Archives for the month of: December, 2017

~
Side note: I started young with this, just like with YEC. I started speaking out against YEC notions when I was only in grammar school, in the ’70s. I started speaking out against global warming (similar in many regards) in the ’80s. I’ve done more homework over the years. If I seem a bit curt a times, know that I’ve been there, done that, and answered it before, studied it over and over, tried to understand the contrary view, yet I keep coming back to reality. We live on a very stable watery planet, and it has been remarkably stable for an unimaginably long time, under many and varied conditions, with extraordinary perturbations and long-term changes. And, yes, I love my grandchildren, and theirs, and theirs too. I am doing my best to leave them something worth having. I’m quite confident that will make the most of it.

Watts Up With That?

By Andy May

This is the seventh and last post in my series on the hazards of climate change. In this post we examine the effects of climate change on glaciers and sea level rise. The first six examined the effect of humans on the environment, the effect of the growing human population, climate change and the food supply, the cost of global warming, the effect of man and climate change on extinctions, climate (or weather) related deaths, and extreme weather and climate change.

Source: Mike Lester

The IPCC AR5 report has the following to say about the risks of sea-level rise:

“Risks increase disproportionately as temperature increases between 1°–2°C additional warming and become high above 3°C, due to the potential for a large and irreversible sea level rise from ice sheet loss. For sustained warming greater than some threshold [Current estimates indicate that this…

View original post 4,414 more words

Advertisements

~
Frankly, I don’t understand why this isn’t the standard, the consensus. We live on a water planet. The water self-regulates with clouds, et al.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Reflecting upon my previous post, Where The Temperature Rules The Sun, I realized that while it was valid, it was just about temperature controlling downwelling solar energy via cloud variations. However, it didn’t cover total energy input to the surface. The total energy absorbed by the surface is the sum of the net solar energy (surface downwelling solar minus surface reflections) plus the downwelling longwave infrared, or DWIR. This is the total energy that is absorbed by and actually heats the surface.

According to the CERES satellite data, globally, the solar energy absorbed by the surface averages 162 W/m2. The downwelling longwave averages 345 W/m2. Conveniently, this means that on average the earth’s surface absorbs about a half a kilowatt per square meter on an ongoing basis. (And no, I have no interest in debating whether downwelling longwave radiation actually exists. It’s been measured…

View original post 1,722 more words

~
“There are only (roughly) ten thousand practitioners of applied meteorology in the US, yet they have produced vast savings in money and lives.”

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: Today’s post reviews a fun book about some of the systems that make us safe — but which we too often ignore or even mock. The headline is exaggeration for effect (progress has been beyond what most people would imagine a century ago, with more to come – but we’ll never fully “tame” nature).

Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the WeatherAvailable at Amazon.

Review of Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather.

The true story of how science tamed the weather.

By Mike Smith (2010).

Warnings tells a well-written and exciting story about natural disasters, the progress of science, and the workings of America’s bureaucracy. It is a story about the advances in meteorology (one of the many technologies which makes our world run) and a government service (the National Weather Service). Many Americans are oblivious or contemptuous of…

View original post 927 more words

~
Seems important enough to repeat.

Watts Up With That?

Brief Note from Kip Hansen

roundup_smOn December 18, 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a paper titled “Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential” as part of a larger release of its latest findings on glyphosate, the main active ingredient in the world’s most used weed killer, Monsanto’s Roundup.
The revised issue paper was part of a larger timed release of a number of EPA statements on the 18th December.

The finding?

“For cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors “carcinogenic to humans”, “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, or “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential”. For the “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data, the database would not support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for “not likely to be…

View original post 380 more words

I’ve been listening to Jordan Peterson @JordanBPeterson #JordanBPeterson, an activity I highly recommend, and he often mentions the big five personality characteristics. His comments suggest I’m high in openness. So, I have been looking into it, and four online tests each rated me medium-high to high in openness.

One of the online tests had other tests, one being “morality.” I took that test too.

I didn’t think the questions were thoroughly thought through, but it seemed legit enough. Here is the oddity, while ~31% liberal and ~68% conservative didn’t surprise me, being listed as low in openness (being listed as quite closed minded) did surprise me. Perhaps there is some prejudice involved.

That will be on my mind for a while.

~
The proposals implied here are simply evil.

We might as well call these efforts Borg 1.0.

Resistance is not futile.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to advocates the “AI For Earth” is here to help – but human Behaviour must Change to save the planet.

