SoylentNews

I've been learning to sail dinghies. I live a very long way from the sea so I sail on the local pond. It's been staring me in the face for years and a few months ago, missing the sea and boats in general, I decided to sign up for some courses.

I am fairly used to motor boats and have sailed aboard small yachts very occasionally a long time ago, but I figured I'd give it a try on my own as skipper.

I have a certificate now that means I can be let loose on the village pond in the company of a safety boat (captained by a young whipper-snapper shouting at me when I sit on the wrong side of the boat etc). Sailing a dinghy is very undignified. They tend to capsize, and it happens even to the best of us. What's more the pond water is green. It's not healthy like the sea.

Still, I went sailing on the sea with my dad again recently, and for once I was able to advise him about the trim of his sails.

A couple of queries on the moderatorlog table. Make of them what you will.

Most upmods received:
+--------------------+-----------------+
| nickname           | upmods received |
+--------------------+-----------------+
| Anonymous Coward   |          160701 |
| Runaway1956        |           10069 |
| takyon             |            8339 |
| frojack            |            7302 |
| c0lo               |            7062 |
| The Mighty Buzzard |            6845 |
| Thexalon           |            6787 |
| VLM                |            6682 |
| bob_super          |            5399 |
| aristarchus        |            5051 |
| Azuma Hazuki       |            4661 |
| Ethanol-fueled     |            4615 |
| Phoenix666         |            4160 |
| khallow            |            3978 |
| DeathMonkey        |            3916 |
| jmorris            |            3810 |
| DannyB             |            3733 |
| maxwell demon      |            3340 |
| edIII              |            3271 |
| bradley13          |            3262 |
+--------------------+-----------------+

Most upmods performed:
+----------------+------------------+
| nickname       | upmods performed |
+----------------+------------------+
| AnonTechie     |            10712 |
| HiThere        |             9504 |
| anubi          |             7578 |
| turgid         |             6837 |
| rts008         |             6564 |
| jelizondo      |             6275 |
| takyon         |             5764 |
| aristarchus    |             5724 |
| Freeman        |             5228 |
| Unixnut        |             5018 |
| DeathMonkey    |             4943 |
| acid andy      |             4782 |
| Sulla          |             4746 |
| Bloopie        |             4680 |
| PartTimeZombie |             4456 |
| canopic jug    |             4161 |
| dg             |             3987 |
| SomeGuy        |             3818 |
| Geezer         |             3798 |
| tonyPick       |             3775 |
+----------------+------------------+

Well, two shocking incidents, in sequence, have made me question my stance on religion.

It is a well known fact that "Mexicans don't get hot". Those guys will keep on working, right through the hottest part of the day, and hardly even sweat. If you want a crew of roofers, you want to hire a bunch of Mexicans and assorted Central and South Americans.

I've known Damion (spelling?) for at least 15 years. I've often commented to him that I was hot, and I wish it would cool down. Damion always laughs at me, and comments that I'm a wimp or something. Monday, I found Damion in the break room, soaking up some air conditioning, and looking a little run down. He waves, and asks how I'm doing - I tell him it's "fucking hot", and he replied, "Yeah, it's hot."

My faith in reality was shaken. Maybe global warming really is for reals?

Then, there's Pedro. The man has been poorly abused. He was a supervisor, but the new breed of management couldn't allow him to continue as a supervisor. Not only does he speak poor English, but his supervisory style is loud, and irritates various people, such as SJW's and meek millenials. Today, Pedro is the gofer, reduced to simple labor, with no responsibility.

Anyway, Pedro was bitching about the heat this morning. "Yesterday, Jimmy sends me outside at 1:00 to spray for weeds. Asshole couldn't give me that job at 7:30 in the morning, but waits until the sun is scorching hot!"

So, in quick succession, one Mexican and one Guatemalan are complaining about the heat?

GLOBAL WARMING!!!

I may have to join the Church of Global Warming, and start praying that - uhhhh - what is it they pray for? And, to whom do they pray? Well, I guess I'll learn all the doctrine and catechism after I join.

Damn, it's hot out there.

Oh - stuff happens in threes, right? In a couple hours, when I get to work, I'll probably be confronted with a third brown man complaining about the heat. That will definitely confirm Global Warming!

Dayton Shooter Invoked AOC’s ‘Concentration Camp’ Talking Points

https://therundownnews.com/2019/08/dayton-shooter-invoked-aocs-concentration-camp-talking-points/

The “concentration camp” terminology was was coined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in reference to ICE detention facilities. This is the second time a radical Antifa member has invoked that term before committing an act of terrorism.

Last month, a 69-year-old Antifa member, described as “indigent,” attempted to blow up an ICE facility with homemade bombs. (RELATED: Antifa ICE Bomber Invoked AOC’s ‘Concentration Camp’ Rhetoric Before Terror Attack).

