August 21, 2017

Did you break all the rules and look at the sun? Trump did!

Pics, at CNN, of the Prez squinting at the famous disc of fire.

129 comments:

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Lord-a-Mighty! I sure hope poor Barron didn't do like his daddy did.

David said...

It's the vision thing.

Fabi said...

"seemingly"

tcrosse said...

You're not supposed to peek.

MisterBuddwing said...

Washington, D.C. achieved only 82 percent totality. Utterly foolish.

Birkel said...

Somehow humans all migrated from near the Equator in Africa with a giant nuclear reactor above us and the species managed not to go blind.

A second or two does not blind normal eyes.

David said...

The Sessions-Ross picture is hilarious. We may be seeing that one again.

The railing in front of Sessions and Ross needs a coat of paint. What a dump the President lives in.

David said...

Melania, as usual, looks lovely.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Trump just can't let the sun outshine him.

rhhardin said...

Bannon would have warned him.

Paddy O said...

I squinted at the sun for a brief moment, I hope no one took my picture at that point!

I knew the warnings, but didn't have special glasses, so I sneaked a peek.

We had 77% totality and I couldn't see a bit of a sliver of darkness in my peek. It did get slightly dimmer outside, but only slightly.

I'm fairly sure I wasn't blinded, but maybe I should wait for the media to tell me. I can't trust whether or not I'm actually seeing right now.

Ambrose said...

Where are the stories of whole villages going blind in the middle ages - when everyone would have stared because no one was warned not to.

rhhardin said...

I predict in a year the Althouse blog will be gone. Google's doing Krystalnacht on truthy commentary.

rcocean said...

Am I really supposed to trust CNN? Did Trump look *directly* at the Sun?

Prove it.

Isn't this the kind of #fakenews CNN would make up?

"Hey, there's Trump squinting/looking up at the sky, lets say he's *directly* looking at the Sun during an Ellipse - Ha,ha, it'll make him look like a dummy."

Yancey Ward said...

Another count to the impeachment articles.

PB said...

Clouds got in my way.

I blame Joni Mitchell.

rcocean said...

I remember as a kid everyone telling me not to look at the sun during an eclipse.

They gave us Cardboard things with little pinholes.

But I actually snuck a peek at the Sun WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION.

And suffered no damage whats-so-ever.

Question Authority!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You CAN look at the eclipse during the phase of totality. For a short period of time and ONLY in the total eclipse. To look at the sun directly for more than a few seconds if not totally eclipsed, you may be risking some damage, depending on how long you look at the sun.

Everyone has at one time or another accidentally glanced at the sun and we all don't go blind. Geez. But....why take the chance on purpose, when we have all these nifty glasses.

rcocean said...

"Google's doing Krystalnacht on truthy commentary."

The question is, why does everyone use Google?

Is it a law?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I can't trust whether or not I'm actually seeing right now.

@ Paddy O

Can you see the puppy?

Curious George said...

When Trump looks at the sun, the sun blinks.

David Begley said...

Cloudy in Nebraska. Big disappointment.

rcocean said...

"Everyone has at one time or another accidentally glanced at the sun and we all don't go blind. Geez. But....why take the chance on purpose, when we have all these nifty glasses."

Well, we had cardboard with pin holes. I'm not sure why the pinholes made it safe. Anyway, unlike everyone else I thought the whole thing was a bore. It was light, and then it was dark, and then light again.

But whatever floats your boat.

MisterBuddwing said...

Everyone has at one time or another accidentally glanced at the sun and we all don't go blind. Geez. But....why take the chance on purpose, when we have all these nifty glasses.

Because it's much more important to seem smarter than the snooze media.

dbp said...

Trump has no respect for stars that allow themselves to be blotted out by moons! Weak!

Paraphrase from IowaHawk

Matt Sablan said...

"I like suns that don't get eclipsed."

Fabi said...

I was trying to sight-in a viewer prior to the eclipse and twice looked at the Sun for no more than a quarter-second. I don't thruxjh an creuxb suueel trr nswwl.

Balfegor said...

I squinted, but even at 82%, the sun is stil so bright I couldn't see the moon in my brief glimpse.

Big Mike said...

Sure I did. But I looked through the special eclipse glasses that I bought via the Althouse Amazon portal. So there! 8-P

Inga...Allie Oop said...

I look at the eclipsed sun without protective glasses and I am not ashamed.

stever said...

In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

Fabi said...

The best viewing apparatus in our group was a #12 welding shield insert that someone bought this morning -- four bucks. We were able to take excellent quality photos with it.

Fernandinande said...

I made a pin-hole camera with my hand. It worked.

gbarto said...

I looked through borrowed glasses, but did get a few pictures with my phone. I looked at the phone screen, not the sun. Happily my phone wasn't blinded. I did sneak a few peaks when clouds where out and squelching the brightness qhd i qn see juwt wiine.

AllenS said...

Trump looked directly at the sun today, and the sun started to disappear. Winning.

The Godfather said...

I saw a photo of Trump looking up, presumably at the partially-eclipsed sun, with what looked like the approved glasses. Is there any evidence that he looked at the sun bare-eyed? Not just that he looked up in the air?

Henry said...

Fabi #12! You needed a #14! You're all blind now!

Wife took the kids to Brown University who held a viewing event and passed out glasses.

I was at work and a co-worker brought in 3 pair so we all took a few looks.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

Curious George said... When Trump looks at the sun, the sun blinks.

Trump doesn't look at the eclipse. The eclipse looks at him.

madAsHell said...

I made a pin-hole camera with my hand. It worked.

So did I, and now I'm using the Althouse Amazon portal to buy more antiseptic, and gauze. Out of curiosity, what size pin did you use?

Fabi said...

Several sources recommended a #14 but others said a #12 was effective. As long as I can see well enough for tonight's #6 Dance, I'll be fine.

madAsHell said...

Why is AG Sessions clutching his pearls?

AllenS said...

I took my auto-darkening welding helmet, pushed the button and it blinked back at me, which meant I was good to go. Looked at the sun with it when it was just beginning to be eclipsed, and noticed the helmet didn't darken. Had a small sun showing up every time I closed my eyes. Went and got the old helmet, removed the dark lens, looked through it, and was good to go for the eclipse. Didn't take too long, and I was bored and went back to work on the tractor brakes.

Mary Beth said...

Oh, no, he looked at the sun for a moment. That might increase his chance to get cataracts a few decades from now!

wild chicken said...

I think...the damage shows up much later, in the form of macular degeneration. Don't ask me how I know.

If you don't care about your old age, fine.

robinintn said...

Like Ambrose @5:44, I wondered about all the people throughout history who didn't go blind. This was in 1967. So I squinted and looked. I learned my teachers were a pack of liars.

tim in vermont said...

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Trump!

Mary Beth said...

Well, we had cardboard with pin holes. I'm not sure why the pinholes made it safe.

Because you aren't looking at the sun. You hold the pinhole up over a blank space, like a white sheet of paper, to project the light and shadow onto it.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I love the breathless headline at CNN:


Yes, Donald Trump really did look into the sky during the solar eclipse

Even the CNN headline writers are tired of the fake drama.

tim in vermont said...

Ok, I peeked, the temporary after image looked like the pinhole image.

AllenS said...

Al Gore didn't see the eclipse. It's always cloudy where he goes.

AllenS said...

Drudge, right now --

THE DAY WITH DARKNESS...
PHOTOS... VIDEO: TIME FLIES...
Many Feel Let Down...
Gas Prices Driven Up... Traffic Nightmare...
Temperatures Drop, Birds Quiet...
Giraffes, Rhinos Go Crazy...
National Guard called...

Wait, what? The giraffes and rhinos called the National Guard?

buwaya said...

San Francisco came through.
The fog was such that for most of the eclipse the sun was perfectly viewable with the unaided and unshielded eye.
I even took pictures.

John henry said...

More fake news.

Pictures of President Trump and Melania with glasses on here

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/fakenews-hill-says-trump-staring-sun-without-protective-glasses-eclipse-not-true/

John Henry

Bill Peschel said...

I peeked. We even had the dark glasses, which I used more.

Then there was some clouds which let me get a better view without the glasses.

But we only got 76% in Hershey. A little less humid, but the light didn't change at all, which shows just how much energy the sun pumps out. It can lose 3/4th coverage without us knowing.

Meanwhile, my sis-in-law travelled to Greenville, SC, and she said it was awesome. total coverage, lots of photos, but the stars did not come out.

D 2 said...

What did past Presidents do? How was it reported on? I presume it involved bunnies.

Rabel said...

But, Mama, that's where the fun is.

tim in vermont said...

Did democracy die?

Michael Fitzgerald said...

All your suns belong to me!

wildswan said...

One of the feeds I saw on the eclipse was from a point inside the Nashville Zoo. Seconds before totality the African animals, zebras and such in a large field, looked up and then started running. Then it was too dark to see but I think they stood still. And then the sun came back and all the animals ran about and the ostrich did its dance. Then they forgot about it.

rcocean said...

"Wait, what? The giraffes and rhinos called the National Guard?"

Yeah, that is crazy. Usually they just call 911.

"Why did the Elephant call the national Guard?"

Because he wanted to be herd.

Fritz said...

My wife thoughtfully bought some eclipse glasses off Amazon (alas, she probably didn't use the Althouse portal). We got 6 for $10. We gave away some, and I sacrificed one to tape on the lens of my point and shoot and got a couple decent photos.

veni vidi vici said...

"The question is, why does everyone use Google?

Is it a law?"


Google owns all the patents.

Todd Galle said...

Bill P,
My daughter and I were observing from New Cumberland, and we had great atmospherics. You're right about the light levels, perhaps a slight dimming. That might be my mind creating it though, through expectations instilled through the constant news stories. I noticed nothing unusual from our dog, except he was mad he wasn't out with us. No indication that the local fauna were non-plussed. Our neighbors tag team smoking sessions on their front porch was not interrupted either. 2024 here we come, if my ticker will hold out!

D 2 said...

Thank you Rabel. That was I offerred the family as Song for the Eclipse. Springsteen or Manford Mann.

The little one sided with her mother and voted Black Hole Sun.

tim in vermont said...

2024 when we get totality here, I am definitely checking out the walleye bite. Canges in light levels triggers them to feed.

Jael said...

Statuesque.

Paddy O said...

DBQ, yes, it was a bit too much on top of everything else, but you have to over look things like that in these kinds of eclipses.

Rabel said...

Melania is messin' with my frozen zone.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Further evidence that Trump has been replaced with a sex robot.

Lucien said...

Seems like President Trump either used common sense or thought critically -- both impeachable offenses.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

He's an optical pyromaniac too.

Kylos said...

hourly weather history for D.C.

Looks like a pretty cloudy day during the eclipse.

clint said...

A narcisist is someone who makes everything about himself.

What do we call CNN, who apparently can make absolutely any story -- even a solar eclipse -- become a story criticizing the President?

Jael said...

Trump knew the rules and he wanted to prove that prescriptive rules disallowing deviance (er, deviation ) caricature Trump as a fragile automation, so he broke the rules to prove that he’s not fragile, but masculinely autonomous, silently saying that the sun will not replace him, unless we find a Charles Blow editorial calling him fragile, that provoked Trump to look presidential, the sociology of image with motives accounted.

Bob Boyd said...

Fernandinande said...
"I made a pin-hole camera with my hand. It worked."

Ow! Pretty hard core.

But some people might have gotten pretty freaked out if they saw you with your stigmata bleeding away in the middle of an eclipse.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I was surprised that I couldn't see the moon anywhere near the sun this morning and even an hour or so before contact. It was weird. But it was almost like the sun was especially bright. When I came outside a second time and saw some blokes looking up I quickly glanced skyward and for a split second swore I saw a moon over the sun, but the optics are all f'd up. The sun is just way too damn bright for that surface of the moon that we all know so well to look like anything. What I would really like is to see clips of the moon approaching the sun on the day of, course before, so that it can at least be tracked. Unfortunately also the position wasn't that far deviated from 1 o'clock or whatever. I think the best eclipses would have to be those that occur low in the horizon, the same point where the sun has to cut through much more atmosphere, is easier to look at generally, and bigger. Given my disappointment with today, I'd have to believe that would be a much more optimal set of circumstances.

If I ever do a partial again it won't just be these lenses shit or even the pinhole nonsense. I'm building an honest to goodness camera obscura - like the size of an actual room and everything. I saw a clip on viewing methods yesterday and wished I'd bookmarked the clip, since it showed a full-room size camera obscura where you could actually see the colors of the sky, clouds, and the image of the moon's surface. That was cool.

Not to be a dunderhead but I'm just now realizing that the reason the moon's invisible when this happens is because it would have to be in a new moon phase. Whoops. Ok now.

tim maguire said...

Good lord, is all the good Trump hate already used up?

Big Mike said...

Not to be a dunderhead but I'm just now realizing that the reason the moon's invisible when this happens is because it would have to be in a new moon phase.

I assume some Republican explained it to you.

Rabel said...

It's not an accident. The media is conducting a concerted, community-wide campaign to find a negative spin for every action Trump takes, however minor, and to push that spin out into the public realm.

The fact that his approval ratings are not in the low single digits is a tribute to the wisdom of the American people.

Also, the quote they used about looking at the sun is a stone-cold lie. If it were true we would all be blind as every living human has glimpsed at the sun, including the liar who gave the quote.

Truth is the first casualty in war and the media is waging war against our country. Truth is down and bleeding out.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I assume some Republican explained it to you.

No, I just thought about it for a second.

All Republicans know how to do with the moon is to howl at it.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

It's not an accident. The media is conducting a concerted, community-wide campaign to find a negative spin for every action Trump takes, however minor, and to push that spin out into the public realm.

Because he's an intemperate, dangerous dummy. Come on. You know it's true.

What makes him more restrained than even, let's say - me, for instance.

I know impulsiveness. And I know someone who's even more impulsive than me when I see it.

I'm sure you do, too. You guys are just providing endless cover for him the way democrats did with BJ Clinton. It's a partisan thing. Try seeing through it, though.

Jael said...

Trump looking at the sun proves known solutions for Navier-Stokes in laminar flows (assuming both plate-Sun and plate-Trump were moving non-egocentrically), which correlates directly to explain the new laminar flow of 4,000 more soldiers to view the eclipse in Afghanistan and to guard the international income from the opium poppy fields from any and all possible future atmospheric and sociology of motives effects, the new economic international game realist, going ham global protectionist, but incrementally (just don’t notice), now with Bannon gone.

Ken B said...

"Is it a law?"

Kinda, yes. There are patents. There are regulations in parts of the world that serve as barriers to entry.

Standard Oil was never a full monopoly either.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I stared at it for five minutes straight!

Of course we had clouds here in Phoenix, so the eclipse was a bust. We were only supposed to get about 62% obscured to begin with. It peaked at 10:30 AM and I guess it looked like 7:30 AM on an overcast day. But, yeah.....bummer!

Fabi said...

@Ritmo: It was clear with low humidity here -- no vapor distortion -- and I thought with some combination of lenses and filters that we'd see the moon encroach. No luck. It didn't help that it was crescent phase, but it may never be possible -- I haven't researched it. I will put it on my to-do list for 2024.

M Jordan said...

Stood next to a pleasant old gent who said, "Hard o believe people can see this and not believe in climate change."

He must have thought I looked like a tribe member. Big mistake.

I responded, "Science predicted this eclipse to the minute ... the second. But so-callled climate scientists have predicted nothing correctly."

Silence. I recognized immediately that this pleasant seeming old gentleman had just had his religious tenders of faith attacked. And he had no idea how to defend them. The Dark Ages ... and he thinks I'm the one who is anti-science.

Christy said...

I did look without glasses, immediately after totality, for a blink, and saw the "diamond ring" effect, which was my favorite part of the entire afternoon.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Hi Fabi -

2024 is definitely on my list, also - much closer to where both I am now and where my parents might hopefully still be - although I have a feeling I might just go down to Mexico for it for the hell of it, and also to decrease the chance of cloudy conditions. I'm pretty sure I'll even go down to South America in 2020/2019? Anyway, just want to catch one that's the real deal because I'm kind of with Ann at this point about overhype. Great for science education and enthusiasm though but totality is what you want.

And as far as not even catching a crescent goes, I think it's kind of a bad idea that astronomers don't make a bigger point about that. I think it would save a lot of warnings about direct viewing - they think they're going to see the face of the moon for crying out loud! Furthermore, being in the new moon (invisible) phase makes a lot more sense when explaining why these things caused such a stir and superstition in the day. It would be one thing if the ancients, and the cavemen before them, simply saw a moon face crossing the sun's path. But no, you see nothing. It comes out of the proverbial nowhere. That's sort of what makes it spooky. It would have caused a lot less worry for peoples of the past if that weren't the case.

I was listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson the other day on eclipses and the cool thing would have been millions of years ago when the moon was closer and bigger and blocked out even more of the night or day sky - which would have given us more frequent eclipses where totality would have been much longer and the amount of sun obscured even greater. That would have been really cool. Nighttime and eclipses in the young earth sky. Awesome.

Eventually the moon will be too far away from the earth to give us total eclipses any more. :=(. Feel lucky to live in the times we're in now.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I responded, "Science predicted this eclipse to the minute ... the second. But so-callled climate scientists have predicted nothing correctly."

Oh, that's genius. Science also cannot predict what species will evolve, not evolve or go extinct. Do you also refute the theory of evolution on those anal retentive engineer's grounds? A lack of absolute predictive certainty for imposing on a numeric scale equating to falsity?

You deniers are just ridiculous.

Jael said...

Some old men are probably silently content and amused to remember the cosponsorship between Marshall Institute and OISM of the fraudulent Petition Project, that fraudulently claimed endorsement from National Academy of Sciences, no need, really, for such old men to talk, much.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I responded, "Science predicted this eclipse to the minute ... the second. But so-callled climate scientists have predicted nothing correctly."

So I guess that means that astronomy is true in 2017 but because the ancient Greeks didn't have the instrumentation for predicting exact minutes and seconds of eclipses that astronomy was less true in the 4th century B.C.

Ralph L said...

My grandmother had a melanoma on her retina at about the age I am now, so perhaps she peeked at one. I had one cut off my thigh at 30, so I don't go outside for long when the powers of UV are ascendant, not that it would have made any difference, since we had clouds. It did get heavy-thunderstorm dark at 94%.

Fabi said...

@Ritmo: I was an easy hour from totality but decided to stay by the house, thinking that it would be "close enough, good enough". Sometimes I make bad decisions! :-)

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

OH well, Fabi. We all live and learn.

I assume you at least had protective lenses...? People do stuff with mini camera obscura but I really should find that clip because making a full-size room camera obscura would really be a cool effect. But of course that takes a lot more work.

Anyway, 2024 or bust!

Ann Althouse said...

"I squinted, but even at 82%, the sun is stil so bright I couldn't see the moon in my brief glimpse"

That's the real problem. A quick look won't work. It's just too bright and dazzling. You'll have to look too long. I mistakenly started pulling off the glasses while still looking a couple times. The sun was just way too bright to look at. Only a fooll would persist in staring at at.

M Jordan said...

"Science also cannot predict what species will evolve, not evolve or go extinct. Do you also refute the theory of evolution on those anal retentive engineer's grounds?"

Evolutionary scientists have no species predictions to test. It's a soft science.

Enjoy your delusion.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Evolutionary scientists have no species predictions to test. It's a soft science.

Enjoy your delusion.


You know, presence or absence of enough math to comfort you and the other Rain Men isn't what makes something true or false. So like I said, you either accept the truth of evolution or you can be another one of those proud, "intelligent design" advocates seeing yet another anthropomorphized engineer in their "soft creationism." Talk about delusional.

Versions of the hands-extending-from-the-heavens-to-plop-animals-on-the-earth theory are way convincing of one's sanity. Just ask Kirk Cameron and Roy Comfort.

M Jordan said...

"So I guess that means that astronomy is true in 2017 but because the ancient Greeks didn't have the instrumentation for predicting exact minutes and seconds of eclipses that astronomy was less true in the 4th century B.C."

Oh, Toothless, Toothless ... you make my argument for me. Today's climate science -- minus the ideological contamination -- is at about 4th century B.C. Development. It's infantile. BUT 97% OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE.

Infantile.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Evolutionary scientists have no species predictions to test.

And that's not entirely true, either. Response to selection pressure has been noticed and can even be observed in real-time - assuming you're not too "hard" a scientist to accept that bacteria constitute a "species." The only thing that hasn't really been observed start-to-finish is speciation, but we know how that happens and see it starting when sub-populations become separated and too different in their genomes to presume they can easily revert to a common, fertile population once again.

Since when did numbers replace reason, observation, and basic common sense? I think it's just a conspiracy of the celibate nerds.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

..you make my argument for me. Today's climate science -- minus the ideological contamination -- is at about 4th century B.C. Development.

You seem to lack the brainpower to understand that you're actually proving my own point. Astronomy was as true in the 4th c. BC as it is now. Just because the instrumentation's improved doesn't mean it was less true then.

But it still was the superior understanding. Way more evidence for it than for astrology, for instance.

And so AGW has more evidence for it than any challenge. Occam's razor. It takes more unnecessary and unfounded evidence to believe that planets can regulate their climates absent an atmosphere with a heat-retaining gas in it then it does to disbelieve it. Search the universe for a celestial body that does this and you will win the Nobel Prize for overturning AGW. It's about as likely that you could do that as it would be to overturn our understanding of electromagnetism.