Microsoft is Expanding “AI for Earth” Program to Fight Climate Change

WRITTEN BY
Christianna Reedy

IN BRIEF

Microsoft is expanding its “AI for Earth” program with a $50 million investment over the next five years. This could yield new artificial intelligence applications to enable scientists, businesses, and even farmers to better protect the environment.

AN AI INVESTMENT

The tech giant Microsoft is deploying artificial intelligence to the task of protecting our planet.  Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and chief legal officer, announced on Dec. 11 that the company would be investing $50 million in their AI for Earth program over the next five years in order to “monitor, model, and manage the Earth’s natural systems.”

“AI can be trained to classify raw data from…

View original post 476 more words

~
I’m repeating because this is the kind of thing I’d do, or even say. Anyway, it is cool that they exhale before diving. They don’t want pressure on their lungs (due to depth) to cause problems, and their systems have lots of reserve oxygen. (We don’t.)

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Mike Jonas

The UK’s public broadcaster, the BBC, reported on 7 December 2017 that:

Narwhal escape: Whales freeze and flee when frightened

Scientists who fitted heart rate-monitoring tags to Arctic narwhals have discovered a strange paradox in how the animals respond to threats.

When these tusked whales are frightened, their hearts slow, but at the same time they swim quickly to escape.

Scientists say the response could be “highly costly” – because they exert themselves with a limited blood supply.

The findings are published in the journal Science.

They raise questions about how the enigmatic “unicorns of the sea” will cope with increasing human intrusion on their Arctic habitat.

Historically, narwhals have not come into contact with much human disturbance, because they live mainly hidden among Arctic sea ice. But in recent decades, as the ice has declined, this is changing.

“Shipping and exploration for oil and…

View original post 540 more words

~
The good news is well documented. It is getting hard to believe so many stay so worried. In my opinion, we Westerners have so many problems and fears because we have no real problems.

Watts Up With That?

By Andy May

This is the first of seven posts on the potential costs and hazards of human-caused global warming and the impact of humans on the environment in general. The IPCC WGII AR5 Technical Summary, defines “hazards” on page 39:

“The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and environmental resources. In this report, the term hazard usually refers to climate-related physical events or trends or their physical impacts.”

Do humans harm the environment? If we assume humans are causing most of the current global warming, is the warming dangerous? If we are dangerous to the environment, should we limit our population in some way? If global warming is potentially dangerous, and we assume human CO2

View original post 5,008 more words

Sex is natural. Sex is as important, and as natural, as breathing and eating.

But sex is so much more.
Sex is part of each of us. It is part of what we are. Our mental state, our psyche includes sex.
That is why it is so personal.
That is why it is so important.
Sex makes up a part of our very soul. Deny its importance at your own peril.
More importantly, deny its importance to your partner, and you become responsible for an increase in evil in the world.
Yes, if you carelessly, inconsiderately, involve another in your sex, you are hurting them. You are causing pain and increasing suffering. That is evil. Don’t be evil.
Frankly, sex is sacred. Sure, being so natural, there is a fair bit of liberty many can take with little ill effect, but not all. Not all! Some people can’t, and you really don’t want to be the one who contributes to that person’s suffering.
Don’t take advantage of people.
Your sex is between you and your partner and god. (Yes, I’m not defining god, here, beyond the divine spark within you. That is god as you must deal with, god as you must answer to in those quite moments, those dark moments. You know I’m right even if you claim to believe in no particular god.)
Your sex is nobody else’s business. Frankly, if society can’t handle the several exceptions, society needs to improve. As long as most of us accept sex as properly natural and properly sacred, and we act with faithfulness and integrity toward one another, especially with our partners, things will stay good for society overall.
No need to fear those who don’t follow the old rules. Integrity and honor. We need that. We suffer together societal when integrity and honor slip.
Who doesn’t hurt with these victims of sexually related improprieties? Who isn’t angry with the perpetrators? Who doesn’t want punitive action against those who’ve abused their positions, power, and authority?
Know that you have a higher duty when it comes to sex. It isn’t just a base instinct. It isn’t a simple hunger. Read the Proverbs and the wisdom of so many other cultures. Sex is a big deal. Don’t take it lightly. Never abuse it. Ensure you have developed trust and know you have consent. Otherwise, run away. What did Jesus say? Gouge out your eye? I hope no one goes to that extreme, but extreme measures of restraint on you, your own part are warranted whenever sex, even simple sexual implications, are involved. Don’t be promiscuous. Don’t be evil.
Respect!
God we need more respect, more integrity, more honest consideration.
%d bloggers like this: