DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ocean Is Abnormally Warm

You’re looking at anomalies. The ratio of misinformation and disinformation from the scientific community vs vs the toilet community is staggeringly different. The perpetuation of toilet theories evolving into false truths and unfounded beliefs is at the core of a lot of what has gone wrong.

Even those who come up with innovative or groundbreaking ideas still require the scientific or technological communities to perpetuate those ideas in large part.

For every Nikola Tesla, there are thousands if not millions of damaging idiots.

The one thing I wasn't expecting to see in this thread was the "toilet guys over scientists" theory.

That's certainly a new twist on the topic.

And sometimes that guy from your rec league beats Lebron James in a pickup game.

It's a big world - so I'm not going to say that "No scientific innovation has ever come from an outsider." But 99.9% of major scientific innovations over the last 100 years have come from professionals. It takes decades of training - in an extremely competitive environment that cuts out 95% of the people who try -- in order to become a professional scientist. They simply know far far more about their fields than any layman can hope to know.

To say anything different is just pure BS, some joke pushed by politicians about scientists in general to discredit the few who say things that are politically troublesome.

Look, I'm not pro-toilet thinkers and anti-scientist. I'm just against the idea that one is always good and one is always bad. Elitist snobs unwilling to consider anything outside of their personal fishbowl are problematic. The "scientists haven't solved it, so how do you think you could provide anything to the conversation?" angle is utter [censored].

You can look at it from the other end, too. For every million "damaging idiots," there's a world changing idea that gets ignored because it didn't come from the "right kind of person."

I'm all for good scientists. I think "scientists" that refuse to look outside their blinders and/or jump to conclusions are bad scientists.

If you don't like an idea, explain why. Don't post some lame "only scientists know things, and you're not a scientist" ad hominem attack at 3 something in the morning. I'm going to find that rather annoying when I read it before I've had caffeine a few hours later.

So following where the current evidence is leading you is a bad thing? And ignoring things that are just thrown against the wall to see if they stick is a bad thing?


Then have your coffee before reading it. Most of the time when you see "you're not a scientist" posted it's in response to some nonsensical conspiracy theory based on nothing but suspicion and the fact they don't like the conclusion. People don't have time to take that nonsense seriously. If someone expects not to get such an answer maybe they should put forth a logical and scientifically based paper of their own instead of some off the wall quackery.

"If you don't like the idea". Is that all it takes? Just throw out an idea and expect people to dissect it and respond?

It seems as though you are setting a much higher bar for scientists than you are the toilet bowl sitters.

I could probably spend an hour a day responding to the random unsolicited e-mails i get from non-experts trying to explain to me why my field is wrong, and how their new theory solves everything.

Some of my colleagues (in particular those who have written popular science books) get dozens of these e-mails a day, probably totaling hundreds of pages. There's no time to go through that.

These non-expert papers are -- without fail -- exceedingly wrong. But what exactly do you gain by critiquing them -- no arm-chair scientist ever responds "oh, I see why my theory breaks fundamental laws of the universe, and thus probably isn't right, i'll go back to the drawing board" -- they just tell you that you are part of the "elite" and don't understand their "genius". Many get very threatening (worrisome of course, because they know where you work). I know of some serious incidents in the past.

Many of these theories are published here: https://vixra.org/ , so if you want to go through the best of what is being produced by non-expert scientists, you are always free to.

If you could make a Punnet square for best and worse case scenarios, you’d have the best square being professional scientists who constantly challenge their theories and advancements, willing to consider new data. But the source of that new data shouldn’t ordinarily be some schmoe who makes some unfounded theory, like vaccines causing autism, based purely on a hunch or a one time correlation. That inhibits progress, like what Lyuok just brought up.

The second and third scenarios would be scientists who continue pushing something without considering valid new data, followed by amateurs or ordinary people who are adequately looking into researched publications.

The fourth and worse case intersection would be amateurs and toilet schmoes who get involved in making unfounded “facts” based on hysteria. That’s the loudest and unfortunately the most numerous group.

