LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Hey Russell,

Explain this to me. Otherwise I don’t believe it to be true!

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/31/world/ ... cnn.com%2F

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:31 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:38 pm
You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

Oldbarndog wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:24 am Wish we could move on from the constant fixation with temperature and focus on pursuing the means to utilize resources in a way that will leave my grandkids with cleaner air and water, safe food sources and the means to earn a decent living. To lock into one data point and downplay or minimize the rest as both sides push agendas is ridiculous. Regardless of your position on CC/GW, is there any logical reason why this can't happen?

Painfully, it seems to be an all or nothing game with the science deniers.

Some of us 'moderates' (yes, cradle, a moderate) think it makes sense to be careful about both the predictions (constantly measuring and adjusting) and the remedies. There are all sorts of unintended costs to be considered, so care needs to be taken to do the most efficient and effective such, and be prepared to adjust. But in no way does this mean to ignore the very real possibilities of very negative downsides of not addressing these issues in a timely way.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:31 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:38 pm
You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

My fundamental issue is with anyone claiming to be a 'scientist' if they are unable or unwilling to expose their 'science' to formal review by other scientists. Science depends upon challenge of the repeatability or internal validation of any scientific claim, which means the publishing of specific methods and data.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this, you're not actually a 'scientist' regardless of what prior training or education you've had.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:50 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:31 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:38 pm
You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

My fundamental issue is with anyone claiming to be a 'scientist' if they are unable or unwilling to expose their 'science' to formal review by other scientists. Science depends upon challenge of the repeatability or internal validation of any scientific claim, which means the publishing of specific methods and data.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this, you're not actually a 'scientist' regardless of what prior training or education you've had.
Do these fit the bill that Dr Spencer is a real scientist? 30 reviewed papers ain't too shabby for a hack like him.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/yes ... apers-too/

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:26 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:50 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:31 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:38 pm
You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

My fundamental issue is with anyone claiming to be a 'scientist' if they are unable or unwilling to expose their 'science' to formal review by other scientists. Science depends upon challenge of the repeatability or internal validation of any scientific claim, which means the publishing of specific methods and data.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this, you're not actually a 'scientist' regardless of what prior training or education you've had.
Do these fit the bill that Dr Spencer is a real scientist? 30 reviewed papers ain't too shabby for a hack like him.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/yes ... apers-too/

Yes, I'd call Dr. Spencer a scientist. Not necessarily an excellent scientist, but at least he's engaged in the exercise. He does do peer-review articles from time to time, albeit he has a tendency to greatly exaggerate the conclusions and importance of his actual work. Very little of it actually refutes or seriously calls into question the massive amount of other data and science, and he's had some interesting tendencies to be sloppy in his own data.

Do I hold some of his "intelligent design" pronouncements against him? Well, other than like the climate change blog and interviews, these views are mostly opinion and/or belief than any sort of actual science. He definitely has a tendency to want to be on the very edge of hyper-contrarian.

However, I think that's actually a quite positive thing to have 'contrarians' in the science world.

It's very important that orthodoxy is challenged.
However, it does need to be more than conjecture and the data does need to support whatever hypotheses are put forward as alternatives.

His actual 'science' is not particularly compelling.

Oldbarndog wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:24 am Wish we could move on from the constant fixation with temperature and focus on pursuing the means to utilize resources in a way that will leave my grandkids with cleaner air and water, safe food sources and the means to earn a decent living. To lock into one data point and downplay or minimize the rest as both sides push agendas is ridiculous. Regardless of your position on CC/GW, is there any logical reason why this can't happen?

Seems to me the human race does a pretty good job of multi-tasking. I don't think the CC/GW debate keeps these other subjects from being addressed.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:50 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:31 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:38 pm
You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

My fundamental issue is with anyone claiming to be a 'scientist' if they are unable or unwilling to expose their 'science' to formal review by other scientists. Science depends upon challenge of the repeatability or internal validation of any scientific claim, which means the publishing of specific methods and data.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this, you're not actually a 'scientist' regardless of what prior training or education you've had.

Yup. Those who complain about science being elitist are full of beans. You want to participate? Participate. You don't need a degree, you can be totally self taught. You don't need to work at a university. You do have to play by the same rules however if you want to be taken seriously. You don't need an advanced degree to submit a paper to any scientific journal I am familiar with. All you need is a knowledge of the state of the art of the discipline you want to participate in. That is for most people a tall order if they do not have formal recent education in that discipline.

There was once this guy who worked a technical office job. Couldn't obtain a university job or even high school teaching job to save his life. He turned physics on its head in the early 1900s by writing four papers, all peer reviewed. He was able to make predictions, things that could be measured, that were in fact measured by other scientists.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:26 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:50 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:31 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:19 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:38 pm
You trust engineers? Even ones paid by the Heartland INstitute and MIT grad, the engineer Koch bros

Do you even read what you write?

