|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Is politics local? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1501874590 Message started by raydawg on 08/04/17 at 12:23:10 |
|
Title: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/04/17 at 12:23:10 If that is true, then the democrats could hardly afford to lose a governor, like they did yesterday to the republicans. Saw him at a Trump stump yesterday, goodness. Also saw Trump call the Russian investigation fake news.... Uh, no it's not. It's a real story Donnie, call it what you may, what comes of it still needs to be determined, but geez, don't play word games you fault others of doing.... |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/04/17 at 18:16:17 The divide is mostly along the lines of population density. If you look at the emerging megaregions of the country, they're very blue, while almost everywhere else is very red. If you have a couple million neighbors then public transit, stronger gun laws and acceptance for the differing people you see every day makes a lot of sense. If they cops don't come out to your property for three hours after you make a call, your rifle is a tool more than a weapon and your church is the place where you socialize then government doesn't mean very much to you except those people who take your money. The truth is that state boundaries and the electoral makeup isn't really representative of what's happening with our demographics anymore. Both sides have a lot of good ideas that make sense for their respective bubbles, but we move very far left and right of center because we live in an age where your views and prejudices can echo inside your internet community. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/04/17 at 19:15:12 Interesting...... :-[ Thanks :) |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/04/17 at 19:38:25 Stronger gun laws When those restrictions are removed, the crime drops. Chicago shows us that the gun laws are ignored by the criminals, because they are killing each other. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/04/17 at 21:32:37 2D3234332E2918281820323E75470 wrote:
What I would like to see, a gun law advocate politician, or celebrity, answer the question of: "Why are you allowed to carry, or have bodyguards with weapons to protect you. Is that because you believe your life is more valuable than mine?" |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/04/17 at 21:37:14 Neither side has any real data on Chicago's newish laws because there is no way to control for it when anybody wanting a firearm can bypass the stricter laws by simply driving a few miles out of town. Hell, I drive past plenty of places that sell firearms to get to my preferred store. On top of that, they haven't been on the books long enough to really change the city culturally. The whole idea of people screaming simple things like more or less gun laws at each other is pretty silly, I mean, there aren't a lot of responsible gun-owning people I know who think picking up a firearm should have no strings attached, especially when there is a lot of positive data on waiting periods and background checks. So it's demonstrably ridiculous to say that less=better. The left isn't immune either. Going after assault rifles, when the vast majority of gun violence occurs via pistols owned legitimately. So any time you're getting ready to put your camp's flag up on some internet post, maybe think hard about making a point that actually goes somewhere. More or less government/gun laws/regulation doesn't really mean anything... |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 03:00:17 Actually, it does. I'm 62 and I Watched what happened in 73, when car jacking became a fad. Louisiana was just on the news daily. Finally, the governor came out and said People, arm yourselves. And in a few days the reports of gutshot punks, bleeding and flopping around and screaming in agony in the streets were making the rounds. In a coupla weeks, the fad was done. And the year escapes me, but Florida was seeing the tourist market in trouble because of robbers. The rental car companies scraped off their stickers, told tourists to not Look like tourists, hide camera and binoculars, maps, etc. But, the problem persisted, Until Florida started allowing them to be armed. The people who are willing to KILL really don't care about rules. Allowing the Law Abiding citizens to protect themselves is reasonable. Ohhh, Ohhh, some people shouldn't Have guns.. Yeah, I know. That's who has them Now.. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/05/17 at 04:13:35 You really need some data to back up your controversial anecdotes. For example, UCR reports are very easy to look up. If your assertion about Louisiana were true we would see a reduction in theft and probably a reduction in indexed crime. Well, here's a link to the direct statistics: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/lacrime.htm And what we see is literally the exact opposite trend. Starting in 1973 crime takes a drastic upswing and goes up until 1999... What you experienced was a very common thing where you and probably your friends and family heard something that sounded intrinsically right so your brain logged information that fit the narrative you agreed with. You and your circle reinforced this narrative to each other until you all believed it was obvious and observable despite the measured fact that crime actually increased by quite a bit the very same year. We all do this. I'm not calling you bad or stupid. But if you were experiencing what you perceived as a positive effect from the governor telling people to arm themselves despite the fact that crime actually got worse for the next 25 years, is it not possible that you should re-examine this belief you seem to have that a more armed populace = better? I'm a gun owner myself, but the situation of gun-ownership in our country is not a more or less issue. Almost everyone arguing over this stuff doesn't know what he's talking about. Doesn't mean we can't get educated enough to have a valid opinion on the subject, but why bother having a strong opinion on something you don't actually know anything about? Listen, read, learn and bring some real points to the table instead of just saying your side is obviously better. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 05:03:37 I didn't just Hear it. It was on the news, daily. And your logical fallacy that IF that was true THEN society would be X, is bull. I Watched it happen. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/05/17 at 10:52:47 Listen, read, learn and bring some real points to the table instead of just saying your side is obviously better. I understand your remark, and I try to always challenge my beliefs..... Mostly, not always, it strengthens them, for it makes me view them critically. I don't readily adopt ideology to be a member of herd. It has to fit in my life, and produce results that give me a sustainable positive effect. That being said, once extended to the "table" it has the propensity to become a paradox. A lot of forces try and capitalize on this natural phenomenon of mankind, unless we internally realize that freewill (thought and expression) is useless, if not understood, and extended, to others, as well. If we can do this, then it becomes a tool to garner wisdom of self, that will further allow a person to grow into a healthy source of example, that will exhibit a strength that counters those forces who try to use others, to empower themselves.... Me, personally, I "try" to live within 4 agreements, I make to myself. It is like going on a journey, using this as a map, I have never trekked before.... And I haven't, as each new day, is a new journey, if we don't tether our self to yesterday. 1. Don't make assumptions. 2. Don't take things personal. 3. Be impeccable with speech. 4. Always do my best. When I stay within this framework, the day reveals many blessings, and I avoid the trappings of false truths, and self tripping. I find life is naturally sustainable, joy, and thanksgiving, being the effect, and reward. When I am in that natural state, giving becomes my nature, freely, without expectations, of others. If any one would like me to expand on how these 4 agreements work, just ask, and I will further explain. Anybody up for some group therapy? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/05/17 at 14:23:50 01222E26280E212223284D0 wrote:
+1 |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/05/17 at 14:24:48 63404C444A6C4340414A2F0 wrote:
+1 |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/05/17 at 15:26:52 But you didn't watch it happen justin, you only think you did because of predictable phenomena like confirmation bias. The German populace believed they were winning the war until they started hearing allied guns outside their windows. But the news told them they were winning! They saw the industrial might and prosperity with their own eyes that the war effort had wrought! Hillary supporters couldn't believe it when she lost. The news told them she was going to win handedly. Uncle crazy-pants is a Trump supporter but all their friends and families were either voting Hillary or not voting, so she was obviously going to win. When you watched the news and looked around your, probably affluent, circle you saw things getting better after the governor's announcement. I bet, because of the published crime records, others in your community were having a very different experience. I live in a city that did great through the recession... Doesn't mean the recession didn't happen and isn't still happening to other parts of our community. When he said "arm yourselves" you had a positive reaction. Humans confirm their bias at over ten times the rate they process negative input. If my governor said "arm yourselves" my first thought is "oh nuts, he just declared open season on brothers." Thus I'm more likely to view the ensuing events through a lense bias towards that viewpoint by a factor of 10, just like you. I The truth is usually somewhere in between so we look to demonstrable touchstones like statistics to calibrate what is really happening. In this case it was pretty easy to find a set of very solid and trustworthy crime statistics that show your assertion to be very flawed. You came back by saying "No, but I saw it" which, I'm sure works fine in your circle of link-minded people, but the fact that that's all you came up with for a believe you feel passionate about shows a pretty steep bias. And all this doesn't even mean you're wrong! I'm challenging you to use your brain. If you're going to vote on and propagate beliefs that kill or save thousands of Americans every year, you should probably know your stuff or abstain from checking that box. I abstain from several things every ballot I get because of my ignorance. There's no shame in it. Acknowledgement of ignorance is a gift because it means you can either learn more about something, or forget about it and worry about other things. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 15:28:45 That's Rich. Mr. Drive by says Bring points to the table. But dodges points that are just too Tuff. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/05/17 at 15:46:14 Who's Mr. Drive by? Am I Mr. Drive by?... And which point do you feel I've dodged? Your point was "That you saw it", which I addressed with crime statistics followed by a virtual novella on confirmation bias. If that's not thoroughly addressing you and your point, compared to you asserting that you saw it in a couple sentences with no supporting evidence then calling me "Mr. Drive By", I think you might just be afraid and that makes you angry. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 15:58:33 2F0C000806200F0C0D06630 wrote:
