patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

government mandate.

Governments are developing goals just like the semiconductor roadmap. Government funding helped develop solar panels and efficient wind turbines. The energy industry did not do that on it's own. Trump hired Perry for the DOE for fuck's sake. Perry wanted to eliminate the DOE a few years ago. He had no idea what it did, but knew it funded research that could help put his oil buddies out of business one day. The Trump admin has proposed slashing science budgets across the board.

CBOEtrader says

The goal of most climate change researchers seems to be to give the goverment bodies more power to stifle innovation.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

The goal of climate scientists is to do exactly what you suggested they do: CBOEtrader says

Climate change itself is an extremely complex model. I do not study climate change but I do build models. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen without explaining the assumptions and range of variability of their predictions is lying to you (or just a bad scientist).

Climate scientists are explaining their assumptions and putting a range of variability based on those assumptions on their predictions.

A rational response to those models would be to fund innovative science research. The public response has been a big fuck you to those scientists. How you figure that climate scientists are trying to give government the power to stifle innovation is beyond me. Please explain.

The worst part of the hurricane is after, when it's 90F, 90% Humidity and no A/C.

That being said, Looks like it's not hitting Miami directly.

If so, it'll be 25 years since a major hurricane hit Miami, long overdue and not at all a sign of worsening weather. I remember around 2005 there were two that hit north of Miami but were Cat 2s.

Global cooling - the difference in the colder Atlantic water vs. the North African desert heat - is what makes hurricanes bad. Notice the 40s and 50s, during global cooling, had the most frequent and high strength hurricanes. Since the 70s, they've been less frequent and less powerful.


Warmer temperatures actually reduce the contrast between the Ocean and the Desert, reducing the frequency and power of hurricanes.

Invest in real estate along the Athabaska and Lena Rivers in the two countries with the most land mass that will surely benefit from Global Warming. All that sub-arctic turf, ready for growing seasons! There's a lot more potential arable land in Canada and Russia than along the Equator.

Go North, Young Man!
http://en.arkadia.com/gxgz-t33/

Obligatory:

I see that Irma is currently a category 3 Hurricane.

I also see that SEVENTY (70) category 4 hurricanes have terrorized the Gulf and Atlantic since 1950. ELEVEN (11) more were Category 5. If you value mathematics, you may notice that they average more than once every year, but that it has been uncharacteristically quiet for the past dozen years. Yep, Katrina was 12 whole years ago.

The categories of Katrina and Harvey were not the reason those two hurricanes were so devastating

null says

CO2 to pay their fair share?

what do you propose is a fair share?

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

@Patrick, this is exactly why you need to bring back ban, or at least perma-ban Shrek and all his alts. He adds nothing to a conversation and only seeks to derail each thread. What possible value is there in tolerating this troll?

YesYNot says

This is pretty close to mainstream right thinking:

I don't believe Hurricane Harvey is God's punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than "climate change." https://t.co/K7d7mopY5Q

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 29, 2017

A perfect example of why Ann Coulter is either a complete dumb ass or, more likely, a con artist taking advantage of complete dumb asses by saying and writing whatever they want to hear in order to make money off said dumb asses.

CBOEtrader says

Learn from Houston and leave.

If I were to learn from Texas, I'd think evolution was fake and god put dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. I don't think anyone was ever learned from Texas.

WookieMan says

Are you seriously sticking around?

Florida has a population of 20.61 million people, most in South Florida. It's impossible to evacuate even 10% of this. The roads simply won't handle that kind of traffic and the entire system would not move at all. And even if you could, all stations have been out of gas all week due to hording.

Sometimes hunkering down is the only viable option you have.

CBOEtrader says

We need a revolutionary technology that can replace gasoline in cars/tractors/planes or we're fucked.

Waiting for a technological miracle before taxing the shit out of greenhouse gases and using the revenue to fight pollution is just plain dumb. The world got a revolution in computing. It never got a revolution in energy. We don't have jet backs because of that. There is absolutely no reason to believe that anytime in the next century some miracle technology will provide ten times the energy we currently produce without pollution. This is a pipe dream.

If you believe in free markets at all, then either all pollution should be banned since it's theft or all pollution should be taxed for the cleanup of said pollution so that production that pollutes isn't subsidized by production that doesn't. The free market solution is to either ban or fully tax and then let the market react to how much coal we should burn. Do you not believe in free markets?

Furthermore, doing either of these things makes it much more likely that clean, high energy producing technology will be developed. The market does not allocate resources to develop technologies when massive subsidies, which is exactly what allowing pollution is, makes coal far cheaper to the producers. The fact that coal is far more expensive to society is irrelevant to those producing or those purchasing energy. Ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? You don't get effeciency without cooperation.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Skeptical Science: link between hurricanes and global warming

There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.

What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."

But this graph, also from the Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:


But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.

But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.

So there you have it. It's not about the number of storms. That's irrelevant because lots of small storms don't do shit damage anyway. It's about the severity of the storms. That's why we've been getting multiple one-in-500-years storms. The storms are getting worse, and all the evidence confirms this. The very laws of thermodynamics stated that this would happen. Hurricanes are heat engines. They feed on heat. I cannot dumb this down any further than that. Global warming is supercharging hurricanes like nitro does to cars.

@Patrick, looks like new image posts are broken. It looks like a URL redirect problem.

For example,
http: //patrick.net/uploads/2017/09/2217%3Ci%3Ebqbte00iuaaz3xu.png
gets mapped to
http: //patrick.net/postbytitle/content

anonymous says

TwoScoops - Along with the worst parts after the hurricane you mentioned above wait until those affected and not affected in Florida and probably every other state get hit with rate increases to keep the insurance companies "profitable" at the levels they are accustomed to.

I would run for Senate or State Gov under the "F Your Insulting My Intelligence with your Bullshit Party." or possibly the "ApocalypseFuck Party"

I'd say in the hearings "You fuckfaces got a long repreive without a serious Hurricane. How much of a REBATE are you going to offer customers, given you were gifted so many brilliantly profitable years between payouts, as mana from Heaven?"

It's amazing how nobody in the Media or in the State Legislature knows the most elementary facts about actuarial science.

Just wait until the Boomers start dropping and they start lying about THOSE payouts.

YesYNot says

CO2 to pay their fair share?

what do you propose is a fair share?

You're the one who wants to tax everyone out the wahoo to pay for this scam, you tell me what it should be.

null says

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean.

So, you're saying currently there is no warm ocean water in Asia and the Pacific and that's the reason there are no storms there now?

Did i miss your answer? Why aren't there multiple cyclones in Asia right now if global warming of the ocean causes these storms?

YesYNot says

Trump hired Perry for the DOE for fuck's sake. Perry wanted to eliminate the DOE a few years ago. He had no idea what it did, but knew it funded research that could help put his oil buddies out of business one day.

Not everything Trump does is bad. Perry helped to introduce wind turbines in TX. If you drive on I-10 in W Texas, the desert is covered with wind turbines. From wiki: Texas, with over 20,000 MW of capacity, had the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state at the end of 2016. Texas also had more under construction than any other state currently has installed. It is certainly conceivable that wind-power generating companies paid Perry off (and it is even very likely), but he is in no way against renewables and perhaps is not the worst DOE chief.

null says

Dan8267 says

Hurricanes are heat engines. Do you deny this? Global warming has greatly increase the heat in the ocean. Do you deny that? Where do you think hurricanes get their energy from? It's from the ocean.

So, you're saying currently there is no warm ocean water in Asia and the Pacific and that's the reason there are no storms there now?

Don't try to avoid answering my questions. Answer them first, then I'll answer your questions because I know you won't answer my questions otherwise.

You posted a statement containing extremely common knowledge and i gently reminded you of it so you could avoid such embarrassment in the future. Why do you hate being schooled by coservatives?
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

@Patrick, this is exactly why you need to bring back ban, or at least perma-ban Shrek and all his alts. He adds nothing to a conversation and only seeks to derail each thread. What possible value is there in tolerating this troll?

I thought you were an independent

Oh Shrek, only in your delusional mind are you smart or right about anything. You offer no value and warrant no respect. You are just an embarrassment to men.

If i say that then dan won't get triggered
joeyjojojunior says

I thought you were an independent

My prediction... If Trump's Mar-a-Lago property is damaged, he'll use taxpayer money to repair it.

Dan8267 says

this is exactly why you need to bring back ban

@Dan8267 the current plan is to have non-me moderators for specific topics. The moderator and his deputies can decide who can post in that topic. Want to be a moderator for some topic?

Dan8267 says

So there you have it. It's not about the number of storms. That's irrelevant because lots of small storms don't do shit damage anyway. It's about the severity of the storms. That's why we've been getting multiple one-in-500-years storms.

Sorry Dan, I don't believe this, just like I don't believe Siberia or the Canadian Shield will get colder.