Michael said...

Totality may be the point but today at our 90% the cicadas set up their twilight chorus. And then figured it out. It was worth it. Awesome.

Jael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jael said...

The confusions, some deliberate, in the concept that physical laws govern random behavior (and they do), we otherwise can clarify with what we call statistics. We broad outline probability distributions, knowing that individual events are not predictable, that is, not with any useful certainty.

Random processes of individual genetic change and including individual coupled reproduction provide reliable predictive laws applied to broad populations, meaning of sufficient size to constitute a good sample. Evolutionary metrics, more or less, anticipate something like a fish will evolve, given an ecology, but they don’t say much regarding whether blue whales will evolve, or will go extinct, not according to a minimalist Newtonian mathematical model.

You can toss coins to observe generalized outlines of outcomes, a thousand tosses probably yields not all heads. But statistical prediction isn’t prediction of alternating heads and tails either (it could be done knowing all initial conditions and such), and yet it’s still prediction. Nor is such prediction any other exactly defined pre-defined arithmetic sequence of heads and tails, but it’s still prediction. We’re pretty sure, for useful purposes, that sufficient cycles of 10,000 flips gives approximately ½ heads and ½ tails (not to be confused with the formal definition of a fair coin), with anomalies allowed for unpredictable edge landings.

Original Mike said...

I looked at the sun coming out of totality for a second or two and am none the worse for wear.

Achilles said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

And so AGW has more evidence for it than any challenge. Occam's razor. It takes more unnecessary and unfounded evidence to believe that planets can regulate their climates absent an atmosphere with a heat-retaining gas in it then it does to disbelieve it. Search the universe for a celestial body that does this and you will win the Nobel Prize for overturning AGW. It's about as likely that you could do that as it would be to overturn our understanding of electromagnetism.

Where do I pick up my prize?

Oh and just to put salt in the wound there is a correlation between CO2 levels and Temperature: CO2 levels LAG 400-1000 years after temperature changes

This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)."

This is actual science. Not a bunch of garbage projections that have all turned out to be completely wrong anyways.

But when you are working with a bunch of statists to take over petroleum products and the energy sector in order to make cronies money something like the scientific method just gets in the way.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

This is actual science.

Nope, dipshit. Real science accounts for all the data that's continued to bolster AGW SINCE the 2006 and 2003 blog posts you link. And BTW, blog posts aren't peer-reviewed. Just in case you weren't aware.

You don't really seem to be aware of much.

Also, go ahead and find out who funds those websites.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

One explicitly says it's purpose is to cater to a "conservative viewpoint."

The one with the rinky-dink Mr. Rogers icon on it.

That's not only "bias." That's a flat-out political agenda.

So you're ok with science serving a political agenda, then? I guess so, apparently as long as it's the one you approve of.

Nice!

The Godfather said...

Many, MANY years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote an essay about how, as a result of gravitational forces, the moon would gradually move farther and farther away from the earth, and then, after reaching a certain maximum distance, would begin to move closer and closer to the earth. I think this was in his column in Analog SF magazine (or perhaps Astounding, as it was originally called). I don't recall that he discussed how this would affect solar eclipses, but of course it would. He went on to explain that eventually, as the moon got closer and closer to the earth, gravitational forces would cause it to break up, and eventually the fragments would create a ring around the earth like the ring around saturn. That souned cool to me.

And then he said: However, this will never happen, because before it does, the sun will run out of fuel and go supernova and destroy earth and the moon entirely.

Gosh I love science!

Rabel said...

Well, yeah. If you' been wearing the blackout glasses and your cuticles is dilated and you take them off and stare directly into the sun then even the stupidest among us will quickly learn the lesson and correct their behavior. Take Ritmo, for example.

I kid, I kid. Ritmo is not stupid but his contrariness has led him into a series of unsupportable positions - the defense of which leaves him few options other than banging the table and flinging his poo.

On the other hand it might just be the Adderall talking. Dosage is critical with the psychoactives.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

What have I said that's unsupportable?

wholelottasplainin said...

Oh, for fuck's sake! I've seen pics of Trump and Melania looking up wearing the goddamn glasses!

If looking at the suN for a few seconds would blind you, just about everyone would be blind or with damaged vision!!

GET A FUCKING GRIP!!!

wholelottasplainin said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This is actual science.

Nope, dipshit. Real science accounts for all the data that's continued to bolster AGW SINCE the 2006 and 2003 blog posts you link. And BTW, blog posts aren't peer-reviewed. Just in case you weren't aware.

********************
You are one stupid fuck. Computer models are not "experiments" and their "results" are not "data".

Just yesterday you were yammering on about the ozone layer, and how "we" had ended it.

I offered articles from NOAA and NASA saying the ozone hole is alive and well, and even larger than usual in Antarctica and making an rare appearance in the Arctic.

Maybe you would like to explain "the pause" since 1999. Other AGW alarmists have tried to ignore it, or minimize it, but...there it is.

Explain that.

You chose to pass over them in silence.

pacwest said...

Not sure if I can ask a couple of things about GW (in earnest) and post a couple of opinions without getting a bunch of rancor from both sides, but here goes:

The feedback loop is fed more by water vapor than CO2. Irrigation in the past 50 years (75% of irrigation winds up as water vapor) has increased drastically, especially in arid areas. More water vapor, more clouds, more warming. I never see this fact included in calculations. Is vapor from irrigated land that insignificant compared to ocean evaporation? What part does deforestation play? CO2 feeds the loop, but water vapor is the major player.

The USA has exceed goals in reducing CO2. Why should other nation's responsibilities be contingent on us reducing CO2 here (reducing our ability to use cheap energy and thereby harming our economic competitiveness)?

Availability of drinking water and killing our oceans are much more immediate problems, imho. Why aren't these front line items?

Someone commented about using population control to solve above problems. I get the problems with using this method, but, again imho, it looks like a better and more achievable solution than going back to the stone age. It seems to me that anyone who isn't pushing this solution is being a hypocrite if they truly believe we are destroying life on Earth.






wholelottasplainin said...

Toothless said yesterday:

"Water phase changes have a much greater equilbrium, turning from cloud to rain and then evaporating.

>>>an astounding bit of unscientific bullshit. Google the phrase "water changes have equilibrium" and you will come up with ....nothing.


Toothless is a lot like that comedian Al Kelly from years , who used to show up on-stage and double-talk his way through a speech. Science-y but not science.

Water phase changes don't "have" equilibrium. If they did we would be engulfed with water changing from ice-to-liquid-to-vapor to -clouds-to-snow all around us.


Toothless has obviously never heard of latent heat, a basic physical process when water changes phase.

It takes only one calorie to raise a gram of liquid water from 0 deg. C to 1 deg. C.

But it takes 79+ calories to raise a gram of ice at 0 degrees to...liquid water at 0 degrees.

It take 540 calories to raise a gram of liquid water at 100 degrees to water vapor at 100 degrees. IOW a lot of energy.

Water vapor rises and become tiny droplets as it reaches cooler air. It sheds its high temps as it does so. Local conditions (temp, pressure) at altitude determine whether those clouds further condense to become rain.

Now, if you think it's easy to model the ice-water-gas system on this earth, you should go tell the warmista scientists, who have never been able to do it!!!

And, as you keep ignoring there is a thousand times more of the "greenhouse gas" H20 in our atmosphere than CO2.


Face it, Toothless: you're full of shit.



>>>Water's phase changes involve large amounts of energy absorption

>>>>>idiocy. Not if the water is cooling, as with vapor-to rain. Or liquid to ice.


Do hotter regions have more clouds? Doesn't look like it.

>>>>>> Warmista NASA disagrees:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-nasa-future-rainier.html


You are a veritable ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MIS-INFORMATION, SIRRAH!!!

Jael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jael said...

“... Google the phrase ‘water changes have equilibrium’ and you will come up with ....nothing ...”

I’m still too new here to takes sides in longstanding feuds that seem intractably polarized, and, my sentiments are in accord with pacwest asking for answers, “without getting a bunch of rancor from both sides,” and, I know that many polarized participants here are capable of that, including occasional role reversals experimentally to argue other and even contra sides, because I've occasionally asked, and better, I've seen some do so.

That said ...

The proper search consistent with the offered phrasing would have been an “all words” search for - “water phase equilibrium” (without quotes) - then added with aftereffects - “global warming” (without quotes) - one the general physics of such phase shifts (triple point), then focused on global warming, alone for 662,000 results.

Achilles said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
What have I said that's unsupportable?

You actually really haven't said anything. At least anything that would be confused with the scientific method or peer review. For example:

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This is actual science.

Nope, dipshit. Real science accounts for all the data that's continued to bolster AGW SINCE the 2006 and 2003 blog posts you link. And BTW, blog posts aren't peer-reviewed. Just in case you weren't aware.

You don't really seem to be aware of much.

Also, go ahead and find out who funds those websites.


This is really poor. A troll would be embarrassed. It is hard to imagine you are actually trying to make an honest argument.

Jael said...

pacwest
8/21/17, 10:53 PM

See my previous comment (8/22/17, 12:22 AM) on my own newness here. My sense (and this is necessarily wrong because of my ignorance and newness), and this is a short heuristic, is that the sometimes justified hostilities (and sometimes not) against propositions for global warning are heuristically summarized as being fancy non-scientific model curve-fits after the fact, with a fancier version being something to the effect that the degrees of freedom for independent variables in fudgeable parameters are less than the degrees of freedom in the constraints on observations used for evaluating the ‘models.’

The rarer, and more technical argument here is that the Navier-Stokes equations used for climate change measurements are not solvable, thus not peer reviewable, which while technically true isn’t quite full-bodied, because the equations as applied to global conditions don’t really seek a single solution, but rather, the question is whether a solution will always tract, given all possible boundary conditions (and initial conditions too, I think), and then, the question isn’t what protean and perhaps innumerable (to HP computing) solutions exist for global warning, but rather what would be the appropriately generalizable description of the formal properties of a sample space of the technical solutions.

So one popular default resort is to motive-torque sociological analyses of funding sources along the spectrum of scientific opinions, but I’m not interested in making a spreadsheet with regressions just for this blog to learn whether the sociologies of motivational analyses (sinister funding theories about redistribution) are equally mustered by the many (or just two?) sides of the debate.

Some of the bombast here, however, is really good natured antagonism, punctuated by episodes of less than good natured barbs - the differences not being in my limited competence to discern :).

pacwest said...

Feste. Damn! It's why I enjoy this blog. The occasional well crafted zingers are one of the fun parts. I appreciate the well informed comments that allow me to draw my own conclusions after checking their premises. I think there have been a few bad actors during the time I have been here, but even TTR seems to be coming around a little. Great comment.

urbane legend said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
All Republicans know how to do with the moon is to howl at it.

Have to go with the fun once in a while. The other side always goes with anger.

Henry said...

Tim in Vermont wrote... Did democracy die?

LOL.

Henry said...

Toothless R -- You realize that M Jordan's original comment was to point out the elderly gentleman's logical fallacy.

The rest is noise. I don't even pretend to offer opinions on global warming anymore.

Fernandinande said...

Evolution predicted and observed

wholelottasplainin said...

There are other pics of Trump wearing the prescribed eclipse glasses.

So, he glanced up without them. Big Whoop.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

It is hard to imagine you are actually trying to make an honest argument.

No harder than it is to imagine that you are actually trying to make an informed argument.

Let me get this straight. Do you actually think that the science - the data and explanations - we have now is worse in 2017 than what some political blogger posted in 2003 or 2006?

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

The feedback loop is fed more by water vapor than CO2.

But no new H2O is being created where none existed before. This is not the case with CO2.

So I mentioned this to the other strange one. If at a given temperature H2O is likely to exist as a given percentage of vapor vs. water, as long as the temperature remains relatively stable then whatever turned to vapor will revert back to water.

But the planet is too warm for whatever CO2 we create to turn into a solid phase, which wouldn't impact temperature retention in our atmosphere as does the gas form.

This is the part that the angry revolting guy didn't get. How much of the water on the planet exists as vapor is a function of the planet's temperature. A colder planet would have less water clouds. But the relationship is reversed with CO2 because we're creating it from temperature-inert substances and it can't just easily deposit into a solid, removing itself from the atmosphere in which it retains excess heat. But unless the temp rises drastically, water can.

Unknown said...

In our simple life, love plays a very specific role. Now we are able to make your love life healthy and no space for any type of trouble. These all are possible with the help of EKPEN TEMPLE OF SOLUTION. He helped me cast a spell that brought my long lost lover back within 48hours who left me for another woman. You can also contact him on EKPENTEMPLE@GMAIL.COM or add him on WHATSAPP +2347050270218 and be happy forever like am now with his experience.