Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:But - what's changing the winds? (Score 1) 49

by geekoid (#47978835) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

You are so attached to your provably(and proven) wrong belief that you don't even read the abstract before spew you emotional based nonsense and polluting the comments.

Nothing in the study refute the fact that excess greenhouse gasses are trapping energy.

Unless you are ready to overturn 100+ years of science the proves greenhouse gasses trap energy?

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Comment: Re:The WHO (Score 1) 453

by Ol Olsoc (#47978811) Attached to: Bioethicist At National Institutes of Health: "Why I Hope To Die At 75"

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act.

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people drop their annoying superiority acts.

Nah, I heard that you giggle when you kiss. But thanks for the invite.

You don't seem like such a prize either.

Nope, I'm not a prize at all. OI Olsoc don't always say what people want to hear. I'm a real life Cassandra

Comment: Re:I barely read the abstract (Score 1) 49

by geekoid (#47978609) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

no.
They have shown that a local effect, pacific northwest, might have had a bigger impact on local winds. The fact tat ther wind changes can be do yo e;levate GLOBAL energy trapping isn't addressed in any clear way.

The fact that they used global model and tried to apply them to a local event is suspect.
No matter, it's one study. Lets see follow up.
NOTHING in the study refutes the fact that the lower atmosphere of the earth is warming do to excess CO2 trapping energy.

Comment: Re:Two new deniers are born... (Score 1, Informative) 49

by geekoid (#47978565) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

If you don't think excess greenhouse gasses, (CO2, tc) are cause an increase in trapped energy, then you are an idiot. This is proven science.

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Comment: Re:Faulty premise (Score 1) 52

by ShieldW0lf (#47978393) Attached to: Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)

Well, lets take an example. I think most people who are well read in the genre would agree that Larry Niven writes "Hard" SF. So... Ringworld.

Ringworld, at it's core, was about "What if we had access to an impossibly strong substance. How might that change everything."

The setting was an extrapolation on that one question. But, it's not about the possibilities of technology, because there is no such substance. It's an impossible technology, a technology based on an ever so slightly different set of universal rules.

But the story was a human story.

Comment: It's too big but I bought one (Score 1) 241

by SuperKendall (#47977157) Attached to: Phablet Reviews: Before and After the iPhone 6

I ordered the Six Monolith, even though I am quite sure it's too large.

I write iOS applications for a living, and I need it for testing, so I will suffer the thing to have the newer form factor to test on.

The one aspect where I'm thinking I'll like the size more and not less is for photography. For a long time I've been wishing they would put larger cameras into the iPad, now they have...

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 727

by Alsee (#47975669) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

The article is kind of dumb.

Ad hominem.

You really shouldn't try to use fancy words you don't understand, trying to look smart. That was not Ad Hominem. That was his opening comment giving his opinion of the article (not the person). He then proceeded to follow up his opening opinion with perfectly valid arguments.

It's some guy who isn't a scientist and who doesn't really understand the scientific method arrogantly bitching about how everybody else doesn't really understand the scientific method.

Appeal to authority (arguing that the "authority" is unimpeachable).

You don't understand Argument From Authority either, nor do you understand when it is a fallacy and when it isn't.

That's the *actual* scientific method.

No-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Not only did you get No True Scotsman wrong, you actually have it backwards. It was the author of the "kind of dumb article" that committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. It was the article author who fallaciously tried to exclude science-he-didn't-like as not being "true science".

Controlled experiment may or may not come into it at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Look at where it says "Testing".

I suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... where it says "Testing": Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars.
Astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and countless other fields of science are testing scientific theories when they engage in measurements and observations of the real world, which test the predictions of those theories.

But I would like to thank you for pointing out that Wikipedia section. I can see how you could read that section and overlook the example illustrating that observations-testing-predictions are a form of scientific experiment. That section should definitely be more clear. I'll leave a comment to that effect on the Talk page. ~~~~

-

Comment: Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score 2) 409

by hey! (#47975589) Attached to: US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

Would you be happy that people associate linux with terrorism ?

Well, I started with Linux by downloading Debian 0.93 by modem onto floppies (because the copyright situation for 386BSD was unclear at the time). I think this was the first official Debian release with dpkg and it was awesome!