I think we can all agree that the shooter in El Paso was a white supremacist, ie, a Nazi, that is, a National SOCIALIST.

So, what else are the lefties up to? Ahhh, Patchogue, New York. Good old Long Island.

  https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/08/07/death-camps-for-trump-supporters-fliers-hung-in-long-island-community/

‘Death Camps for Trump Supporters’ fliers hung in Long Island community

Apparently, incendiary rhetoric can fire up the party base, leading to death threats. At least that’s the case when the source of the emotionally charged language is Democratic lawmakers and the legacy media, which for months now have been accusing Donald Trump of racism, xenophobia, and other forms of bigotry.

Like the claim made on air yesterday by MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace that Donald Trump is “talking about exterminating Latinos,” there is no basis in fact for any of these allegations. But that hasn’t stirred the liberal base from becoming fired up over them.

Some in the village of Patchogue, an hour and a half outside New York City, have even taken to posting fliers on telephone polls and parking meters reading “Death Camps For Trump Supporters Now!”

I am old enough to remember when using innocuous printer’s registration marks to designate targeted electoral districts on a political map was enough to persuade the Left of former Gov. Sarah Palin’s violent intent, but that was several hundred civility-years ago.

Also reported on MSN, albeit, with disclaimers - https://www.msn.com/g00/en-us/news/offbeat/patchogue-fliers-read-death-camps-for-trump-supporters/ar-AAFqUBD?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8%3d

Related links
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/democrat-dayton-shooter-praised-antifa-terrorist-who-firebombed-ice-facility/
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/08/07/death-camps-for-trump-supporters-fliers-hung-in-long-island-community/

https://therundownnews.com/2019/08/violent-left-death-camps-for-trump-supporters-now/

You sane people who are left of center? You really ought to try reining in the extremists. If/when the real shooting starts, it's gonna be far, far too late. You can't talk to a man, with a shotgun in his hand - two points if you can name the song I lifted that line from.

How to make a right turn from a main street onto a low traffic street.
_{Easy Guide: For Dummies!}

1. First come to a complete stop.
2. Pause for several seconds.
3. (only if driving a BMW...) if there are cars approaching from behind you, continue to wait until they either pass you or are forced to come to a complete stop behind you. The more accumulation, the better.
4. Signal for a right turn.
5. Look around to see that it is safe to make a right turn.
6. When you feel as through you are ready to proceed, then gradually begin making the right turn from the busy street you are on to the non-busy street you are turning into.
7. If any other cars that were behind you also make the same right turn, then proceed slowly and carefully.

22 percent of millennials say they have “no friends”

A recent poll from YouGov, a polling firm and market research company, found that 30 percent of millennials say they feel lonely. This is the highest percentage of all the generations surveyed.

Furthermore, 22 percent of millennials in the poll said they had zero friends. Twenty-seven percent said they had “no close friends,” 30 percent said they have “no best friends,” and 25 percent said they have no acquaintances. (I wonder if the poll respondents have differing thoughts on what “acquaintance” means; I take it to mean “people you interact with now and then.”)

In comparison, just 16 percent of Gen Xers and 9 percent of baby boomers say they have no friends.

Wow.

Back when I was in college, when the Apple II, TRS-80, PET and Star Wars were somewhat new, we had to actually go physically locate our friends (no cell phones), and ask "hey, you want to go spend some quarters at the video arcade and then get some nachos? Who's going to drive? Want to go ask XXX and YYY to see if they want to come along?"

Sometimes they couldn't go because -- gasp! -- studying! Or reading the required chapter.

Some of us would go to the "computer center" together to use the terminals. For hours. But even this had a significant social element to it.

I wonder how life would have turned out if everyone was trying to get "likes" and "thumbs up" and always glued to their phones? Or glued to video games without spending the required quarters.

I remember getting very good at an electro-mechanical game called "Space Tactics". But I still had a life and limited quarters. And doing laundry competed for those same quarters, which I kept in a Big Cheese Pizza mug with lid. Arcade trips were limited by pouring out a generous handful of quarters and pocketing them.

When graduating, I remember wishing those days could go on forever. We kept in touch all these decades. These people are my lifelong best friends.

What is so different about today? Is it right to blame social media? Does it not only tear apart the fabric of civil society, but also isolate everyone? Can't we have "no phones at the table" rules? (my house did, but I was one of the parents)

I don't believe the people are any different. It is something about the environment.

and it was uphill both ways . . . get off my lawn!

I really hate to say it and will probably be downmodded into oblivion, but that essay shows that the problem isn't that their explanations contradict. Instead, it shows that you don't understand what is going on with the science or the claims. And then you make some turn into this being a cultural problem of some kind.