I’m a firm believer in the Stephen Hawking quote that the enemy of intelligence is not ignorance, but the illusion of intelligence. What bothers me is that we have scientists who have already made advancements that are pretty undisputed, like that 1+1=2. Then they are able to snowball from there into the technological age we currently enjoy.

However, the problem now is that they have to deal with ignorant people screaming misinformation along the lines of “1+1 actually doesn’t equal 2!” And they have politicians who seize on that to gain power. It’s a lot easier to piggyback on the ignorant than the intelligent. Greater good is sacrificed to personal gain, but that’s where we are right now.

I think I agree - but I think that the group of "scientists who continue pushing something without considering valid new data" is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be.

This is just personal experience -- but most scientists I know don't actually hold on to outdated ideas that strongly. Most are constantly challenging theories, and trying to rule out accepted dogma. Part of this is the scientific process - but also -- a lot of it is just how you get funding in science. Funding agencies don't look fondly upon "i'm going to keep working on this outdated idea because I think the current data is wrong". Funding agencies love cutting edge science, and "potentially transformative results".

If anything, I think the ethical danger to science is the opposite - people who are too quick to claim "our new result entirely rules out all the accepted models", because that sort of claim generates funding and sharp headlines in newspapers. Many scientists toe the line about pushing the transformative nature of their results (at least in mass media) -- most are much more reasonable in person or in the actual scientific paper, which is usually much more nuanced.

Oh I completely agree. I am quite certain it would be a very small part of the community and you would know better than me. I was trying to jam it into a Punnet square concept. Not stating that there is even close to an even population among all four.

Sorry - I wasn't really trying to criticize you -- mostly wanted to buttress against "scientists build a career out of not saying anything that goes against the scientific establishment", which is what a lot of conspiracy theorists say, and is patently untrue.

There are, of course "go with the establishment" scientists, just like there are "go with the establishment" lawyers, and doctors, and teachers, and people from every walk of life. It's a personality trait, more than anything else. I think science does select against "don't want to rock the boat" types, because the best argument you can make to a funding agency is that your research will make waves.

Probably the difference is that, from the non-expert perspective, the only way to make waves is to say stuff like "gravity isn't real! Einstein was wrong", whereas the actual way that you make waves are by improving our understanding in subjects that are actually up for debate -- these ground breaking studies end up sounding more like "previous theoretical models indicate that the anomaly in the dipole moment of the muon was 0.69e-9 while our new lattice models indicate it is closer to the experimentally verified value of 0.72e-9". I'm not making it up, that was big news about 3 years ago.

Scientists that seek attention and fame via outrageous or splashy claims among non
-scientists are among lowest regarded in the scientific community. Every social group and profession has its establishment and that establishment has a certain gravitational pull and the strength of that pull changes over time as the individuals come and go. But in science and math, if you can’t hold your own within the community and instead seek the adulation of the general public, you’ll be shown the door rather quickly. Certainly math and science can be led astray and “held captive” by erroneous ideas throughout history but I would contend it’s less likely now than it’s ever been. There’s a ton of talk in theoretical physics world (Eric Weinstein goes on about this ad nausea) about how Ed Witten’s hold and focus on string theory and quantum gravity has stalled all these other potential avenues of research for decades. That kind of thing is certainly more common than we lay folk think. But the nature of the disagreements within the good-faith, intellectually honest high level scientific and maths communities is most often about focus, emphasis, method, interpretations and not that whole-cloth, entire branches of study are resolutely false and or captive of profit motive or superstition or conspiracy. Those notions almost always arise outside of those communities, from politicians, effected industries, carnival barkers and social profiteers.

New preseason hurricane forecast is highest ever issued. Brace yourself, Florida
Alex Harris
Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:33 AM EDT·4 min read
26

How bad could the upcoming hurricane season be? Maybe one of the busiest ever, at least judging by a new key preseason forecast.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Thursday released its forecast for the 2024 season, which starts June 1, calling for a more active than normal season — thanks in large part to the off-the-charts high temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.

