If we had no sun at all, I'm pretty sure we'd be an ice ball, save for volcanic activity. These impacts from solar activity take some time to develop, as I understand it. If we are in some sort of grand minimum, just wait a decade or so. If the Earth was highly reactive to these events (like breaking cold records everytime a minimum happens), I'm not sure we'd be here. The oceans store/release a lot of heat over the short term (years).
This is not an isolated event. Parts of North America & Europe has had snow & hale in the Summer. Australia had an unusually cold winter. There's also historical precedence for these anomalous weather events.
Growing Degree Days compared between 2018-2019 has been falling in all of the US States except Alaska & Florida; over 20% in the northern states. http://iceagefarmer.com/gdd
At what point would APGW be falsifiable? How much summer/early-autumn/late-spring snow would it take?
That was due to a weakening of the jet stream which normally keeps arctic air further north. There is evidence (inconclusive AFAICT) that global warming is partly to blame for a weak jet stream last winter.
This is why the term "climate change" is more accurate than "global warming". Increased energy in the atmosphere has uneven effects. The overall effect is to warm the earth but due to second-order effects (changes in cloud cover, changes in precipitation), some places won't experience warming but will experience change.
First, the GDD tool shows that most of America's landmass has a reduction of Growing Degree Days. This is more than "some places" and it throws doubt on the Hockey Stick graph model. The 1930's were hotter than the recent warm period, even though there was less CO2.
Do the models you are referencing account for magnetic fields & Birkeland currents?
During Grand Solar Minimums, the Solar Background Magnetic Field & Magnetic Field strength of sunspots is reduced, weakening both the Heliosphere & Magnetosphere, both of which repel cosmic rays, which trigger clouds, earthquakes, & volcanic eruptions. See the work of Dr. Valentina Zharkova, Dr. Heinrich Svensmark, & others (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13429...
) for more details.
Earth is also going through a Geomagnetic excursion of the poles, which is geologically rare.
I've never seen a climate scientist say that every change in temperature is linked solely to the effects of CO2 & etc. Everyone recognizes there are multiple drivers of fluctuating climate (e.g. el nino/la nina, solar cycles, natural CO2 spikes from volcanos, etc, etc, etc).
To jump back a few steps, I'd think that APGW could be falsified at least three ways.
1) From a top-down perspective, if warming over years & decades consistently decouples from models, then clearly the models are wrong. It's invalid to expect the models to be accurate month-by-month, that's not the granularity they are built to explore.
2) From a bottom-up perspective, if someone can establish on a theoretical basis that additional carbon dioxide & methane do not have a baseline or secondary warming effect, then we'd need a new theory to explain observations
3) If we see the regular surprise emergence of unexpected climate effects to the point where our models are invalid. I can't come up with a good example. Something like "Ocean water gets dramatically lighter above XX degrees, which vastly reduces the absorbtion of sunlight"
We had bushfires in the middle of winter. That is not a sign of a cool winter. It is a summer event, happening in winter. According to the Bureau of Meterology (BoM), the recent daily maximum during this past winter was 1.79 degrees Celsius warmer than average.
It's gaslighting them. They have no feedback that the world is ignoring them. The crank on the public street corner saying the world is gonna end soon gets feedback when people walk right on by or put in their earbuds to ignore him.
The idea is that the person being shadowbanned is either communicating in bad faith (trolling or trying to underhandedly manipulate others), or is a paranoid schizophrenic.
In practice, though, shadowbans are applied to people who are persistent annoyances, even if they're not intentionally so, and even if they're not delusional. The result is a shift of the forums' Overton Window. Gradually, other people become annoying outlyers on contentious topics, and they have to be shadowbanned as well to "keep the peace". On and on it goes.