But here is a car analogy for you. You are driving a car towards a "T" intersection and they are saying that if you keep hitting the gas bad things are going to happen. Preferably, you should stop before you hit the white line on the road, to avoid oncoming traffic. But you say, "Ha, you don't even know how much each additional angle of accelerator I add increases my speed. Depending on that I could still stop in time or cross the road completely into that brick wall."

Note that the poster starts with the stark claim that I "don't understand what is going on" and then segues into a shaggy dog story about car analogies. No attempt to show that I didn't understand ever happened. Fortunately, the mod givers were feeling generous and no downmodding into oblivion occurred for posting that tripe.

Moving on, there was the dropping of "radiative forcing" numerous times. Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing will get you started, but your problem is that you want a "trivial" answer without putting the work in. The experts are telling you what is going on, but you are ignoring that but then complaining that it is too complicated. Its like going to the doctor, they tell you you have cancer, you ask for proof, they show you the X-ray, and then you bitch about how you refuse to accept the evidence because it is too complicated for a non-radiologist to understand.

Here:

Ah, now I see your problem! You don't understand how global temperatures work, nor how to understand the equations you wield. First, the formula is ∆F = α ln(C/C0), where C is the CO2 concentration in ppm, C0 is the baseline concentration in ppm, α is an experimental constant, and ∆F is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter. You are putting garbage in, namely an arbitrary number in the wrong dimension (Celsius temperature, not a W/m2), so you are getting garbage out. Yes, you can get a function "f" such that f(C) = ∆T, but it isn't the one you gave.

Note the f(C) is still logarithmic to first approximation to changes in variable C. with followup:

Here you go: [https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/clip_image0022.jpg - link provided in subsequent reply - khallow] They are a climate skeptic website and you'll notice that even they use the proper dF formula in their formula (and some other things I said you were missing, but that's under the bridge for this discussion). And what is that? A natural logarithm. Even your own allies (not to mention your previous Wikipedia citation to the rocket equation) disagree with you on the kind of logarithm to use. But like I said, anyone can Google it and find multiple sources, but feel free to double down on how you are right about everything again.

And if one looked at the formula provided in the link, one would see the almost linear relationship between dF and global mean temperature.

This also brings up the red herring of the "natural logarithm". I was using log base 2 in some calculation. Apparently, instead I should use log(x)/log(2) instead (where log is the natural logarithm). That happens to be exactly log base 2. Anyway, this ended with a massacre of straw men:

Kids, here is an important lesson for you. Don't deal with people who can't admit their mistakes and can't reexamine their positions. You see, he can't admit that he could be wrong about this because that might mean he was wrong about other things and he has invested quite a bit of effort into being right. Therefore, when presented with facts he pretends that he was right the whole time (usually by shifting the burden or moving the goal posts) and everyone else is wrong. So when flatly presented with the fact that they were wrong, even when presented to him by a source that otherwise agrees with him, he moves the goalpost.

First it was, "my formula that I got out of thin air and with no citation is right but you must provide your own citation for yours."

Then when that is wrong, it becomes the ad hoc:

• no your formula that you and all the scientists use is wrong.
• My formula (which I previously claimed was theirs until shown otherwise) is correct because it is close to your answer.
• My formula is correct because it ignores the whole reason why CO2 increases temperature.
• My formula is correct because it is close enough to your formula but changed for an unspecified reason that renders all of my calculations off by a scalar.
• My formula is correct because it is ok because it meets my goals of showing calculations of the other formula are incorrect.
• My formula is correct because even though there is a difference between ln(2) and log2(2), it is fine because we are doubling, which somehow makes this more "natural."
• My formula is correct because language that implies a change of the value of an independent variable in an equation is the same as changing the operations applied to them.

Seriously, if they were talking about the climate change caused by the quadrupling of CO2, would you still insist that log2(4) would make more sense or would it be log4(4) (I mean you are talking about quadrupling so use base 4 right?), or would you admit that you are wrong based on all the citations elsewhere, even people who take your side, and use ln(4)?

Regardless, at the end, if you aren't using the same formula as the IPCC and everyone else, your imagined value can't be compared to the values created by anyone else.

Notice that not a one of the list of items had actually happened. Finishing with a bogus comparison

Otherwise, my calculation that the acceleration caused by gravity on Earth is 4.9 m/s/s is correct, and everyone else is wrong, and its a huge conspiracy. What's that? Oh, my formula its (G*M/r^2)/2, which is correct because I based it on the real thing, but that real one is actually wrong because we are dealing with 1 falling object, not two, so we want half the acceleration (which is so much simpler because it avoids all the gravity caused by the other object). Yep, that claim is equally valid as your claim, and the fact that all the evidence so far points to you failing to see (or not acknowledging) how the the present situation and the analogy are almost identical speaks volumes.