NOAA is predicting that 17 to 25 named storms could form this year, with eight to 13 powering up into hurricanes and four to seven of those reaching major hurricane status, Category 3 or higher. That’s above the average: 14 named storms, 7 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes. In fact, they’re the highest ever forecast by the federal agency. In 2020, NOAA had predicted the highest number of storms of all time. That season wound up with 30 named storms, 14 of them growing into hurricanes.

This season — at least potentially — sets up to top that.

“That’s the highest forecast that we’ve had,” said Ken Graham, director of the National Weather Service. “It’s reason to be concerned, of course, but not alarmed.”

For the 2024 hurricane season, NOAA only predicts there’s a 5% chance of a below-average season.

It’s also the second-highest forecast the agency has ever made for accumulated cyclonic energy, a metric that takes into account the power and longevity of storms throughout the season. The only year that tops this was 2010. This year, NOAA predicts it could be 150% to 245% of normal.

“In past years when we’ve seen high ACE numbers, those have been the years with the strongest hurricanes,” said Rick Spinrad, NOAA administrator.

Last year, NOAA called for 14 to 21 named storms, six to 11 hurricanes and two to five major hurricanes. The final numbers for 2023 were 20 named storms, seven of which became hurricanes and three that reached major hurricane strength. It was the fourth-most active season on record.

Several factors come together to bake up such an alarming forecast. Primary among them, experts said, is just how hot the ocean is expected to be this summer. The peak of hurricane season for Florida is August to October.

The ocean heat content in the main development region of the Atlantic, where the majority of storms are born, is running at levels in May that are normally seen in late August, according to a University of Miami analysis.


The ocean heat content in the main development region of the Atlantic, where the majority of storms are born, is running at levels in May that are normally seen in late August, according to a University of Miami analysis.
Another factor supercharging this season is the global atmospheric phenomenon, La Niña, which is linked to a more active season in the Atlantic. Last year, the world was experiencing the opposite effect, El Niño, which usually depresses storm activity in the Atlantic.

Despite the cooling effects of El Niño, the raw heat in the Atlantic appeared to win out, leading to another high storm year.

But this year, forecasters say, El Niño has faded and La Niña is likely to take its place this summer. As of early May, NOAA predicted there was a 49% chance La Niña could form by June to August and a 69% chance it could form by July to September.

Other contributing factors are lower levels of wind shear, which can destabilize baby storms and halt them from strengthening; weaker trade winds, which blow east to west; and a stronger, wetter African Monsoon Season, which can spark more storm formation.

“We have this warm water, we have an active monsoon season. Check, check. Don’t expect a whole lot of shear, check,” said Graham. “It all has to come together for a forecast like this.”

Scientists also drew a direct connection between climate change and this upcoming season. As the world warms, more of that heat is stored in the ocean, which serves as fuel for stronger and wetter storms.

READ MORE: What we know — and don’t — about how climate change impacts hurricanes

While the science is still a work in progress on how, exactly, a warming world affects hurricanes, academics are most confident that climate change is making more powerful storms more likely, cranking up the dial on extreme rainfall and strong surge and making it more common that storms rapidly strengthen as they approach land.

This graphic represents several factors that NOAA believes will lead to another above-average hurricane season in 2024.
Hours before NOAA gave its official season forecast, the National Hurricane Center started tracking its second area of concern of the season — a cluster of rain showers between the coasts of Cuba and Domenica. The hurricane center gives the blob a low shot of strengthening into anything serious, only a 10% chance through the next week.

It’s expected to move northeast, offshore, over the next few days.

The disturbance’s appearance highlights another oddity of the season. Despite the strong prediction for the season, nothing has actually formed so far this year. This is the latest into the year in forty years that nothing has formed in the Atlantic or Pacific, the Washington Post reported.

In recent years, storms have formed before the official June 1 start date in four of the past five years, prompting the hurricane season to nudge its forecasters to start issuing regular predictions two weeks earlier and talk of moving the season’s official start date into May.

Despite the grave predictions, NOAA Administrator Spinrad reminded people in the path of hurricanes that there is plenty of time to prepare, as long as everyone starts now.

“The key this year, as in any year, is to get prepared,” he said. “Remember, it only takes one storm to devastate a community.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brace-yourself-florida-latest-preseason-143302922.html

Yeah, but at least the bridge lights will be the right color.

There certainly won't be any left colors.

Murica!

I agree with this idea. Unfortunately, I see it from a different angle. "We" don't see most people as "intelligent." "We" generally see scientists as "intelligent." Yet, just because someone is a "scientist" doesn't make them "intelligent."

Wrap just about anything in the trappings of "science" and a lot of people will believe it.

That doesn't mean that there aren't good scientists. But, there does seem to be a fair bit of abuse/misuse of "science" these days.

If someone spent several years after college getting a PhD/MD/etc (basically they're called Dr.), and they are making statements about something in their related field of study/expertise, I think I would generally defer to them vs John Q Public, though. That's where a lot of the frustration comes from, both from me and Lyuok.

The problem with your statement is that you are confusing "intelligence" with "knowledge". I don't know a lot about my field of expertise because I am intelligent, I know a lot about my field of expertise because I've spent ~50 hours a week studying it (and basically only it) for the past 17 years. You could find the most intelligent person on the planet, and they wouldn't know as much about my subfield as I do -- they simply haven't spent the time it takes to learn it.

Similarly, we don't (as a society) tend to view car mechanics as "intelligent" (no offense intended to any car mechanics, there are surely geniuses there too) -- but they have far far more knowledge about how to fix a car than I do, because they've been doing it every day for a long time.

Don't trust "intelligence", it's irrelevant -- trust "expertise".

I totally agree with you.

The same principals can be applied to how many tasks are done.

Expertise comes from specific intense study. You may know some things about fishing.

But nothing surpasses local expertise of specific water.

In theory this is true. In practice, not necessarily. I know plenty of people that have been bad at their jobs for a long time.

Expertise is acquired and is a good thing. Yet, longevity and expertise don't necessarily go hand and hand. You'd think so, but it's not a safe assumption. I've definitely experienced firsthand people that have simply gotten more efficient at doing things wrong. Scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth for a long time. It was an assumption that many people believed they "knew."

A lot of the time, what you say is true. Unfortunately, its a significant bit less than all of the time.

Personally, the more I come to know, the more I realize that I don't know (and the more I question my assumptions.) Again this goes back to my original point. It's not so much a question of certain people knowing more in a field. They do. Sometimes not knowing what you don't know (or even admitting what you don't know) can be beneficial when it comes to new "inventions"/"ideas."

The I'm a scientist and you're not, so you're definitely wrong statement could be true. But, it doesn't necessarily stand up on its own merit. It didn't help that I couldn't figure out what in particular you were saying it in response to. And it was early and I've been dealing with VA doctors that think they know what is wrong with you before you finish telling them your symptoms. The assumption of knowledge with out actually listening to what someone is saying has kind of become a pet peeve of late. The this is the standard approach and even though it hasn't worked for you, I'm going to tell you the same thing again because I'm an expert and that's the answer mentality is rather frustrating. Applying a generality to a specific circumstance is something I'm coming to detest.

No hard feelings though. I get where you are coming from. Knowing that you know something and some obstinate person insisting they know otherwise can be exceedingly frustrating. The seemingly "all-encompassing" "knowing" of the initial generality you expressed just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sure both our responses were shaded by personal experience.

You can't pound logic into people, obviously.

You don't say.

Ahhh that explains all I need to know. Thanks for sharing.

I get it. Which is why I said it. Your response would seem to indicate that you are only looking at my statement from one direction. One can be both the one that knows something and the obstinate person.

Your alleged knowledge was never actually expressed in a particular way. Yes, I'm sure you are knowledgeable. But, you don't know everything. Some vague generality/use of a stereotype doesn't really demonstrate one's knowledge.

It's not hard to know a particular circumstance when a gross oversimplification doesn't apply. My "knowing" circumstances that didn't fall within your broad statement in your initial post made me frustrated. Later, you mentioned "mechanics" having expertise that you don't. Well, how do you know what expertise "toilet thinkers" have? Do scientists not think on the toilet? (That line of thinking does kind of lend itself to a joke about why so many alleged scientists are full of crap, just saying.)

Your initial argument came off as if "you're" not a scientist, "you" have no expertise and/or "your" expertise doesn't matter. It didn't feel very "scientific." But, coming back full circle, I get it. I'm still not entirely sure what exactly in this thread you were frustrated with in your initial post. But I do understand feeling frustrated when one feels personally de-valued. When frustrated, productive conversations are hard to find.

Why does it seem so hard for some people to admit that "non-scientists" can know things that particular "scientists" don't? You seem to be completely discounting that idea. I'm really not trying to de-value you and what you know. You do seem to have a belief that there are limits on what other people could know, though.

Personally, it seems like society could use scientists that are less focused on what they "know" and are more willing to consider what they don't know.

That's what science is for and what science does. Studies things to learn more about what they don't know. That's the very purpose of science.

That's the theory of science. The practice of it varies.

There are always exceptions to every rule, in every field and every walk of life. I tend to work with the overwhelming majority of the field of science than obsess on the slim minority of it. More along siding with the rule rather than the exception to the rule.

As you indicated in your first sentence, there are more exceptions than there are rules (use of singular rule vs plural exceptions.) Trying to apply the rule even when dealing with an exception seems to be a rather common occurrence. Knowing how something generally works isn't really that helpful if you keep trying to apply that understanding in a situation where it doesn't work. Yet, scientists all too often fall back on a very "sterilized"/generalized/variable controlled "knowing" that frequently doesn't hold up in real situations. They frequently fail to account for just about any variables outside those controlled in a specific experiment that was designed with a specific outcome in mind.

Again I get this isn't how it always works. Yet, it happens enough that I feel like trying to sweep it under the rug is disingenuous. Just like everyone else, scientists are fallible human beings that don't always know what they think they know. What they do know doesn't always apply to a situation that they don't take the time to truly understand.

Dropping some "science" bomb in the wee hours of the morning, in an thread that had been going on for awhile, with no reference to what it was referring to, seemed to be of the (counterproductive) "drive-by shooting" version of science.

It's odd how the only actual scientist I know of on this board doesn't share your view. The very word "exception" indicates the rarity no matter how you choose to redefine it. I haven't actually seen anyone try to "sweep it under the rug" in so much as they totally disagree with you on the frequency that it occurs. So what time of the day or night it is seems to hold some relevance to you?

From reading your posts for so long it's easy to see you are a very skeptical individual. And I do believe all of us have good reason to be skeptical of many things. I'm just not skeptical of everything. Over my lifetime one thing i have seen a definitive pattern of is the ability of science to adapt their views and revise things based on learning more. They base their opinions on what is known and seem quite willing to change and adapt that as they learn more. If not we would still be using leaches to purify our blood and be buying medicine off the shelf with cocaine and heroin as their major ingredients.

It's odd that someone thinks about how they identify themselves in a positive way? It'd be more odd if they didn't.

Exception indicating rarity is great, but just because you use the word exception has no effect on the actual rate of occurrence of what you're referring to.

Is something that works less than half the time (barely more than placebo) being "marketed" by scientists/doctors as an effective treatment (and also shows a higher frequency of relapse than non-treatment) an example of a rule at work or exceptions?

Scientists willing to adapt? Different scientists, sure. An individual scientist, maybe, maybe not. People, scientists included, tend to stick to what they are comfortable with. I'll point out the whole sun revolving around the earth line of "science" and resistance to change that resulted in Galileo being convicted of heresy and sentenced to lifelong imprisonment for stating what we now know to be true.