So I remember when Linux started to get media attention very well. What people associated Linux with was Communism. My reaction at the time was that people who did that were hysterical idiots, and history has proved me right.

As for Islam, it's not going away. It can't be "defeated", any more than Christianity or atheism can be "defeated". These things will live on no matter what kind or unkind things people say about them. Those who insist on making Islam into the boogeyman are hysterics condemning themselves to permanent worry about what's hiding under their bed.

Comment: Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score 1) 409

by hey! (#47975391) Attached to: US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

Well, before we candebate a question like "Is ISIL Muslim?" you have to specify what you mean by the question.

The important thing is not to ask a question like that in one context and then use the answer in a different context. For example if you ask someone in a white supremacist "Aryan Nations" church "who is a true Christian?" you can't automatically attribute those same ideas to Quakers. Likewise you can't attribute the answer of a Salafist group like ISIL to the question "Who is a true Muslim?" to your sober, industrious, and peaceful Hanafi Muslim neighbors. Both groups see the other as apostates.

A historian or anthropologist would certainly consider ISIL an "Islamic movement", just as they'd consider the KKK a "Christian movement". And while your local ultra-liberal Sufi imam or Episcopalian minister would disagree strongly, nobody is actually wrong here. They're just using the words in different senses.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 727

by Alsee (#47975099) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I think he's saying that we shouldn't be using evolution as a talking point when we want to say "see science works!" because we have no proof that evolution indeed works as Darwin described.

(1) Actually he's doing the standard right-wingnut attack on any science they don't like, primarily evolution and climate, and every field of science that supports them.

(2) Setting aside the poor choice word "proof", I think you underestimate what we've got backing up evolution. We literally have mathematical theorems proving the information-creating process of evolution. Evolution is an applied science, used somewhere or other by a majority of Fortune 500 Companies. (Specifically, software genetic algorithms that evolve "digital DNA". It's a field of programming that can solve categories of Hard Problems that are effectively impossible to solve by any other means.) We also have a continuous and complete fossil record of tens of millions of years of evolution covering much of Phylum Foraminifera. Foraminifera are tiny aquatic animals, most smaller than the period on this sentence. They live in the oceans in vast numbers, continually dying and raining down into sea floor sediment. 1970's deep sea oil exploration started bringing up long drill-cores from the deep seabed. Each core is filled with thousands of perfectly layered Foraminifera fossils. We have an effectively limitless supply of these fossils. And it's not merely every transitional form species. We can continuously trace the transitional forms along a ~150,000 year transition as one species splits into two. The only limitation on time-resolution is the small amount of vertical-mixing caused by living animals which disturb the sediment surface.

-

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 727

by Alsee (#47974721) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Which "AGW denying bit" would that be? It can't be the part about observation because it hasn't gotten any warmer for the past 18 years, so there would be no warming to be observed.

When one activist website tell you that the earth is warming, and another activist website tells you that the earth isn't warming, it's a good idea to check the actual scientific data to determine which activist website is getting the facts wrong. Here's an 18 year graph. The earth has in fact been warming over the last 18 years.

Here's the 50 year graph. That's a neat website that lets you generate graphs over any date range. If you want to play with it, just be sure to update the year-values for both series 1 (the red graph) and series 2 (the green graph).

There was also an unexpected surge in heat being pulled from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. This has recently pulled a vast amount of heat off of the typical graphs of surface-level atmospheric temperature. This is why air-temperature-graphs gives a false impression of somewhat slower warming the last few years.

Air is extremely low density. Very little of the global heat resides in the atmosphere, and what does show up in the air is extremely variable as heat shifts between the air and the land&sea. In fact the atmosphere only accounts for 2% of global heat content. The land surface temperatures are about 8%. The massive oceans account for 90% of the planet's heat content. Here's a graph of ocean heat over the last 50-odd years. The vast majority of heat ultimately goes into the oceans. That graph shows that there has been absolutely no slowing in the rate of global heat increase. Global warming hasn't paused. Global warming hasn't stopped. Global warming hasn't slowed.

There doesn't exist ONE scientific body of national or international standing that still denies man-made global warming. The last national or international scientific body to dissent was, comically, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists back in 2007. Yep, even the oil geologists stopped denying it seven years ago.

-

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...