Moving on to other things, a final red herring was the demand that I come up with certain parameters:

Please give the range of the coefficient of determination you would find acceptable.

Notice they didn't make any suggestions. This is just a transparent troll looking for arguments from ignorance to latch onto. The way out of that trap is not to play the game.

As I see it, the solution is that I don't provide such numbers and thresholds. Instead, the model builders provide evidence well in excess of what I would require. Seems quite reasonable, particularly given the exceptional claims being made (particularly, of urgent danger that requires immediate action) and that it's their job to provide that persuasive evidence.

I'd say that most of the arguments had the same strategy. Assume I'm wrong and then latch onto anything that appears wrong to the poster.

Well, a bit after I posted my journal, I ran across this interesting article which basically does the same math and comes to the same general conclusion.

We actually knew this (no proof but our word) when we made our special climate inertia global temperature graph (that we think still offers a nice visualisation and proper indication of committed warming (at different climate inertia time scales) at various CO2 levels/year!), but chose to ignore it – and drew a linear line instead, between 280 and (3 degrees warming at) 560 ppm. ‘Because how big can the difference be,’ if you zoom out a bit.

Well, that was a bit silly of us. We had a little chat with atmospheric scientist Bart Verheggen (please also read his special blog post about climate inertia!), who pointed out that –because at 400 ppm we are close to the middle between 280 and 560!– the difference between a logarithmic line and a linear one is now relatively large: not 43% of climate sensitivity, but 51% – a difference between 1.29 and 1.53 degrees.

Wow. +0.24 degrees! That is such a big difference that we immediately added the information in a disclaimer as part of the original article (before open publication). But we felt we also needed to do a bit more than that. And that is because 1.53 is more than 1.50 – and that means that at the current CO2 concentration, judging by conventional climate science, we had already passed the target the moment the political promise was made. Odd, considering the fact that at the UN climate summit none of the world leaders mentioned the fact that establishing their 1.5 degrees ambition requires effective lowering of the CO2 concentration. Instead there came pledges to cut some of the emissions, leading to further growth of the CO2 concentration (to 670 ppm CO2/860 ppm CO2eq!) and bringing the world on a path towards 3.5 degrees warming (if all the pledges will in fact be translated to actual (national) energy policies, indeed another risk factor).

Wow. +0.24 degrees! That is such a big difference that we immediately added the information in a disclaimer as part of the original article (before open publication). But we felt we also needed to do a bit more than that. And that is because 1.53 is more than 1.50 – and that means that at the current CO2 concentration, judging by conventional climate science, we had already passed the target the moment the political promise was made. Odd, considering the fact that at the UN climate summit none of the world leaders mentioned the fact that establishing their 1.5 degrees ambition requires effective lowering of the CO2 concentration. Instead there came pledges to cut some of the emissions, leading to further growth of the CO2 concentration (to 670 ppm CO2/860 ppm CO2eq!) and bringing the world on a path towards 3.5 degrees warming (if all the pledges will in fact be translated to actual (national) energy policies, indeed another risk factor).

I dropped various links from the quote above, but you can still get them in the original article above. A final remark from that article:

This article focuses on that second line (Charney climate sensitivity) – what we call ‘conventional climate science’ in our introduction. It’s the stuff that politicians are supposed to base their climate policies on. Conservative, non-alarmist (especially when you go for median value, as we do) and very solid. Yet still they seem to be fully unaware of even this foundation of modern climate science – as it shows we need to lower CO2 concentration to the level of before the big UN climate conference of December 2015 – back to below 396 ppm to be precise (the atmospheric CO2 trend level of mid-2013).

In other words, they not only do the same math (with better justification I might add), they get the same answer to within a year (probably because they use slightly different starting values for CO2 concentration).

So sure, it could just be another person doing the same wrong calculation and getting the same wrong answer. And even if not so, it's still an approximation. Yet it's more eyeballs actually looking at the math.

I think it's telling that no one has actually found serious problems in the first place resorting to criticisms of minutia (some which never happened) rather than of the method or the conclusions.

Once again, here's the conclusion: the IPCC made a very specific policy recommendation on the basis that 1.5 C of warming from the preindustrial age is preventable with drastic action while simultaneously ignoring that their starting assumptions already preclude limiting global warming to 1.5 C rise and that the error bars on those important climate parameters mean that we could be facing anything from a distant climate threat which we only need to worry about in a couple of centuries to a dire need for climate change adaptation right now.

Why push a particular narrative and set of policy recommendations that has such a big chance to be wrong? I think it's because they can't sell the story harder and still retain any credibility.

Tulsi's ad account was conveniently suspended for "unusual activity" two days after the Jun 26 debate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-suspending-ad-account-claims-google-is-trying-silence-her/