Yes, out loud. You atta try it.

Do you ever post anything other than snark?

The thrust of my point, is credentials. Especially on THIS thread, where the norm is to bash the qualifications of referenced sources. This includes actual scientists who may have a "contrarian" viewpoint. Based on their science.

Are you telling me this isn't the narrative on this thread? Attack the messenger, nevah the message? Are you telling me that "paid for by.......fill in the blank" argument hasn't been made to discredit a source? Oh yeah......."great source" FOX, VOX, Sr. Spencer ( I don't read him ) , Atlantic, nytimes, washpost etc.

. Also included: engineers/scienctists who's research was funded by the Koch Bros/Heartland institute. Or exxon. Or, even exxon themselves (they KNEW ) Those engineers are NOT to be listened too. You don't pick up this vibe? stinks to you.

Sure do...guess you don't read my posts either.

I'm not telling you anything.

Hard to figure out which vibe you want me to pick up....

"Stinks to you"...pretty f'ing snarky.

My fundamental issue is with anyone claiming to be a 'scientist' if they are unable or unwilling to expose their 'science' to formal review by other scientists. Science depends upon challenge of the repeatability or internal validation of any scientific claim, which means the publishing of specific methods and data.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this, you're not actually a 'scientist' regardless of what prior training or education you've had.
Do these fit the bill that Dr Spencer is a real scientist? 30 reviewed papers ain't too shabby for a hack like him.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/yes ... apers-too/

Who else do you read?

ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE, QUEBEC.

Another leak.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:42 am ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE, QUEBEC.

Someone already posted the Wash Post article about this island. Embellished news. all media outlets are running with this joke of a story at the same time. Nope....no collusion.

Pulling another MDfanlax1976 type story.....I have been to Souris. Many times. Lousy town, Military bases have more character.

but man, the warm water and "signing sands" to the northeast up to Elmira & South Lake. No need to travel by ferry, from Souris, to Madeline for the day, PEI is already a far enough venture.

Great golf. Great seafood. One of the most relaxing places on earth. Mosquito's are brutal tho.

Anyone else been on the ferry from Souris to Magdelin ? Dug clams in South Lake? Jumped off the bridge at Basin Head and that awesome, warm water ?

Don't WE have to build rt. 1......close it.........all the time because of erosion?

https://www.tripsavvy.com/highway-one-closure-1477688

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:42 am Another leak.

WHo the F does the installation of these pipelines. It's not rocket science. Who inspects and approves them?

BTW.....who owns Keystone Pipeline? Oh, it matters. Hypocrites of the oligarchy unite. My giving pledge membership is pending. THink Tony Rezko is applying as well since Mike and Lori Milkin got in.

Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating? What would you have told people if they were around and lived by the shore of the Western Interior Seaway?

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:19 am Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:23 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:19 am Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:23 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:19 am Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

Ah, timescale. Things only happen now at a rapid pace.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120605.htm

2.5m/century sea level rise. Why didn’t the smart ones back then tell everyone to tone down their campfires?

Let’s start with having Chemours keeping GenX out of our water supply.

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:55 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:23 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:19 am Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

Ah, timescale. Things only happen now at a rapid pace.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120605.htm

2.5m/century sea level rise. Why didn’t the smart ones back then tell everyone to tone down their campfires?

Let’s start with having Chemours keeping GenX out of our water supply.

If the seas are rising so fast (they're not, but so what, I'll play), how come we can't desalinate a s-ton of that liquid and put the fires out in California....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:50 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:23 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:19 am Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:32 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:50 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:23 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:19 am Just curious: If we lived hundreds of millions of years ago how would some of you propose we’d have kept Pangaea from eroding and separating?

The same way we will deal with part of California separating from the mainland - just let it happen.

Of course the timescale is _completely_ different, and the net effects quite gradual compared to climate change...

And you know this how?

Different aspect to think about. Science has theorized, with strong evidence, that the earths poles have shifted.

Would THAT effect the weather?

1. I know about Pangaea and how gradual things are from teaching Astronomy for a quarter century. Plate techtonics are well-known and quite well understood.

2. Shift of poles - magnetic (happens quite often on a geologic time scale) or rotational axis? Each _does_ affect the weather to quite different degrees, but generally not a huge effect. But understanding the rotational "wobbles" and how that changes the seasons has been used to understand some of the past ice ages vs. warm spells. (Milankovic cycles, which also include changes in eccentricity - how elliptical the Earth's orbit has become - and axial tilt are the basis for these calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

Time scale for both kinds of shifts are quite slow. Rotational precession has a period of 26000 years.

Geomagnetic reversals are even slower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) - as fast as 50,000 years and can be many millions of years.

Joe Rogan doesn't believe it.