I would really love to know what "you think" that "rate" is.


Many of us realize that a lot has changed since 1633. While it happened later, they don't have witch trials anymore either.

Well.....just typing---Witch-hunts are a contemporary phenomenon occurring globally, with notable occurrences in Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Nepal, and Papua New Guinea. Modern witch-hunts surpass the body counts of early-modern witch-hunting.

I'd say this applies- To say there is nothing new under the sun means there is nothing really new on the earth. All the activity of a man during his lifetime is lost in the grander scheme of things and will soon be forgotten (Ecclesiastes 1:11).


If world last another 100 years-- wonder what future generations will say about TRUMP or Biden......neither will have much impact.....Putin has real possibilities.

There is no set exception rate. It varies over time and topic. Yet, it seems relatively safe to say that the exception rate is almost always greater than zero.

Things change, yes. People still believe they are right when they are wrong, though. I'm not trying to say that I am always right. I'm clearly not. I'm simply saying that individuals presenting something as always true that in reality isn't is troublesome to me. I understand the desire for absolutes, but things rarely work that way.

Looking for horses rather than zebras works a lot of the time. Unfortunately, when the problem actually is a zebra that approach is counterproductive.

Treating something as homogeneous when involving very different individuals is not a very good approach for those individuals that don't fall into the majority (or worse, a carefully selected control group.) Applying findings of controlled experiments on individuals that don't meet the selection criteria that was used when conducting the experiment seems like questionable "science."

A "scientist" using the "toilet thinkers" stereotype rubbed me the wrong way. Lumping people together in a denigrating way isn't something I find much value in.

The very word exception means less than zero. Often times a consensus is reached when several scientists independently come up with the same answer. It's not as if a single scientist comes up with a conclusion and others simply jump on board their conclusion. I believe you're just far to cynical about everything under the sun that you will always find some underlying reason not to trust almost anything you see or hear.

I have reasons to be cynical. Am I too cynical or are you too trusting? How does one determine too cynical? What is the proper amount of cynicism?

Here's a quote from Descartes:
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."

I won't go into a full "you can't handle the truth" rant. Yet, how can one determine the truth if one doesn't question things? How can one increase their understanding by simply accepting what they are told? Especially when what they have been told doesn't line up with their own experience?

Science isn't some pure, unassailable bastion. It is corruptible like so much else that involves imperfect people.

Am I too much the philosopher? Perhaps. Is everyone else not enough of one? We all have our burdens to carry. We are what we are. (Or perhaps we are what our lives have made us.)

Pretty much since it coincides with the volume of you posts. Road construction companies are out to bilk us. Scientist can't be trusted or believed and so on. Most of what you post is the pure distrust of others on all levels. And I don't doubt as you put it " perhaps we are what our lives have made us."

My life has made me question things. It hasn't made me see a boogeyman around every corner.

I don't see them around every corner. Mostly just where money flows.

Yet I think my point is still rather valid. I'm not sure how a consensus of scientists based on their independent studies line their pockets unless you think there are some kick back schemes involved to skew their opinions. I would find it just as valid to consider that industry from the other side would offer just as much or more to pay for them to arrive at a different conclusion were that the case.

Scientists do arrive at different conclusions. My point is that experiments can be designed in such a way as to favor a certain outcome. Scientists being paid by the fossil fuels industry design their experiments differently than scientists paid by the Sierra Club (I'd say the EPA, but that's been pretty well infiltrated by industry.)

You have turned "they can" into "they are" but somehow can't see that.

I'm using your rules and exceptions. The exceptions are greater than zero. Thus, "they are."

Are you claiming that you honestly believe there are no scientists that perform their experiments with an outcome in mind? That scientists don't mothball research when it doesn't come to the conclusion that their employers want?

I just read an article on Scientists/Execs at 3M burying information about PFAs. link