Are college football games super spreaders?...

[SaturdayGT 719]

  Whats going on in the packed arenas in college football? How is our covid numbers going?

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

On 10/9/2021 at 9:11 PM, SaturdayGT said:

  Whats going on in the packed arenas in college football? How is our covid numbers going?

Was curious about that after August spike. Apparently not a super spreader per Florida.

 https://news.ufl.edu/2021/10/no-covid-spikes-from-football/
 

 

 

[SaturdayGT 719]

They all must be wearing masks.....🤪

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

It appears that they are not. 

With as many people as are filing into elbow-to-elbow, thigh-to-thigh seats and screaming at each other week after week, you would expect cases to have noticeably exploded.

I have been of the opinion from pretty early on that nothing we do much affects this virus.  I think it has some property that we do not understand that modulates and for reasons we don't understand sometimes it is very contagious and sometimes it's just not.  

Doesn't mean I haven't taken precautions as I could always be wrong, but that's my opinion.

[SaturdayGT 719]

Nothing wrong with precautions...I think you were right early....theres not much that we do affects the virus. ...I feel like the political aspect is glaring to me. ..its like how politicians have harnessed the weather lol.  Theres truths , and there's politicians "who can do something about it" or capitalize on the opportunity, but ask for more money like modern day televangelists.....

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

11 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

It appears that they are not. 

Surprising to me. I thought fan filled stadiums would come to an early halt after high numbers in August and early September. The Trump rally in Cullman was labeled a “potential superspreader”. Not much on crowd event’s since.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/trump-holds-potential-superspreader-rally-in-cullman-alabama-two-days-after-the-city-declared-a-covid-19-state-of-emergency/ar-AANAudc

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

13 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

Nothing wrong with precautions...I think you were right early....theres not much that we do affects the virus. ...I feel like the political aspect is glaring to me. ..its like how politicians have harnessed the weather lol.  Theres truths , and there's politicians "who can do something about it" or capitalize on the opportunity, but ask for more money like modern day televangelists.....

Mankind have been trying to control the weather since the rain dance with no success.  Now we have the existential threat of climate change and the politicians think, given enough power and other people’s money, they can control the climate.  Just like Covid, don’t think about mitigation we can control nature.

Ivermectin anyone?

[SaturdayGT 719]

On 10/13/2021 at 1:02 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Mankind have been trying to control the weather since the rain dance with no success.  Now we have the existential threat of climate change and the politicians think, given enough power and other people’s money, they can control the climate.  Just like Covid, don’t think about mitigation we can control nature.

Ivermectin anyone?

  Politicians know they cant control the weather...  they know they can control a large amount of the population enough to convince them out of their hard earned dollars!..same with covid, and all these "crises" that keep popping up...apparently we live in the absolute, most challenging time in human history, and only the proper minded Politicians can save us all!!....now it may cost you a little extra, but how much do you value your livelyhood...or better yet, the livelihood of your fellow man!!! ..lol

[homersapien 11,393]

11 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

  Politicians know they cant control the weather...  they know they can control a large amount of the population enough to convince them out of their hard earned dollars!..same with covid, and all these "crises" that keep popping up...apparently we live in the absolute, most challenging time in human history, and only the proper minded Politicians can save us all!!....now it may cost you a little extra, but how much do you value your livelyhood...or better yet, the livelihood of your fellow man!!! ..lol

Actually, it's only the scientifically literate politicians who can save us.  That's exactly why it's so unlikely to happen.

But I am sure the events of the next few decades will convince even the AGW deniers the folly of their ignorance.  Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

Edited October 15, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually, it's only the scientifically literate politicians who can save us.  That's exactly why it's so unlikely to happen.

But I am sure the events of the next few decades will convince even the AGW deniers the folly of their ignorance.  Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

What are your predictions for the next few decades?

We've been hearing that now since the early 1970s, btw.  Around fifty years.  Doesn't mean there's no validity at all to the CC narrative—they may be able to accurately predict polar ice caps receding or something along those lines—but the one thing they have spectacularly failed at is real-life predictions for the consequences of the climate changing.

If they had been right about even 20% of what they predicted we would have already all been dead.  Probably by around 2010 actually.  Yet here we are in 2021 with Obama buying beach front property.  He ain't worried about it, obviously.

