Environment is a Weak Combatant. by JEWELSTAITEFAN

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

And money/profit trumps 100-year-old trees:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/city-investigating-tree-cutting-north-023314
110.html?nhp=1

Looking at the street intersection on google maps, I see that the trees are not 100-year-old. But decide for yourself:
https://goo.gl/maps/G2Cyaxbxfz22
www.bayviewridgegate.com/

What truly shocked me wasn't the trees but the article: "What Honey Boo Boo Looks Like Now is Incredible". Look what too much food has done to that child!

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2016 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
(not fiction like Global Warming).

Why do you lie so much?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2016 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

And money/profit trumps 100-year-old trees:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/city-investigating-tree-cutting-north-023314
110.html?nhp=1
Looking at the street intersection on google maps, I see that the trees are not 100-year-old. But decide for yourself:
https://goo.gl/maps/G2Cyaxbxfz22
www.bayviewridgegate.com/

Quote:

That image looks different than the googlemaps shot of Bayview Ridge and Bayview Avenue in Toronto.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bayview+Ave+%26+Bayview+Ridge,+Toronto,+ON/@43.7421306,-79.3846801,329m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x882b32b2f83001bd:0x3da55734a5fb3bdf!8m2!3d43.742272!4d-79.3830382

Although I often find details in MainStreamMedia to be fictional frequently and unclear at best.

The above link doesn't seem to work for me now, so i put in Bayview Ridge at Bayview Avenue in Toronto.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And money/profit trumps 100-year-old trees:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/city-investigating-tree-cutting-north-023314
110.html?nhp=1

Looking at the street intersection on google maps, I see that the trees are not 100-year-old. But decide for yourself:
https://goo.gl/maps/G2Cyaxbxfz22
www.bayviewridgegate.com/

That image looks different than the googlemaps shot of Bayview Ridge and Bayview
Avenue in Toronto.

Although I often find details in MainStreamMedia to be fictional frequently and unclear at
best.

And that is why - the image you posted is the artist's presentation of how it will look AFTER THE
TREES ARE ALL MOWED DOWN AND REPLACED WITH BUILDINGS!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 5:32 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

And that is why - the image you posted is the artist's presentation of how it will look AFTER THE
TREES ARE ALL MOWED DOWN AND REPLACED WITH BUILDINGS!

If you had looked at google maps https://goo.gl/maps/G2Cyaxbxfz22 you would see that the "homes" start at $1.88 million. There are two buildings, each is a triplex to be built on the lot of an older single family dwelling. I guess the home squeezed in-between is the cheapest one because it only has windows on two sides. The others have windows on three. The trees cut down were just planted along the fence to shield the yards from Bayview Avenue. I can't count tree-rings from a google map, but I bet none of those trees are older than the houses that were torn down on the lot. All the houses are newer than 1950.

Then there is the sign that says statutory public meeting, city planner Guy Matthew, telephone #, blah-blah. I seriously doubt the builder just pissed on the city planner and cut down trees that should have stayed.
https://goo.gl/maps/K199FrGZwB72

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 5:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"The city said it is investigating after a developer cut down 30 trees, many of which were over 100 years old, on both sides of Bayview Ridge at Bayview Avenue.
Cassels said she asked the site manager if he had a permit and was told that he did. "I said, 'I can't believe the city would give you a permit to cut down so many trees,'" she told CBC.
Cassels said she contacted Coun. Jaye Robinson, who represents her ward, and was informed the developer didn't have a permit to cut down the trees."

By report, the various functions of the city don't seem to agree on reality.

Meanwhile, do developers ever cut down trees they're not permitted to cut down?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-brentwood-trees-chopped-20
160624-snap-story.html
Garcetti panel revokes building permits over illegal tree chopping
The Los Angeles Board of Public Works moved Friday to punish a developer that illegally cut down three trees in Brentwood, saying the move would send a message to property owners about flouting the city's urban forestry rules.
In 2014, landscaping crews took out most of those (39 permitted) trees. But they also ripped out two live oaks and a towering, decades-old California sycamore, all of which were supposed to be preserved. All three had “protected” status and required special permission for removal.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 5:51 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

By report, the various functions of the city don't seem to agree on reality.

Meanwhile, do developers ever cut down trees they're not permitted to cut down?

The phone book for Toronto City Planning:
https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Corporate%20Directory/File
s/PDF/Divisions/city_planning.pdf

Call them and tell them I sent you because you are outraged and demand answers even though you don't live in Toronto. Or Canada.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 6:07 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

" you are outraged and demand answers "

I personally expressed no ire because I personally know that the facts, though unresolved at this time, are all resolvable. It just takes someone to look at the permit. Either they had a permit to cut down all those trees, or they didn't. And either there were historic old trees, or there weren't.

But I can say it's POSSIBLE that a developer cut down trees they weren't permitted to cut down because it has happened. And I provided a link to document that event.

Now I'm going to wait and see if you've parted ways with all objectivity.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 6:52 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

I personally expressed no ire

I can express ire that the cheapest townhouse of the 6 being built sells for $1.88 million ( $1.44 million in US dollars).

The original complainer, Heather Cassels, is an absolutist who said "You got to start somewhere and tell the builders they can't be taking down trees." Heather is being inflexible about taking down no trees.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/developer-cuts-down-30-mature-trees-cit
y-says-no-permit-was-issued-1.3698290

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Call them and tell them I sent you because you are outraged and demand answers even though you don't live in Toronto. Or Canada."

NOW you're pretending that that post was about you being outraged at the cost of housing? "I can express ire that the cheapest townhouse of the 6 being built sells for $1.88 million ( $1.44 million in US dollars)." Really?

I see you insist on being in denial of the basic reality of even your own most recent history.

Meanwhile, it doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is about whether or not they 'think' those trees, or any trees, or all trees, should be cut down. Either the developer was permitted to cut down the trees, or not. That's a matter of fact easy enough to determine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I personally expressed no ire because I personally know that the facts, though unresolved at this time, are all resolvable. It just takes someone to look at the permit. Either they had a permit to cut down all those trees, or they didn't. And either there were historic old trees, or there weren't.

But I can say it's POSSIBLE that a developer cut down trees they weren't permitted to cut down because it has happened. And I provided a link to document that event.

(text revealed) Now I'm going to wait and see if you've parted ways with all objectivity.

You did.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
By report, the various functions of the city don't seem to agree on reality.

Meanwhile, do developers ever cut down trees they're not permitted to cut down?
The phone book for Toronto City Planning:
https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Corporate%20Directory/File
s/PDF/Divisions/city_planning.pdf

Call them and tell them I sent you because you are outraged and demand answers even though you don't live in Toronto. Or Canada.

Where is Brenda?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2016 10:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Do you see that ginormous boot slowly but inevitably swinging towards us?

That's the environment, and its kicking our ass except our timespan is too short to notice. That, and because 90% of Americans live in cities and have no idea what "the environment" is doing at any particular time, unless THEY get hit with a drought, flood, hurricane, or food shortage.

Catastrophes are happening all around us. The environment is about to flatten us, we just haven't noticed (yet).

Forces in the environment ... sun flares, earthquakes, viruses, climate change ... are so huge we can't even imagine them. They're beyond our sensible comprehension. So I would call the environment a lot of things.... inarticulate, complex, enormous, unpredictable .... but "weak" is not a word I'd choose. Far from it!

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2016 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Do you see that ginormous boot slowly but inevitably swinging towards us?

That's the environment, and its kicking our ass except our timespan is too short to notice. That, and because 90% of Americans live in cities and have no idea what "the environment" is doing at any particular time, unless THEY get hit with a drought, flood, hurricane, or food shortage.

Catastrophes are happening all around us. The environment is about to flatten us, we just haven't noticed (yet).

Forces in the environment ... sun flares, earthquakes, viruses, climate change ... are so huge we can't even imagine them. They're beyond our sensible comprehension. So I would call the environment a lot of things.... inarticulate, complex, enormous, unpredictable .... but "weak" is not a word I'd choose. Far from it!

Repercussions from Mother Nature may be great, but I was commenting upon the docile victim that environment usually plays when Humans choose to take advantage.

Ummmm. Defining "environment" as Sun Flares? Climate Change from the Sun Flares? Earthquakes? Are all of these also man-made?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 8:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Repercussions from Mother Nature may be great, but I was commenting upon the docile victim that environment usually plays when Humans choose to take advantage.

The problem is that people react to IMMEDIATE consequences: You grab something hot out of the fire, your hand gets burned. You reach for some woman's titties unasked who isn't your wife and your will probably get smacked. You fail to notice the lion and you might get killed. Humans are geared toward VERY short-term responses.

NATURE responds in long-term, complex ways. Because of the inherent robustness and feedbacks... the durability of the ecosphere ... it will keep on keeping on until it reaches critical thresholds, and then it will fail, piece by piece. At that point, we find out how powerful "the envionment" really is.

Quote:
Ummmm. Defining "environment" as Sun Flares? Climate Change from the Sun Flares? Earthquakes? Are all of these also man-made?

NONE of these are man-made. That's why they're the "environment" and not us.The component that is weak is us. The part of us that engages in long-term thinking. Or perhaps it is our grasp of reality that is weak. The Environment is extremely powerful, MUCH more powerful than us. We just haven't noticed. Yet.

I think my misunderstanding is that you mean, explicitly, that ARGUMENTS for the environment are weak. That in our socio-economic structure, arguing for "the environment" doesn't have much weight. In that case, you're right.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 11:07 AM

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF

Species across land, rivers and seas decimated as humans kill for food in unsustainable numbers and destroy habitats
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wild
life-in-40-years-wwf

CATTLE RANCHING'S IMPACT ON THE RAINFOREST
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm

It's real, and by now, irreversible. We've still got people like Siggy who believe the propaganda put out by big energy that denies the reality. We've got people evil enough to make that propaganda up in the first place. We're doomed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 12:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's real, and by now, irreversible. We've still got people like Siggy who believe the propaganda put out by big energy that denies the reality. We've got people evil enough to make that propaganda up in the first place. We're doomed.

Holy Christ, REAVERFAN! What the hell are you talking about?

WHAT "propaganda" do I believe about "big energy"?

I'm flabbergasted and, to be honest, quite angry that you would make shit up about me. AGAIN. Have you even READ my posts about global warming and climate change? About pollution and species loss? About what I do for a living? About the current "Plasticene" era?

That we need to start preparing for climate change NOW, by thinning our forests to prevent megafires, restoring habitats, creating interlinked wildlife corridors, and moving plants northward into areas that WILL be suitable for them in 50 years? How I have made our property a native, xeric wildlife haven, at no small expense? About corporations being able to "externalize" their costs to everyone else, including the future? About "the problem of the commons"? About the necessity of being able to create problem-solving structures as large as the problem itself? About how individual action, by itself, won't be enough to solve our environmental problems, that we need economic and political change?

That despite the fact that I KNOW that recycling and saving water and turning off lights and buying organic food doesn't by itself make a difference... I still do? If anyone who has been reading my posts for any length of time knows- or should know- is that I'm deeply and passionately for protecting our environment, and have been doing so in my work, political, and personal life for 45 years.

Or has your hatred of The Donald so consumed you that you're now arguing with the voices in your head which - in this case- are 180 deg away from reality?

If that's the case, I have a question for you: Who are the Koch Bros supporting, Hillary or Trump?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
It's real, and by now, irreversible. We've still got people like Siggy who believe the propaganda put out by big energy that denies the reality. We've got people evil enough to make that propaganda up in the first place. We're doomed.
Holy Christ, REAVERFAN! What the hell are you talking about?

WHAT "propaganda" do I believe about "big energy"?

I'm flabbergasted and, to be honest, quite angry that you would make shit up about me. AGAIN. Have you even READ my posts about global warming and climate change? About pollution and species loss? About what I do for a living? About the current "Plasticene" era?

That we need to start preparing for climate change NOW, by thinning our forests to prevent megafires, restoring habitats, creating interlinked wildlife corridors, and moving plants northward into areas that WILL be suitable for them in 50 years? How I have made our property a native, xeric wildlife haven, at no small expense? About corporations being able to "externalize" their costs to everyone else, including the future? About "the problem of the commons"? About the necessity of being able to create problem-solving structures as large as the problem itself? About how individual action, by itself, won't be enough to solve our environmental problems, that we need economic and political change?

That despite the fact that I KNOW that recycling and saving water and turning off lights and buying organic food doesn't by itself make a difference... I still do? If anyone who has been reading my posts for any length of time knows- or should know- is that I'm deeply and passionately for protecting our environment, and have been doing so in my work, political, and personal life for 45 years.

Or has your hatred of The Donald so consumed you that you're now arguing with the voices in your head which - in this case- are 180 deg away from reality?

If that's the case, I have a question for you: Who are the Koch Bros supporting, Hillary or Trump?

Are you asking ReaverFan that Koch question?
I am quite sure he will not get that answer correct. It is far too difficult to navigate the real world and his fantasyworld simultaneously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think my misunderstanding is that you mean, explicitly, that ARGUMENTS for the environment are weak. That in our socio-economic structure, arguing for "the environment" doesn't have much weight. In that case, you're right.

I am sorry, but it seems you and I have gotten off-track from each other. My intent for this thread was sympathetic to the environment, or Mother Nature. Those living things which live for thousands of years on Earth, and then are killed by human Environmentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)

I do not believe that arguments on behalf of the environment are weak, except when based upon junk science. The goal is laudable, the practice has become hype.

I was thinking for this thread of something like the Darwin Awards, except as applied to the environment instead of the miscreant human's own DNA portion of the gene pool.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If that's the case, I have a question for you: Who are the Koch Bros supporting, Hillary or Trump?

Sorry. I mixed your name up.

As for the Kochs, their pawn in this election is Pence. They own him completely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think my misunderstanding is that you mean, explicitly, that ARGUMENTS for the environment are weak. That in our socio-economic structure, arguing for "the environment" doesn't have much weight. In that case, you're right.

I am sorry, but it seems you and I have gotten off-track from each other. My intent for this thread was sympathetic to the environment, or Mother Nature. Those living things which live for thousands of years on Earth, and then are killed by human Environmentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)

I do not believe that arguments on behalf of the environment are weak, except when based upon junk science. The goal is laudable, the practice has become hype.

I was thinking for this thread of something like the Darwin Awards, except as applied to the environment instead of the miscreant human's own DNA portion of the gene pool.

Please show this "junk science." I stand ready to debunk what I know you'll say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 10:52 PM

I don't have time to read through this whole thread tonight, but I will say on the subject of trees that a satellite coverage survey was done on trees in Indiana and that we have actually GAINED about 10% in trees.

When you see what mama nature does with every storm around here, I don't mourn a tree or three... I don't get all the getting sentimental about trees anyway. Like us, they were born to die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2016 7:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't get all the getting sentimental about trees anyway.

They are the lungs of the planet. I'm not necessarily sentimental about my lungs, but I'd sure like to keep them around. Same goes for trees.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2016 7:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Blamey said that was largely based on geochemical measurements of marine sediments — located deep underwater, far from the atmosphere itself — combined with computer modelling, leaving lots of room for error and incorrect assumptions.

Huh.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2016 8:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

LINKS PLEASE? LINKS PLEASE?
ETA- Oh, I see where that came from.

Yanno RAPPY, you seem to think that any time anybody does any "modeling" or any "statistics" it falls into the realm of "junk science". JSF probably feels the same way.

First, let me explain what statistics are: A way of looking for associations (correlation) between categories of data, in a complex data set, or looking for trends in variable data. Unfortunately, much real-world data is both variable and complex.

Sometimes when "A" and "B" are associated it means that "A" causes "B", sometimes it means that "B" causes "A", sometimes both "A" and "B" are caused by "C", and sometimes it's just plain coincidence. For example, there is a robust correlation between smoking and lung disease. There is also a robust correlation between the number of babies born in the USA and the tons of imported bananas. When a correlation pops up, scientists go looking for the causal mechanism between one piece of data (smoking) and another (lung cancer).

The other way to uses statistics is to look for trends- is something increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? In that case, you have to look at data variability, because I can make the same measurement 20 times and get 19 slightly different answers, and one that's way off because I, or my measuring equipment, screwed up... or the thing that I'm measuring changed. So most data is assessed for it's repeatability, and there is an expected range of error - 95 out of 100 times, the result is expected to be within a certain range, assuming everything stays the same. But if your measurements start landing outside of that range more than 5 times out of 100, and it's always in the same direction, you REALLY need to look either at your measurement/sampling technique, or start thinking that what you are measuring is really changing.

Scientists are really good at being anal about their measurement techniques (We put the "anal" in "analysis"!), we are constantly comparing one technique to another (informally called "shootouts") and always thinking about "sampling error" (Is what we are looking at really changing, or are we just making our measurements in different places?)

Global temperature measurements - whether by satellite or on-the-ground stations or ocean-going measurement buoys all say the same thing ... the world is getting hotter and hotter, at well past the rate that has occurred in the historical past. Once you see a real trend, you should start looking for a cause.

In this case, there is a well-documented mechanism for increasing temperature: Carbon dioxide, which is a "greenhouse gas" (it lets sunlight in but doesn't let heat out) has been undeniably increasing in concentration over the past 100 years or so. So we have a trend (hotter), we have a correlation (carbon dioxide) and we have a mechanism (the wavelength absorption characteristics of carbon dioxide). It has all of the elements of the smoking-lung disease connection.

Yes, there are OTHER sources of variability, many of which scientists are already aware of. But most of these sources of variability act in LONG TERM, not over 50-100 years. The current rate of temperature change vastly exceeds anything measured geologically (except of course for catastrophes like very large meteor strikes or mega-volcanoes).

Now, what is a "model"? In simplest terms, it is a mathematical expression of the rate of change of something. A simple model describes acceleration caused by gravity. A slightly more complex model adds air resistance to that equation to predict "terminal velocity". An even more complex model predicts how a pandemic might spread under different conditions. A really complex model attempts to put ALL of the energy inputs and outputs into one equation to calculate future (or past) conditions, such as temperature or oxygen content.

The "science" comes in when people attempt to match their calculated results to reality. They then use those result to correct the model. By a successive measurements and model changes, scientists hope to get closer and closer to reality.

Now, hubby (who works with computer modelers all the time) has been keeping an eye on what the climate modelers are saying, and every time they "tweak" the model to match the data, it's towards MORE AND MORE EXTREME CHANGES. The climate models actually seem to be too conservative. They haven't been able to accurately predict the POSITIVE FEEDBACKS such as polar ice melting and methane release which cause temperatures to rise higher and more quickly than they expected.

So I hope this takes some of the mystery out of science. It doesn't ever have the final answer ... only religion pretends to do that ... but the answers that science DOES pose are constantly undergoing review and revision.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2016 12:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sorry. I mixed your name up.

I accept your apology.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2016 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I don't get all the getting sentimental about trees anyway.
They are the lungs of the planet. I'm not necessarily sentimental about my lungs, but I'd sure like to keep them around. Same goes for trees.

We got plenty of alveoli in this country, it's the rain forests that are gonna be toast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2016 8:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't get all the getting sentimental about trees anyway. _WISHI

They are the lungs of the planet. I'm not necessarily sentimental about my lungs, but I'd sure like to keep them around. Same goes for trees.- SIGNY

We got plenty of alveoli in this country, it's the rain forests that are gonna be toast. -WISHI

Then maybe we better grow some more here.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 5:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Yanno RAPPY, you seem to think that any time anybody does any "modeling" or any "statistics" it falls into the realm of "junk science". JSF probably feels the same way.

Did I SAY that ? Did I mention " junk science " anywhere ?

No. I just pointed out the very obvious, that actual, direct readings are often quite different than the garbage in-garbage out computer models which so many just LOVE to rely on concerning such matters.

You know the old saying in sports.. " Stats are for losers " ? Well, same applies to other areas as well. Stats can be padded to give almost any impression one wants.

That is all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I don't get all the getting sentimental about trees anyway.
They are the lungs of the planet. I'm not necessarily sentimental about my lungs, but I'd sure like to keep them around. Same goes for trees.

We got plenty of alveoli in this country, it's the rain forests that are gonna be toast.

Are you in America? If so, are you saying the deforestation of America creates no problem?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If that's the case, I have a question for you: Who are the Koch Bros supporting, Hillary or Trump?

Sorry. I mixed your name up.

As for the Kochs, their pawn in this election is Pence. They own him completely.

Yep, I knew he could not get the answer.
Plus, good thing Pence is running for President against Hilliary and Trump.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 10:10 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

" Stats are for losers "

Next time you post about GDP, or average income, summer temperatures, arctic sea ice, or any other statistic, economic, climatic, or otherwise - I'll remind you of that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are you in America? If so, are you saying the deforestation of America creates no problem?

No, I'm saying we're not the worst. I'm saying on the scale of things people wasting time over a few trees that will most likely be replanted and well cared for... is pointless. Housing complexes are great, it prevents urban sprawl and ultimately saves hundreds of trees. Acting like the sky is falling over a few trees when there are an estimated 3.04 TRILLION on the planet is a wee bit looney.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Are you in America? If so, are you saying the deforestation of America creates no problem?- JSF

No, I'm saying we're not the worst.

Oh yes, thank god we pass that low bar! "Not the worst". I think I'll have that carved that on my headstone!

Quote:
I'm saying on the scale of things people wasting time over a few trees that will most likely be replanted and well cared for... is pointless. Housing complexes are great, it prevents urban sprawl and ultimately saves hundreds of trees. Acting like the sky is falling over a few trees when there are an estimated 3.04 TRILLION on the planet is a wee bit looney.- WISHI

I think I don't know WHAT you're saying, because you jumped from trees in Canada to trees in Indiana to the Brazilian rainforest to global trees back to Canada again, all the while making a different point at each mental stop.

IF you're reacting to the woman's sentimentality over some trees, IMHO it kind of depends whether those trees really were 100 years old or not. Because 100-year old trees- well, they're not very common.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2016 7:35 PM

And then sometimes it can be cruel.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/323-reindeer-killed-bolt-lightning-130129095
.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2016 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think I don't know WHAT you're saying, because you jumped from trees in Canada to trees in Indiana to the Brazilian rainforest to global trees back to Canada again, all the while making a different point at each mental stop.

. Because 100-year old trees- well, they're not very common.

I never said ANYTHING about Canada, are you on drugs?

PS, I have two hundred year old trees in my backyard, as does my neighbor, and their neighbor. You couldn't shoot WITHOUT hitting a hundred year old tree here. Very VERY common.

The reindeer thing IS sad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:52 PM

I am conjuring a thread of "not the worst".

Other than cities, where are 100 year old tress not common?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Other than cities, where are 100 year old tress not common?

Deserts? Where ever there be regular fires?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 3, 2016 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And then sometimes it can be cruel.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/323-reindeer-killed-bolt-lightning-130129095
.html

I have heard tell that animals, even scavengers, will not eat a carcass which was killed by electrocution. So then these deer will provide a feast for bugs, insects I guess. With so many, I wonder if there will be an impact in the ecology or environment here. And if any Entomology study would be able to find anything new about this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:14 PM

And:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iconic-rock-formation-toppled-over-151031747
5823670.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 6:49 PM

And Obamination demands Congress give him more funding to kill billions more Honey Bees.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/millions-of-honey-bees-ki
lled-accidentally-by-zika-mosquito-spray/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/04/zika-mosquito-neur
otoxin-kills-bees-livelihoods-beekeepers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2020 2:11 PM