Smart people can have biases, which is why Sabrina Erdley went looking for a rape victim and found one. Many Global Warming advocates go looking for every possible bad thing (and no compensatory good things) re: Warming. The fact that many years without a Cat 5 doesn't stop them, just like many universities before finding one false victim didn't stop Erdley, because "She knew she was right".

Cat 4-5 storms are less frequent.

Only controlling population is guaranteed to work. It will actually make individuals wealthier as the population shrinks, even if energy is reduced.


But there would be good sides to global warming, not just bad.

Dan8267 says

Don't try to avoid answering my questions. Answer them first, then I'll answer your questions because I know you won't answer my questions otherwise.

I figured you would run away and not answer the obvious.

But here's a quick hint for you. You want to know what causes the heat in the ocean, go look up into the sky during the day. See that fireball? That's your answer.

Now it's your turn.

Oh Dan you need to grow a pair. If your skin was any thinner you'd be a 'taint...

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

@Patrick, this is exactly why you need to bring back ban,

Patrick says

@Dan8267 the current plan is to have non-me moderators for specific topics. The moderator and his deputies can decide who can post in that topic. Want to be a moderator for some topic?

I'm guessing that by topic you mean a political division like a subreddit. This might work to some degree, but like reddit and its subreddits, each topic would be dominated by the moderators and their agenda. This is why I prefer thread-base rather than subdomain based moderation.

However, my main concern is that PatNet simply isn't big enough for the subdomain to work. Reddit has and estimated 234 million unique users. PatNet has maybe two or three dozen users who post and half of them are trolls. Maybe PatNet will grow if the trolls are off in their territory and not bothering others, but you still have a chicken and egg problem.

Still it's worth experimenting with. I don't think I'd be a very active moderator. I'd just kick out trolls and that's it. Maybe with a three strike system. Two warnings and then if a troll persists, ban. Having multiple moderators might help as well.

Dan8267 says

Patrick, looks like new image posts are broken. It looks like a URL redirect problem.

For example,
http: //patrick.net/uploads/2017/09/2217%3Ci%3Ebqbte00iuaaz3xu.png
gets mapped to
http: //patrick.net/postbytitle/content

Thanks for telling me. That particular file is just not found on the server, so the fallback is to try to look it up as if it were the title to a post, which of course also does not work.

But image upload in general still works:



Though your tip helped me find that there was a problem with underscores in urls converting content to italics, and therefore breaking the link. Ugh. It's all kind of a regexp nightmare: https://github.com/killelea/node.patrick.net/blob/master/node/patrick_net.js#L302

Hurricane Allen in 1980 was a nastier hurricane than Irma. Officially recorded 190 mph sustained winds. I was living in Houston.

Unlike Harvey which stalled as it hit land and continued dumping rain on the same patch of dirt for three more straight days, Allen did NOT stall out. It kept moving inland.
Instead of flooding we got nasty high winds a full 60 miles from the beach. I spent several months afterward fixing our garage roof and fences which were ripped out of the ground and wrapped around our neighbors swing sets.

I spoke with a friend who inherited his parent's house years later and still lives in that neighborhood in Houston. He told me there was no wind trouble at all with Harvey. Just that as the Hurricane hit land this time, for some reason, this time it stopped right there. Harvey just died right there on top of Houston, dumping tropical storm style rain on top of them for 80 more hours. He said the water got close to coming in his house, but didn't. But no wind trouble.

Storm surge and wind didn't almost get my friend's living room wet - 60 miles inland from the coast...the storm stopping and continuing to rain all in one area did. Hurricane Allen sure didn't stop when it hit land. It was like a tornado hitting the house for hours.

In the past 20 years, there's been an increase in tropical storms hitting Florida and gulf and a decrease in Hurricanes. How they move is still quite mysterious. I think many people in Houston, New Orleans, and Miami would vote that they need more money for Civil Engineers than Climate Scientists at this point.

deepcgi says

I think many people in Houston, New Orleans, and Miami would vote that they need more money for Civil Engineers than Climate Scientists at this point.

Agreed - well said.

Dan8267 says

If you believe in free markets at all, then either all pollution should be banned since it's theft or all pollution should be taxed for the cleanup of said pollution so that production that pollutes isn't subsidized by production that doesn't. The free market solution is to either ban or fully tax and then let the market react to how much coal we should burn. Do you not believe in free markets?

There is no functional way to implement this across 6 billion people on the planet. We'd end up with pockets of strict command and control in western Europe/Canada/US and some of asia. The rest of the world would never follow along. Even in the places where the "taxes" are enforced properly, it would devolve into childish fighting over the proper levels of taxation AND the revenues would go for Trans sex reassignment and other worthless societal endeavors.

Your solution is a professor's fantasy. No chance it would ever work in the real world.

null says

But here's a quick hint for you. You want to know what causes the heat in the ocean, go look up into the sky during the day. See that fireball? That's your answer.

That fireball does look kinda hot.

BlueSardine says

And for tomorrows lesson, we will go over the peculiarities of 2 + 2...

Aw c'mon man, don't start with the common core. This thread is already confusing enough.

Is this storm going to get up into Atlanta and fuck up the PGA Tour Championship? My man Jordan Spieth needs that 10 mil.

null says

Now it's your turn

Still waiting. Did the hurricane blow you away?

CBOEtrader says

There is no functional way to implement this across 6 billion people on the planet. We'd end up with pockets of strict command and control in western Europe/Canada/US and some of asia. The rest of the world would never follow along.

Your statement is empirically false. The rest of the world is already doing more than the U.S. Reality disproves your conjecture.

You must be very bad at business if you have a "we can't succeed" attitude. The people who are good at business are the ones who see paths to success and don't give up as easily as you have. There are no successful negative Nancies. Imagine if the founders of Google had your attitude. Have you learned nothing from the rise of the Information Age?

Dan8267 says

Hurricane Irma

"Among the many scenes of devastation coming out of areas flooded by Tropical Storm Harvey, images of floating rafts of [fire] ants have gone viral on social media.

The ants are common in the areas of the Southern United States that were hit by the floods. The floodwaters lift the ants from their anthills on the ground, and clinging together, they are capable of drifting for miles until they find dry land to re-establish a colony on.
***
Paul Nester, a Houston-based fire ants expert at Texas A&M's AgriLife Extension Service, has this primary advice: "Avoid, avoid, avoid." Give these rafts of ants a wide berth.
***
However, in a flood situation, there is an unexpected way to battle the balls of fire ants: spraying them with diluted biodegradable dishwashing liquid, at a ration of about two tablespoons of soap per gallon of water. The ants will slowly start to drown and die, Nester says.
***
Rafts of ants can also present problems to people navigating flooded areas by boat, Nester says. The floating colonies can "just kind of explode onto" boats, or climb onto paddles.

As rescue efforts continue, he warns that floating fire ants rafts will often take refuge in debris piles. That can be dangerous for people working to clean up and rebuild.

If you find yourself covered in fire ants, Nester says you should avoid jumping into water or trying to hose them off. The water just makes the ants cling to your body even harder, and it can make them more likely to sting you.

"We really recommend that people just brush them off to the best of their ability," he says."

Dan8267 says

The rest of the world is already doing more than the U.S.

Um, wrong. That's an empirically false statement, and you backed it up with absolutely nothing. It's an established FACT that the USA leads the world in carbon emissions reduction and has for a decade. No other nation comes close! We also lead the world in alternative energy production, not to mention we are the the source of all alternative energy technology. I'd say the USA is the absolute BEST country for helping to curb greenhouse gas! It's the rest of the world that needs to catch up!

Quigley says

It's an established FACT that the USA leads the world in carbon emissions reduction and has for a decade

Ah yes the IER report. Funded by the oil industry. Fracking and the collapse of the use of coal for natural gas is the main cause of reduction in carbon emissions not any kind of national policy or effort. The US still has among the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. Only the middle east oil states are higher. The US is still the second highest carbon emissions country in the world. Most of the rest of the first world has had carbon emissions per capita of half or a third of the US for decades. If the US lowered emissions per capita by 50% it would still be higher than the EU if the EU didn't do anything. Leading? I think not, more like trailing badly and trying to catch up to where other people have been for a long time. We are not very good in an economic efficiency either. The US GDP per ton of carbon emissions is way down the charts, ranking 80th in the world.

Quigley says

We also lead the world in alternative energy production

Really? I don't think so.

Dan8267 says

Your statement is empirically false. The rest of the world is already doing more than the U.S. Reality disproves your conjecture.

Where? And how do you define "more" and "rest of the worlds"?

Your grossly oversimplified statements sound more like an ideology, more like a fundamentalism, than science. It makes skeptics run from your cause. If your goal is to make people disagree w you, your approach is a case study in how to do that.