Not to mention, is it not the consensus of the same scientists who bring us this narrative that it's already too late?  Maybe that's why the Big O is o.k. living at the beach.  he figures we're all doomed anyway, so he may as well be one of the first to go.

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

41 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Yet here we are in 2021 with Obama buying beach front property.  He ain't worried about it, obviously

Obama bought well above sea level. Wanted no part of Miami I suppose.

https://www.miamidade.gov/global/economy/resilience/sea-level-rise-flooding.page

Edited October 15, 2021 by SaltyTiger

[metafour 4,969]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

But I am sure the events of the next few decades will convince even the AGW deniers the folly of their ignorance.  Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

 

 

[SaturdayGT 719]

My bet is that in the next few decades, global cooling and a pending ice age will be the big topic....

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, SaturdayGT said:

My bet is that in the next few decades, global cooling and a pending ice age will be the big topic....

Exactly

Funny how the ones screaming about "science" regarding the vaccines are also the same ones that decide to ignore 100's of thousands of years of the earth's climate history. 

The claim that everything is increasing faster now than at any time in the past is just a guess. If you look at the history of the temp cycles we can measure them over the course of 1000's of years. The level of precision we can obtain for past temps is not enough to try to claim that we are currently experiencing "unprecedented" global warming. What they don't tell anyone is that they really don't have anything they can accurately compare it to. Look at the graphs from the FWS and you see what appears to be getting close to the peak of a warming trend. If you look at the past, we aren't even at the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that earth has previously experienced. 

The planet has and is always cycling and searching for equilibrium. 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 10/15/2021 at 5:14 PM, wdefromtx said:

Exactly

Funny how the ones screaming about "science" regarding the vaccines are also the same ones that decide to ignore 100's of thousands of years of the earth's climate history. 

The claim that everything is increasing faster now than at any time in the past is just a guess. If you look at the history of the temp cycles we can measure them over the course of 1000's of years. The level of precision we can obtain for past temps is not enough to try to claim that we are currently experiencing "unprecedented" global warming. What they don't tell anyone is that they really don't have anything they can accurately compare it to. Look at the graphs from the FWS and you see what appears to be getting close to the peak of a warming trend. If you look at the past, we aren't even at the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that earth has previously experienced. 

The planet has and is always cycling and searching for equilibrium. 

 

Questions:

1) "How was global temperature measured several hundred thousand years ago?

2) Assuming it's pretty much the same way global temperate history is being determined today, do you really think natural variations aren't factored in by scientists?

Trust me.  AGW is not a "guess".

Please don't post on these sort of topics.  You are embarrassing us Auburn graduates who actually studied science.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

Questions:

1) "How was global temperature measured several hundred thousand years ago?

2) Assuming it's pretty much the same way global temperate history is being determined today, do you really think natural variations aren't factored in by scientists?

Trust me.  AGW is not a "guess".

Please don't post on these sort of topics.  You are embarrassing us Auburn graduates who actually studied science.

 

 

 

 

So you think scientists can get down to a level of precision of say 10-15 or even 20 years of what the temperatures were 400,000 years ago?

For starters they don't measure them the same way, we have real time data now. They are comparing temps to information ascertained by proxy. 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

So you think scientists can get down to a level of precision of say 10-15 or even 20 years of what the temperatures were 400,000 years ago?

Apparently you totally missed my point, which doesn't surprise me.

It was you who was using this data to somehow prove AGW is false, even though the same scientists who collected this data support AGW. 

(BTW, AGW didn't start until about 300 years ago.)

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Apparently you totally missed my point, which doesn't surprise me.

It was you who was using this data to somehow prove AGW is false, even though the same scientists who collected this data support AGW. 

(BTW, AGW didn't start until about 300 years ago.)

 

 

First of all I never said it was false, but I do not think we as humans are affecting it as much as you think. We really have nothing precise enough to know if we are or not. Hence why we have scientist that have differing opinions on this. 

Earth has been way hotter than this in the past (millions of years ago) and even haven't reached what they say we've hit as recent as 100K years ago or so. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 10/18/2021 at 4:29 PM, wdefromtx said:

First of all I never said it was false, but I do not think we as humans are affecting it as much as you think. We really have nothing precise enough to know if we are or not. Hence why we have scientist that have differing opinions on this. 

Earth has been way hotter than this in the past (millions of years ago) and even haven't reached what they say we've hit as recent as 100K years ago or so. 

 

What the earth was like "millions" of years ago is totally irrelevant to the current problem of AGW.  It demonstrates or proves nothing.

And  your belief that AGW is false or not at this point.  You clearly don't believe it's happening.  Unfortunately nature (science) doesn't care what you believe.

Edited October 19, 2021 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What the earth was like "millions" of years ago is totally irrelevant to the current problem of AGW.  It demonstrates or proves nothing.

And  you believe AGW is false or not at this point.  You clearly don't believe it's happening.  Unfortunately nature (science) doesn't care what you believe.

LMAO, just stop now............Yeah the history of temps of the earth matters...........because guess what? The earth heats and cools over time and it didn't just suddenly decide it wanted to stay the same temps a few thousand years ago. This warming is likely caused by this natural cycle. 

No wonder the dems can trick people into believing them. 

[homersapien 11,393]

18 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

LMAO, just stop now............Yeah the history of temps of the earth matters...........because guess what? The earth heats and cools over time and it didn't just suddenly decide it wanted to stay the same temps a few thousand years ago. This warming is likely caused by this natural cycle. 

No wonder the dems can trick people into believing them. 

AGW is not a phenomenon that is happening in geologic time.  It's happening the anthropogenic time, specifically since the industrial age.

The earth has never heated at a rate in which it is heating since the 1700's.  The geologic history of the earth is not relevant to what is now happening in the "anthropocene" era.

Here, read this and save me some time:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

It's not surprising that my question regarding what predictions climate doomsdayers are willing to go on record for these days went unanswered, but I would like an answer to my follow up question:  Am I wrong, or aren't the same people predicting death and doom also telling us that we're already too late?  If so, what's the point?

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

It's not surprising that my question regarding what predictions climate doomsdayers are willing to go on record for these days went unanswered, but I would like an answer to my follow up question:  Am I wrong, or aren't the same people predicting death and doom also telling us that we're already too late?  If so, what's the point?

Don't think I've heard that it's too late to make a difference. I do know some scientists believe that it may be too late to avoid some severe consequences and now it's a matter of mitigation.

I see it as sort of akin to the "Foundation" series: If we see an inevitable catastrophe coming, shouldn't we work to limit the damage, to increase chances of survival and allow those that remain to rebuild sooner?

[homersapien 11,393]

On 10/15/2021 at 2:13 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

What are your predictions for the next few decades?

 

More severe hurricanes and tropical storms. 

More frequent and severe "rain events" along with associated flooding. 

More frequent and severe droughts, along with associated wildfires and crop failures.

More noticeable changes in flora and fauna ranges (which I and other have noticed in South Carolina).

Longer periods of extreme heat in the summer with associated power failures.

More frequent winter storms as a result of jet stream fluctuations.

Edited October 21, 2021 by homersapien

[metafour 4,969]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

More frequent and severe hurricanes and tropical storms. 

More frequent and severe "rain events" along with associated flooding. 

More frequent and severe droughts, along with associated wildfires and crop failures.

More noticeable changes in flora and fauna ranges (which I and other have noticed in South Carolina).

Longer periods of extreme heat in the summer with associated power failures.

More frequent winter storms as a result of jet stream fluctuations.

Your very first "prediction" has already been debunked as alarmist nonsense.

Hurricanes are NOT becoming "more frequent". The actual data suggests that we can expect them to be slightly stronger, but LESS frequent moving forward.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/no-global-warming-isnt-causing-worse-hurricanes/

Quote

 

The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit.

 

Quote

 

Looking ahead, it is likely that hurricanes will become somewhat stronger, but less frequent. This should not cause panic. A major study in Nature put worldwide hurricane-damage costs around 0.04 percent of GDP. Accounting for an increase in prosperity (which means more resilience), by 2100 this would drop to 0.01 percent. The effect of global warming making storms fewer but stronger will see damage end up around 0.02 percent of GDP. Global warming will increase harm, but prosperity will still decrease the overall impact.

Which brings us to why carbon cuts are a terrible way to reduce hurricane damage. As a Royal Society report concluded, cutting CO₂ has “extremely limited potential to reduce future losses.”

 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by metafour