People who are justifiably shadowbanned — trolls and paranoids — probably check periodically to see if their main account has been shadowbanned. Otherwise they're poor trolls or not very paranoid paranoids. If a troll discovers this, they will be enraged and redouble their efforts if it's technically possible to get around the ban. If a paranoid discovers a shadowban, it will feed their paranoia. Either case is very bad for the forum, when the toxic user inevitably re-registers (assuming they're able; if they're not why couldn't they just be banned outright?), causing chaos until they're identified and shadowbanned again. The only person this really works on is the unintentionally annoying poster who discovers the shadowban and becomes depressed over being gaslighted, and might leave the forum on account of that.
Shadowbans seems like they're part of a war of attrition against justifiable targets, with quite a lot of collateral damage.
Letting certain people post uninhibited also hurts the community. There's no perfect solution.
> If a troll discovers this, they will be enraged and redouble their efforts if it's technically possible to get around the ban.
In my experience shadow-banning people on my forum, outright banning someone tends to enrage people much more since they basically realize they are banned in the heat of the moment that got them banned. One benefit of shadow-banning is that they may have cooled off by the time they realize, and frankly people tend to handle it better, even sometimes a "ah, touche" sort of mentality.
I've noticed my own posts on HN individually shadow-banned by looking at my comment history in incognito mode and I get it. "Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have worded that post so strongly."
Better mod processes help the issue. On my forum, people shadow-banned pop up in review queue at intervals. If they seemed to have cooled off, they can be unbanned. Mods can also vouch for certain posts like people can on HN with showdead on. There's a view in the mod panel that sorts people by vouch count and we can potentially unban people that way as well.
Nobody would need a shadow-banning mechanism if the moderators had unlimited resources. People forget that it's an effort to be on the right side of the trapdoor function.
Meanwhile I wager that people that don't think shadow-banning is ever just are coming from an idealism you tend to have before you actually try running a forum and realize the extent a single person can harm your community and waste everyone's finite time.
I don’t disagree with you. But as a thought experiment, consider you are being shadow banned right now, but are unaware? How does that affect your thoughts or argument? Especially if banned accidentally by an algorithm without intending to offend etc.
I think the next level of shadow banning (if not happening today) will be shadow supporting or shadow questions/responses. Where an entire thread keeps progressing to convince a banned user from investigating their true status by keeping the dopamine flowing.
Well it's multipurpose. One roll can ship many different things. Otherwise you need an inventory of various sized boxes. I'm guessing it will find an instant niche.
At this point, it's a feature to have things denominated in $. I'm likely going to buy a Purism laptop with bitcoin, but of course denominated in $. I spent a couple hundred on BTC years ago, which has generated a nice return. This will be my first purchase, and I'll have plenty of BTC left over. Holding a deflationary currency while the world operates on an inflationary one is fine by me.
This article is laughable. Knocking the developers by saying Myers and Briggs had no training is akin to knocking the first powered flight by saying Orville and Wilbur Wright had no training.
It's not difficult to imagine evolution has discovered a way to segregate us into different personalities for the advantage to form cohesive social groups with specializations for survival. Who hasn't observed the difference between introvert and extravert in their own interactions? Is it a stretch to envision a couple more dichotomies exist?
Ask people to answer questions that will sort them into 16 bins and isn't it logical to assume those bins might have traits in common?
There are plenty of problems with MBTI and by all means, develop a better science. I tend to characterize people into their MBTI type in order to better interact with them. I find it useful and understandable, even predictive. Parlor trick? Perhaps, but on a couple of occasions now, I've accurately predicted a new friend's MBTI type simply by observing them and then having them take the test to confirm. You then have a useful basic mental model of them.
Unfortunately, while I can fly in a 777 nearly halfway around the world now due in part to the Wrights, there is no personality tool 777 equivalent.
The map is unusual. It's rare to show magnetic declination lines - I suspect there might be a clue there. Land ownership is seemingly a clue too. Nobody who grew up in the west would hide treasure on someone else's private land and then claim he did it to get people outdoors. In many of these areas, people don't appreciate trespassing. Tribal land is out of the question too, unless he's crazy.
He claims all you need is the map, then leaves more offline clues in interviews than on the map, e.g. above 5000 feet, near pine, near a road from which he could make two trips in an afternoon. That is sort of annoying - seems a treasure map /poem should be self-contained.
