Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[RPDBlueMoon]

Hello; I may be off track and apologize ahead of time if any of you who post in this thread are actual climate scientists. I get that Gore and Gretta are celebs and are just parroting the actual climate scientists work. Is this not the same thing many of you on this thread have been doing?
If you have done original work it might be helpful to point this out when you post.

Not clear to me if Mr. Gore was citing different scientists than you guys do. Back a decade or few he made some claims which have been proved incorrect. I am fairly sure Greta is using stuff from current scientists. I have watched some PBS TV programs featuring Greta recently.

For your sakes I do hope you have not been citing the same scientists that Gore did. Such would make your sources questionable. I get we are not supposed to question the findings any more, but it is experiences with Mr. Gore and others like him which do make it tough to not have some doubts.

I do not question some warming is being recorded currently so am not going there. I mostly question the notion that human activity is the greater part of the cause of this warming. That leads to questions of what will be the value of the somewhat drastic changes in lifestyles will be. Not going to get into that right now.

I can't speak for others but that is not what I have been doing. I have been working in a lab that focuses on global change biology in the ocean. It is also a ecology lab meaning that the effects of the change on the ecosystem and the psychological responses are examined. The PI is a member of the Ocean Protection Council for the state and has contributed to the National Climate Assessment report in regards to ocean acidification.

I have been doing my work under the guidance of a graduate student that examines the impact of marine heatwaves in the intertidal zone. I will be presenting my project (via poster/presentation) at a marine biology conference next month. I have not personally done a project with ocean acidification, however I have helped other students with their projects (research is collaborative), such as testing larva development with different levels of pH or temperature and examining the response. Invertebrates such as mussels and sea urchins are perfect to study for this as they can't regulate their own temperature (ectotherms/coldblooded) so they are vulnerable and respond quickly. They also have a fast generation change over rate so you can see the changes faster. None of the stuff coming out of the lab are predications. I don't follow Gore or Gerta so I don't know who they cite but I can promise you its not anyone from our community.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

I can't speak for others but that is not what I have been doing. I have been working in a lab that focuses on global change biology in the ocean. It is also a ecology lab meaning that the effects of the change on the ecosystem and the psychological responses are examined. The PI is a member of the Ocean Protection Council for the state and has contributed to the National Climate Assessment report in regards to ocean acidification.

I have been doing my work under the guidance of a graduate student that examines the impact of marine heatwaves in the intertidal zone. I will be presenting my project (via poster/presentation) at a marine biology conference next month. I have not personally done a project with ocean acidification, however I have helped other students with their projects (research is collaborative), such as testing larva development with different levels of pH or temperature and examining the response. Invertebrates such as mussels and sea urchins are perfect to study for this as they can't regulate their own temperature (ectotherms/coldblooded) so they are vulnerable and respond quickly. They also have a fast generation change over rate so you can see the changes faster. None of the stuff coming out of the lab are predications. I don't follow Gore or Gerta so I don't know who they cite but I can promise you its not anyone from our community.

Hello; Early on I wanted to go into marine biology. Did not work out but I did go into biology.
Saw a PBS program about coral recently. Turns out some coral can stand warmer temps. Not clear just how warm they can stand, but makes sense.

There have been past episodes of warming so if the corals survived those there must have been mechanisms of some sort. Could be traits which will be expressed as waters warm or could be corals will move into previously too cool areas as they warm up.
I get this will not please some who do not wish to see coral reefs gone from their current locations. Such has been the course of things for life over the long term.

You may find there is a critical stage of life for the animals studied. I keep tropical fish and have for decades. There is a parasite called ich or ick. It shows up as white spots on the fish. A bad infestation looks like the fish has been sprinkled with salt.
The parasite is tough. The eggs are hard to kill and the adult parasite is hard to kill. By hard to kill I mean in a way that will not also kill fish at the same time. For a log time we could just turn up the heaters in a tank to the mid 80's F or so. When the eggs hatched the first free swimming larvae would die. It would take weeks to be rid of the parasite.

Lately I have been reading of a strain of the parasite which can survive the high temps. So we use a sufficient amount of salt in addition to the heat. The salt has to be concentrated enough to mess with the osmotic pressure of the larvae and kill it. The heat causes the life cycle of the eggs and parasite to speed up so you get a greater number of generations in the same time.

It will not be a surprise to learn many living things have a mechanism within their genetic code or their behavior history they can use to survive warmer and/or more acidic water. Just to be more clear, in a population perhaps only a few percent will be physically able to deal with the higher temps or greater acidity. Could be 80% to 90% will die.
Those few who can take the heat and do survive long enough to reproduce have a somewhat greater chance to have offspring which also can take the heat. Maybe only 60% of their offspring die from the heat and next generation only 50 % die from the heat.

Think of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I suspect this recent pandemic may have encouraged the advance of such resistant bacteria. Some were going to extremes of disinfecting surfaces. There is a reason the labels say a product will kill 99.99% of virus or bacteria. Odds are some few bacteria will survive. The longer you use hand sanitizers and wipes on surfaces the better the odds a resistant strain will become dominant.
I did not use hand sanitizers during the pandemic. I used dawn dish soap in a dispenser and just washed my hands when I first came into my home.

 

[Qcman17]

A charging station set up like an old drive in theater. You pull in and park in a slot to charge. Since it will take a while you could perhaps watch a movie or take a nap or maybe they could have some paint you could put on a board and you could watch it dry.

I have a better idea..... Lets set them up in front of Brothels and the EV owner could amuse themselves while the car charged assuming of course the technology had advanced to the point a car could be charged in 30 seconds.........

 

[sk47]

I have a better idea..... Lets set them up in front of Brothels and the EV owner could amuse themselves while the car charged assuming of course the technology had advanced to the point a car could be charged in 30 seconds.........

Hello; The joke was the 30 seconds right? It takes longer than that to fill up with gas. I do see how the idea could be popular.
I imagine the thinking so far has been you would drive to work and have a charge station there. Would not work for me. I sometimes drive to Knoxville TN about 50 to 60 miles away depending on where you go. I then drive around to a few places and back to home so 200 miles might do the job. When I lived in Harlan County KY it was easy over 300 miles round trip.

Might not be good to have charge stations at bars.

Lets say a rapid charge takes 30 to 45 minutes. I need a place where I can spend quality time.

 

[HiTekExec]

I understand he did that for the same reason I did. Makes sure an otherwise well earned Darwin award won't add insult to injury.

Never said I was sterile or snipped; that was some ass making crap up again.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Hello; Early on I wanted to go into marine biology. Did not work out but I did go into biology.
Saw a PBS program about coral recently. Turns out some coral can stand warmer temps. Not clear just how warm they can stand, but makes sense.

There have been past episodes of warming so if the corals survived those there must have been mechanisms of some sort. Could be traits which will be expressed as waters warm or could be corals will move into previously too cool areas as they warm up.
I get this will not please some who do not wish to see coral reefs gone from their current locations. Such has been the course of things for life over the long term.

You may find there is a critical stage of life for the animals studied. I keep tropical fish and have for decades. There is a parasite called ich or ick. It shows up as white spots on the fish. A bad infestation looks like the fish has been sprinkled with salt.
The parasite is tough. The eggs are hard to kill and the adult parasite is hard to kill. By hard to kill I mean in a way that will not also kill fish at the same time. For a log time we could just turn up the heaters in a tank to the mid 80's F or so. When the eggs hatched the first free swimming larvae would die. It would take weeks to be rid of the parasite.

Lately I have been reading of a strain of the parasite which can survive the high temps. So we use a sufficient amount of salt in addition to the heat. The salt has to be concentrated enough to mess with the osmotic pressure of the larvae and kill it. The heat causes the life cycle of the eggs and parasite to speed up so you get a greater number of generations in the same time.

It will not be a surprise to learn many living things have a mechanism within their genetic code or their behavior history they can use to survive warmer and/or more acidic water. Just to be more clear, in a population perhaps only a few percent will be physically able to deal with the higher temps or greater acidity. Could be 80% to 90% will die.
Those few who can take the heat and do survive long enough to reproduce have a somewhat greater chance to have offspring which also can take the heat. Maybe only 60% of their offspring die from the heat and next generation only 50 % die from the heat.

Think of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I suspect this recent pandemic may have encouraged the advance of such resistant bacteria. Some were going to extremes of disinfecting surfaces. There is a reason the labels say a product will kill 99.99% of virus or bacteria. Odds are some few bacteria will survive. The longer you use hand sanitizers and wipes on surfaces the better the odds a resistant strain will become dominant.
I did not use hand sanitizers during the pandemic. I used dawn dish soap in a dispenser and just washed my hands when I first came into my home.

Im actually a biology major. You actually don't want to choose a specialized major as a undergrad (I've been told this and I can see why) with biology. Its better to be a bio major because you have the freedom to dab in the different disciplines (like ecology or molecular bio and then microbiology, neurobiology, genetics) and see what you like. When you are majoring in Microbiology you have a strict schedule and can't choose anything outside of it. Graduate schools don't really care about your major anyways. As a biology major you have more freedom in your classes. A bio major can take the same classes as a microbio major. They care about your research experience and the classes you took. I wanted to be a Microbiologist but I jumped shipped immediately after almost failing genetics lol. Conceptually it was much easier for me to understand ecology, rather than molecular biology (stuff like Neurobiology, or biochemistry).

Corals are interesting. Corals have co-evolved a symbiotic relationship with a distinct type of algae (bacteria) called Symbiodinium (Zooxanthellae). It can get confusing because taxonomically there's like 5 different words to describe them. Corals and Symbiodinium exchange nutrients, when the temperature increases the photosynthetic rate goes down and there is an imbalance in the realtionship, so the corals expel their Symbiodinium. This is how coral bleaching happens. There is debate if the realtionship is mutualistic (both benefit) or mutualistic obligate (both benefit but they depend on each other for survival) because the coral can temporarily survive without the Symbiodinium but it will eventually die. They are heat stressed, so think of people going throw a famine, their body is weak and can easily die from a scratch as their body is in a state of stress. Different species (and populations) have distinct types of Symbiodinium called clades. Symbiodinium D can still perform photosynthesis (the rate actually increases, but plateaus) at higher temps. The other clades (there's A B C D) have varying rates but Symbiodinium D is the most resistant to heat. I don't remember all of the locations but it is found in the Red Sea and somewhere in the Caribbean I think. So you are both wrong and right, because what you are describing a more complex process. I should also note that the temperature isn't the only threat to corals. Corals are in a battle with another type of algae, parrot fish and surgeon fish (and others) keep the levels down, if they are removed then the algae will take over and the whole ecosystem will collapse. Corals are a foundation species and support a whole wide range of organisms (bio diversity is good because it creates species richness which makes the ecosystem resistant to disturbances). Also on a side note, bleaching events can change the Symbiodinium makeup in the community, in the Caribbean there was a big bleaching even in the 80s and the corals changed from Symbiodinium C to Symbiodinium B (I think im wrong on the clades but it wasn't D but the composition changed afterwards)

That is right but it really depends on what organism you are talking about, because things get really complex because everything is interconnected. There are organisms who can tolerate the heat and acidification but will suffer the consequences from it, these are called cascading effects. Krill/Plankton are a keystone species because they are basically the food source for a whole bunch of organisms in the ocean. Larger organisms like whales can withstand the effects, however their food source cannot (as you mentioned there are critical stages where an organism is most vulnerable, krill and plankton are vulnerable to fluctuations with pH and temperature). This means that their resource is gone which is bad news. Even if the organism survives it won't it will last long due to the destruction of its ecosystem. Everything is connected and if keystone species and foundation species get wiped out than the ecosystem will collapse. There was a heat wave off in the western coast of the North America in the Pacific ocean that lasted from 2014 all the way into 2016 (currently studying the impact of it on the intertidal zone). It's called the "Blob" and it did alot of damage, it wiped out a bunch of starfish which is bad as some species are a keystone species for the intertidal zone. There was the first coral bleaching event in Hawaii which is no surprise. The heatwave came back in 2019 and Im pretty sure its still raging on, it isn't as hot as the previous one I believe which is actually sad

From my work at the two sties I have been working with, I discovered that the average maximum temperature was higher in the past. Now the average maximum temperature is lower but the average daily temperature is higher which means that the organisms (I am working with mussels) are being exposed to a consistent higher temperature meaning that they are in a constant state of heat stress. There is discussion about how the organisms responds (mRNA expression) to short intense bursts of high heat or a sustained level of low heat. The physiological responses are being studied. The graduate student that I am piggy backing my project off of is looking into that.

 

[Chef jpd]

Do whatever you can to save those mussels.
One of my favorite dishes......

 

[CJJon]

Do whatever you can to save those mussels.
One of my favorite dishes......

Made some just yesterday! Minus the frites though. Oh and I had mine for mains, that is an appetizer!

 

[martinjlm]

Yes. But not the blow up in your face part.

I would much rather have a Hadron blow up in my face than have a Hardon blow up in my face.

 

[DougS550]

You don't get it. The climate changes all the time. Your religion is believing we have some large control over that. I don't think we do. I don't think we have the scientific understanding to know what effect we are having on the planet. We are shitting on this planet and acidifying the oceans. We need to stop but the reality is just the population/CO2 growth from Africa by 2050 will offset anything the 1st world can do to cut emissions.

I also believe there is a vested interest in making sure the data lines up with the mainstream narrative of climate change. The government data falls into that category. Trillion of dollars are lined up to (somehow) fight this "Emergency". So yes I think the religion around climate change is thinking somehow if you pour enough money on it somehow the planet will be saved.

It is the perfect scam though. If it rises we didn't do enough and if it actually goes down it was a success. It doesn't really matter what causes it(like the sun).




If you cared about your kids future you would be rioting in the street over the massive money that has been printed not global warming. Look at some projections on that. Your grandchildren ability to have shelter in 2100 might be slightly more important. House prices grew at 18% in the past year. Bargain to guess how much a house will be in 2100?

Something tells me they won't be worried about global warming.

You have to remember. The people who are so dead fast that humans are evil to our planet don't watch or read the same news. They are force fed Propaganda lies and told to confront all people with different views and call them liers, racist what ever their flavor of the day is. Scientist have determined our earth has been going through climate changes for billions of years. Everyone I am sure care about our planet, but you have to be realistic that the companies making billions off of the Very Much, Environmentally Hazardous/ Dangerous non Earth Friendly Solar panels and wind mills are in it for the money, mostly paid for by the US Tax Payers. "O" did I mention how Environmentally friendly towards the air and Oceans China, India are?

 

[Qcman17]

You have to remember. The people who are so dead fast that humans are evil to our planet don't watch or read the same news. They are force fed Propaganda lies and told to confront all people with different views and call them liers, racist what ever their flavor of the day is. Scientist have determined our earth has been going through climate changes for billions of years. Everyone I am sure care about our planet, but you have to be realistic that the companies making billions off of the Very Much, Environmentally Hazardous/ Dangerous non Earth Friendly Solar panels and wind mills are in it for the money, mostly paid for by the US Tax Payers. "O" did I mention how Environmentally friendly towards the air and Oceans China, India are?

 

[sk47]

You have to remember. The people who are so dead fast that humans are evil to our planet don't watch or read the same news. They are force fed Propaganda lies and told to confront all people with different views and call them liers, racist what ever their flavor of the day is. Scientist have determined our earth has been going through climate changes for billions of years. Everyone I am sure care about our planet, but you have to be realistic that the companies making billions off of the Very Much, Environmentally Hazardous/ Dangerous non Earth Friendly Solar panels and wind mills are in it for the money, mostly paid for by the US Tax Payers. "O" did I mention how Environmentally friendly towards the air and Oceans China, India are?

Hello; To be true to a code or belief can be seen as noble. I can admire someone being willing to go all the way for a belief. That some who are committed to the "green revolution" (which includes human induced climate change) are willing to sacrifice all for the cause is very possible. That they are willing to drag the rest of us along kicking and screaming is also possible.
That even if we in a single country do everything requested, then it will not matter because so many other people and countries will not do the same. That the sacrifice will amount to little or nothing does not seem to play well in their scenario.
Yes there is money involved. Almost always is.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I agree with the greenies that humans are the scum of the earth. But get suspicious when they are hell bent to do whatever it takes to maintain the climate status quo instead of doing the honorable thing by becoming extinct.

 

[sk47]

I agree with the greenies that humans are the scum of the earth. But get suspicious when they are hell bent to do whatever it takes to maintain the climate status quo instead of doing the honorable thing by becoming extinct.

Hello; I have been thinking of an analogy for this climate issue. I knew a Doctor who continued to smoke after some lobes of his lung were removed. I get comparing an addictive thing such as tobacco to climate has serious flaws. Perhaps the way to look at it is that to his mind the damage was already done. That it was too late to stop smoking and turn things around in terms of his health. Again I admit a poor comparison.
The thing I see as comparable is that it seems much too late to do much good. Lots of reasons even a drastic change in lifestyles will not make much of a difference at all. To me it is the sheer number of people alive being a big driver. If billions of people do reduce pollution , there will still be lots of impact simply because of the numbers.
Saw a report a while back that food production relies on artificial fertilizers and other such modern farming methods to the tune of feeding two billion people. That means if we somehow did not have the factory made fertilizers and such along with the big machinery, there could not be enough food produced by old school methods. It was not clear to me if the transport side of getting food to people was included, but I do not think it was.

My best guess at this point is there will not be a way to replace the farm machinery, big rig trucks, trains, barges and ocean going ships in the next ten years or so. All these things run on fossil fuel currently. On top of this it keeps being mentioned that other countries around the world do not have the capacity nor the inclination to join in the "green new deal" sort of movement being pushed onto us in my country.
I guess we could be the brite shinning example for the rest of the world in the eyes of the "true believers". We could set the example for other to follow sort of thing. We could damage our economy and such just to set the example. There is a catch I think.

The military of the USA for example has been cite d as the greatest user of fossil fuels ever. I am not seeing much about this in the stuff about going to the EV's and doing away with ICE. I guess the military could have some EV's in their inventory, but I question just how much.
I read books and from books about military operations I have seen a particular practice. Jets which land on aircraft carriers will sometimes dump thousands of pounds of fuel into the air before landing on the deck of the carrier. I do get it. It is so very much safer to have less of the fuel on the plane at landing. Then there is the normal use of fuel in regular operations. Somehow I do not see or hear much from the "green" spokes people about this.
I can imagine being stalled on the side of the road with a dead EV and watching a military convoy roll past. But I have too much imagination I guess.

 

[pyrophilus]

Because if the source is questionable it should be.

What do you mean "sign of our times" Thats literally what I was taught in school in the 90's. You ALWAYS question the source.

Exactly!

Some people are born thinking like a scientist (and no, I don't mean wearing labcoats and having a Ph.D.), but the scientific (and engineering) thinking is something that can be learned, but many people (including people who are certified scientists, and people who are self-proclaimed science-y) can't do it.

The nature of science is that when a person is confronted with a scientific idea, they should:
1. Look at it with a healthy amount of disbelief
2. Try to disprove YOUR dis-belief, and when you failed to disprove your disbelief of what was told to you, then you should accept what was said, UNTIL
3. More/new experimental data is now able to support your original dis-belief.

I can't believe it, but it was an actual course that was taught to 1st year grad students. But I guess this isn't any different than seeing a medical ethics course being offered at med schools.

But anyway, yes, to even begin this process we are supposed to ALWAYS question the source.

Interestingly, even in the scientific community, there are quite a few journal publications that have very limited (or no) peer reviews.

"The sign of these times" is actually me trying to teach students that the internet is like the tabloid section at the grocery store. There are a ton of sites that should be treated like how we should treat the National Enquirer, and then there are websites that are editorial, which means they are opinions, not necessarily based on facts, and then there are sites that are like Popular Engineering, where the articles are very loosely based on a SINGLE, questionable "science" publication, which oftentimes turns out to be non-peer reviewed. So when students find "information" on the internet, they should treat it like if they are reading it off the National Enquirer, no matter how "legit" it sounds and no matter (or especially) how much it seems to support your dis-belief.

I get all happy in a nerdy way when I hear people say, "you always question the source", because so few people do this anymore.

Also, people think science should be omniscient, and always accurate.
If you look at a history of science (it's an actual course and a major), science is RIDDLED with instances of wrong ideas. But you also see that because science used the scientific process and thinking, the wrong ideas were replaced ONLY when there were actual data that supported why it was now wrong.

This is why we have safer cars, safer drugs, and I'd live now in the present than any other times in the Earth's history. But non-science folks attack science saying, "wow. They said one thing a few years ago, and they has to correct themselves... pathetic... where as our flat earth theory has not changed in the past 30 years!"

How can you spot science? While it's not a definitive rule, one thing to ask is, is what I am reading/hearing based on previous findings and how did this idea change from the previous findings? Then ask, what is the source of the data that supports this?

Science should always be evolving, so if the theory does not get updated, there is a pretty good chance that it may actually not be real science.

One year when I said that, the student said this back to an English teacher (with a PhD) in my building who actually confronted me in a crowded hallway (yes, real mature), and said what about gravity? If you are so correct, the idea of gravity haven't changed since the beginning, so you just disproved your "science" (made the actual air quotes).

I said... hmm. Well, newton described how gravity affects objects, but no idea how it worked... then Einstein revised it and described how it works, but had no idea what was the underlying reason how it it worked, and these were proven with experimental data.

He then jumped down my throat and said, "you know Einstein's been dead for decades so theory on Gravity hasn't actually changed for decades".

I said that string theoriest now have an idea on what they think is the cause of gravity, and we have now evolved to doing computational simulations to get experimental data, so no, the theory of gravity did not stay static, but in fact has also been evolving.

He later told other teachers in the faculty room that I was a "Science Nazi" because I hate to lose an argument.

I have zero problems losing a scientific argument to a scientific person (and I don't mean a lab coat wearing scientist) who uses scientific approaches. In fact, that is LITERALLY how science evolves over time.

Sometimes I feel like I am trying to fight a losing battle, but thank you for saying,

"Thats literally what I was taught in school in the 90's. You ALWAYS question the source."

Sorry for the long rant. It's early and I am waiting to go outside to wash my car and install my dashcam and wife doesn't want me out there too early so I don't bother the nice neighbor on a Saturday morning.

Sponsored