Pfft. Your ignorance is showing. | ||
| Hootowl |
Whew! It's a good thing popular opinion isn't science. | ||
| Aesquire |
what is the problem with green technologies, a couple years ago you bitched about Tesla cars and what a waste of money that was for the government, do you stand by those words? I'd actually have to look to be sure, but I remember mostly bitching about Fisker. That bitch was U.S. money going overseas to build super luxury cars. But I'll take your word I complained about Tesla. I'd need a quote to "stand by", but my opinion on Tesla has changed over the years, for 2 reasons. 1. They seem to be successful. 2. Musk has some great projects going, and I wish him luck at changing the planet for the better. I especially want him to succeed with Space X. My opinion on spending money on Fisker hasn't changed much. I did openly admire their brilliant marketing imagination with their super eco nut bragging rights delux, expensive version. http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/road-tests/re views/a18344/2012-fisker-karma-ecochic-1/ Our car was the top-of-the-line EcoChic model, with a "non-animal" interior that has seats made of fabric-based suede and a small amount of wood trim made from timber reclaimed from California forest fires or sunken logs from the bottom of Lake Michigan. Seriously. How freaking cool is that? Perfect target marketing. Awesome. In fact, after reading the above article, I Want One. Don't have the scratch for a rich boy orphan collector car, but If I Win the Lotto, I could see one parked next to the DeLorean & Demon. What is the down side of advancing green technologies? Depends. Case by case. Overall, I'm for tax dollars going to scientific research. I want NASA to go back to actually making supersonic X-planes, ( with the aerospace companies actually making most of the stuff ) on our dime. Invest in battery tech? Solar? Algae based diesel substitute? Sure. In fact, I'd love to see the tech we paid for back in the Carter/Regan era in use. We spent a bundle recreating the WW2 German coal to oil program. Bottom line, it works, and it was profitable at $55 a barrel, back in the 1980's. The reason it never went into production was, in part, the Saudis opening the taps to pull the price of oil below that number. Almost the same thing is happening as we speak, as the Saudis have opened their taps to make Fracking less profitable. The economic argument on domestic oil production goes beyond an answer to your question, but it's an interesting argument to have. In general, using tax breaks/rebates for individual taxpayers to insulate and upgrade their homes seems a good use of that kind of incentive. ( if you think that kind of tax-to-get-social-change method is a good one ) Your opinion of "cash for clunkers"? |