Nope, not you. You make sense.. and talk about stuff. I have posted and bumped a thread for you to look at. Trust me, I'm not a bumpkin nor am I hiding from psychological discomfort. I've read Creature from Jekyll Island I know what Charlotte Iserbyt says I'm up to speed on Economic Hit Man And that's just the beginning. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 16:00:38 And as human beings, we have rights, not derived From government. Self defense is number one. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/05/17 at 16:10:52 more likely to view the ensuing events through a lense bias towards that viewpoint by a factor of 10 I find that statement intriguing..... is it held to its own standard, as well? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/05/17 at 17:12:57 I find that statement intriguing..... is it held to its own standard, as well? Oh man! Super important question right? My belief in confirmation bias originally comes from reading about two controversial experiments out of Stanford in the 70's that seemed to show that normally rational people could be made to make irrational decisions by telling the subjects incorrect information about how well they did guessing if a set a suicide letters were legit or fabricated. Cool stuff, but sure: If you're an academic you want to publish shocking things, so peer review is necessary. In this case thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities have confirmed their findings, and my experience with these social scientists has been that they are very clever and take control populations very seriously... I find this threshold pretty immutable, but it's still not undebatable. Nothing is, but there's definitely some sort of tipping-point grey-area where the burden of proof shifts to the other side, like how we know the world isn't flat or how gravity is still technically a theory. Obviously confirmation bias evidence isn't nearly as string as those examples, but it is generally accepted as a true phenomenon and this acceptance has a string basis in study and review... |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 17:48:26 rational people could be made to make irrational decisions by telling the subjects incorrect information So, lie to get them to choose what you wanted. How many wars have been started that way? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/05/17 at 18:37:08 in this case thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities have confirmed their findings, and my experience with these social scientists has been that they are very clever and take control populations very seriously... So, seems it could fall into judgement, of its own design, based on the commonality of their scientific community group think, if we are to hold ALL theories/beliefs scrutiny to the same factors..... Or, am I missing something? I can say, without fear of being rebuffed, that every single person who ever ate a carrot, has died. I never assigned it cause, but too, without all the facts, known, can it be dismissed, either, and by such default, a carrot ate, is now linked to possibly causing death. Lets default then to observed reality, which I think was Jog's point. Perhaps he has himself eaten bushels of carrots, and still suffered no adverse effects. Nor has any of his friends, who like to dress up like bunny rabbits, and eat carrots from TT's garden. So chances are Jog finds no value, or truth, to my default argument that carrots cause death, through observed reality. Lets use your declaration that we now "know" the earth is flat..... Accepting that as truth, I then instruct a group of friends to not be afraid of the rim, or edge, of the Grand Canyon, and to venture as close to it, or step off, if they so desire, because the earth is flat..... To remove context, or bias, or a persons very own uniqueness, is to relinquish, or deny, the very core of a persons soul, or being. To then lump it/them, together, to achieve an outcome, brings the sword full circle and cuts off the foundation upon which it was based, in the beginning. The only way to circumvent this outcome, is to be a member of the BIGGEST herd. But of course, that just returns it back to square one, again, and again, and again...... I ask then....... Who is right? Wouldn't the answer lie within the question, "Why do I need, to be right?" |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/05/17 at 18:39:58 Specifically, telling people they've figured correctly when, I quantative terms, they have not. It's more evil than a bald-faced lie because you can selectively train reasoning traits into people. If tell you there are weapons of mass destruction because I want you to support my war, it helps if I've spent the past several years loudly confirming your fears, so when the time comes you'll nod and go along with it instead of asking hard-to-answer questions that go counter to what I want. It's neat to see this demonstrated on something as simple as guessing which letters are fake in something the subjects have no attachment to. It's not a stretch to imagine that people make even poorer decisions when they are passionate about the results. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 18:42:11 I need to be correct because there is No Benefit in being incorrect. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/05/17 at 18:52:10 65464A424C6A4546474C290 wrote:
Being delusional, is not new or novel. Nor being stupid. Nor conducting a study to justify a desired result, and then assigning validity, as a means to justify it. We allow this in our capitalistic society, as advertising. I once spent more $$$$ on a certain brand of beer, because it was marketed to show the girls in the bar migrated to these guys, thinking they had more money than those drinking tap. I got no more chicks..... They prolly thought I was a dupe for believing such a stupid advertisement. Politicians "spin". The media runs "news" on stories with anonymous sources.... What ever happened to speaking the truth, is it subjective, or, the end justifies the means? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/05/17 at 18:54:08 584741465B5C6D5D6D55474B00320 wrote:
Please explain advertising then Jog. Do our courts seek the truth, or do they seek an outcome of which they have been hired to achieve? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/05/17 at 19:50:57 I won't pursue you down your tangent. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by Trippah on 08/05/17 at 20:45:54 LockeClone - some great points, and the faux news phenomena might just be an example. Keep the good stuff rolling. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/06/17 at 09:23:27 Cheers! |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/06/17 at 10:15:52 So who decides what is faux news then? Why can no one answer what the criteria is for that.... Seems it's just another group think rule thing, like global warming, etc. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/06/17 at 12:33:12 6E4D414947614E4D4C47220 wrote:
Well stated Locke! Here, here! |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/06/17 at 12:43:10 6C7F677A7F69791E0 wrote:
I'm not sure you can "decide" what is fake and what is not. An example of fake news is our president saying: “And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful,” Trump said. “So there was — there was no mix.” Then finding out he never got a call from them. Plain and simple lie. That's fake news. It's funny that you list global warming as a "group think rule". There's hard science to back it up. It's like the Earth being round and it going around the Sun - it's fact not a "group think". The folks denying it are in the same boat as those who think Sandy Hook never happened, the moon landing was faked and that 9/11 was an inside job. But to really answer your question... I guess it comes down to this - fake news is in the eye of the beholder. After all, there are still people who actually believe that the Earth is flat. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/06/17 at 13:12:57 Dunno about the others, but 9/11 was clearly an inside job. People were warned to stay away. Structures that tall and skinny don't collapse straight down, they lean over. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/06/17 at 13:57:59 Hard science is still theory based, not historical fact. You have many who have the same scientific learnings, and disagree with the facts you herald. You are choosing to believe, just as I am in God. If you can answer how the ice age was melted by warming, based on these facts you presently attribute to global warming, I will listen. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/17 at 06:36:39 4E5D45585D4B5B3C0 wrote:
All one has to do is look at the rate of change in temperature in the last 100 years or so. There simply is no precedent to this. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/07/17 at 07:00:12 There was likely no Precedent for the melting glaciers. That didn't explain WHY they melted. There may be no Precedent for the Medieval warm period. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. And, you have No explanation. The Unprecedented is not necessarily a disaster. Your Scientists predictions Have thus far been Bullshit. But the fearful continue to run in circles crying about the end. Eventually, facts are facts. Your list of dire consequences of the predictions that have come true is anxiously awaited. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/07/17 at 09:13:28 Glad you are not a lawyer TT....... The father instructed his kids to not drink alcohol, as he drove them to their first high school party, with a beer neatly tucked between his legs.... One of the kids asked why? He said, "Because I told you so, I am older and wiser...... that's why" This is why I do not really spend much energy engaging you, or assigning your post/replies, much value. To dialogue is just that, to engage each other, on a peer to peer level, here, let me post the definition: di·a·logue [ dahy- uh-lawg, -log] NOUN 1. conversation between two or more persons. 2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc. 3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement. 4. a literary work in the form of a conversation: a dialogue of Plato. Seems me, expecting you, to honor #3, is my fault..... Its NOT that I despise, no, but stupid on my part to expect a dry well to provide a quenching. Hope that clarifies how I view your participation, AND mine, on this board.... It is NOT personal. :-* |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/17 at 09:54:49 6E7D65787D6B7B1C0 wrote:
So... are you saying that the Earth isn't round? I'm not sure of your point. This was your question: "If you can answer how the ice age was melted by warming, based on these facts you presently attribute to global warming, I will listen" First off - it doesn't make much sense. The factors of the Ice Age creation and melt were completely different from present day and part of the natural cycles of the planet. Second - You didn't address what I stated. Do you acknowledge the rate of change as being a legitimate concern in global temperature rise? The ball is in your court - if you wish to truly dialog. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/07/17 at 10:41:03 We had an ice age melt. It is documented. It is fact. Not hard science, but fact. The ball is in your court. Why did it melt? Could the same factors that caused it to melt, be a factor of the current climate concerns? Yeah, the earth ain't round ::) Why do you waste energy typing such idiocies. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/17 at 11:11:13 57445C41445242250 wrote:
It was merely a question and my way of showing hard science. I'm glad you know the Earth is round. It's not so idiotic a question ray - there are thousands of people that think the Earth is a flat disk and that all the pics and videos you see are faked. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/07/17 at 14:54:02 30233B26233525420 wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep debating about global warming through the lense of "the ice age"; a time before recorded history. You can provide all the permafrost and soil records you want and the anti-intellectual movement will never budge on their denial. There are much better historical examples that are documented and recorded of relatively rapid climate change destroying civilizations. First of all, the phenomena of the United States rapidly becoming a world superpower isn't because we have some secret-sauce of gumption. Our ancestors landed on one of the most resource-rich and completely untapped stretches of land in the world. Full stop. Empires throughout human history follow this pattern. Irrigation and farming tech meeting a favorable climate period in something known as the Piora Oscillation allowed some of the first recorded governments and civilizations to build trade routes and small nation-states near the Tigris and Euphrates. Climate shifted back towards more unfavorable conditions for a few hundred years and this civilization mostly fell and migrated. Pre-crusades much of the middle-east was fertile, wetter and more mediterranean. It's no wonder they were more successful scientifically and Militarily than their European counterparts for so long. Hell, the Moors held much of Spain for a little over 700 years. Then north Africa got drier. Instead of pursuing higher endeavors, people struggled to feed themselves, which predictably made the region more violent, less successful and all-together the less-habitable place we know today. There are many more examples of this if you care to google historical examples of climate change. My point is, the argument we're having about climate change is flawed, in that, it's not an all-out apocalypse vs. a bald-faced lie. There's no real discussion there. When someone attacks you, you attack them back... The climate is changing, much quicker than has ever been recorded historically or prehistorically and it's in our best interest to do something about it because the material advantages we owe much if not most of our success to are at risk. Solar alone is creating much more jobs than gas and oil is and will continue to do so, so I really don't see a downside to mobilizing a massive change in how we generate and utilize power. People need jobs. People need power, and at least half the population believes we need to reduce our carbon footprint... So committ! And having ridden a Zero and being a passenger in a Tesla, I'm not worried about my beloved time on the road. Electric vehicles are AWESOME. They're saying solid state batteries will roll out in a few years and give an electric motorcycle a 1000 mile range. Grain of salt, for sure, but if so screw internal combustion. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by verslagen1 on 08/07/17 at 15:40:37 Quote:
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/07/17 at 16:25:06 I'm not sure what your quote has to do with the current discussion. Can you clarify your point? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by verslagen1 on 08/07/17 at 16:49:39 I thought it went well with your post explaining the reasons for localized changes in climate. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/07/17 at 17:20:49 I'm not arguing that it is or isn't. I just read the link you quoted from and don't understand what the point is. The excentricity of Earth is variable because of other celestial bodies and this is a major factor in climate cycles. I agree. But what does that have to do with the debate about man-made climate change? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by verslagen1 on 08/08/17 at 07:35:44 Long before co2 became an issue, this guy said we're about midway between ice ages, so naturally we are going to get as hot as it's going to get. Your rise and fall of civilization seems to correspond with a favorable climates and the Milankovitch Cycles support changing climate in various locals. We are but a pimple on this earth compared to what the sun can do. My son said rising co2 levels are not the cause of global warming, but an indicator of. And don't forget 9/11, a week w/out vapor trails being laid around the world and it got hotter. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by raydawg on 08/08/17 at 09:22:33 THREAD JACK ;D |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/08/17 at 13:28:16 7D6E7978676A6C6E653A0B0 wrote:
Natural climate change being true does not make man-made climate change false. And the Milankovitch Cycle is one of many factors. Plus it's a 10,000 year cycle, so it's applicable in some examples but not all... But it doesn't even apply because the reality of man-made climate change is not dependent on this cycle. I'm not sure what you mean by saying we're a pimple compared to the sun. The whole point of reducing CO2 emissions is that a CO2-rich atmosphere traps more of the sun's energy. Think of our solar system like temperate spring day. Venus is wearing a nice thick parka of CO2 which makes it uninhabitable and sweaty energy from the sun gets in, but it doesn't easily get out... Kind of like me on my bike lately... Earth is mostly Nitrogen (73%ish), but we're still wearing comfortable layer or two. Mankind isn't some all-powerful god, changing the cosmos against the all-powerful sun... But we are putting on a proverbial jacket, and it's going to get pretty uncomfortable when we have to help dad dig postholes later. Contrails have been known to mildly alter weather patterns for about as long as planes have be able to reach the heights and speeds needed to flash-crystalize vapor. The three days after 9/11 when most US flights were grounded added some interesting data, but it's not dramatic and it doesn't make things hotter. Contrails are shown to act similarly to actual clouds, where they close the difference between the hottest and coldest temperatures of an affected region... They reflect heat back at the ground (keep energy in) and reflect light back up at the sun (Keep new energy from being added). But it's a pretty mild effect and isn't really effecting things on a macro level. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by WebsterMark on 08/08/17 at 13:54:35 But it's a pretty mild effect and isn't really effecting things on a macro level. Ya think?! No one is seriously suggesting there is a measurable global temperature increase attributed to that are they?....... |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by LockeClone on 08/08/17 at 14:58:10 655750414657407F534059320 wrote:
Yeah actually. A couple comments ago someone was trying to connect the three days after 9/11 to man made climate change being a hoax or something. I'm not sure what the poster's point was exactly... That's who I was addressing with that comment. A quick google search showed that there is a "chemtrail conspiracy" that is... more widely spread than it probably should be. I work with a lot of people from different political beliefs and different backgrounds, and the conspiracies that people believe... Man, it's completely insane, but these are good people who have been shat on a lot so they have to believe in some sort of puppet strings. Most people seem to crave believing they are part of some bigger, yet tangible narrative to make sense of the pain and chaos. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by WebsterMark on 08/08/17 at 15:35:00 oh no.... I'm afraid I may have opened a big box of $hit. Let's let this stay in the box. |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by verslagen1 on 08/09/17 at 07:38:51 Yep, 5°F is pretty mild... http://news.psu.edu/story/361041/2015/06/18/research/jet-contrails-affect-surface-temperatures |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by WebsterMark on 08/09/17 at 08:05:29 The researchers report that the "diurnal temperature range was statistically significantly reduced at outbreak stations versus non-outbreak stations." In the South, this amounted to about a 6 degree Fahrenheit reduction in daily temperature range, while in the Midwest, there was about a 5 degree Fahrenheit reduction. Temperatures the days before and after the outbreaks did not show this effect, indicating that the lower temperatures were due to the contrail outbreaks. "Weather forecasting of daytime highs and lows do not include contrails," said Carleton. "If they were included in areas of contrail outbreaks, they would improve the temperature forecasts." Sorry, but I don't give a "F" how many letters are behind some researcher's name, there is not a 5 degree difference in temp due to jets flying. BS flag.... |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/09/17 at 08:23:34 Can't we just all leave the refrigerator door open? I'm supposed to believe that the shadow and combined momentary condensation of the humidity in the air is gonna Cool more than the Flaming Jet Engine heats? |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/09/17 at 08:54:08 LMAO!! Contrails.... really? Is that what this thread has devolved to?? Hey - let's talk about that fake moon landing and how the Earth is flat! BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by verslagen1 on 08/09/17 at 09:33:58 Laugh your a$$ off... https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-scientists-decided-leak-draft-190522734.html |
|
Title: Re: Is politics local? Post by T And T Garage on 08/09/17 at 10:07:56 4A594E4F505D5B59520D3C0 wrote:
Hmm... funny, I see contrails listed as an average of .01 watts/sq. meter with a range .005 to .03. (less than stratospheric ozone) I think contrails are a little lower on the list than... oh... say coal fired power plants and vehicle emissions. But I do applaud the scientists releasing this the way they did. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |