Not Going to Say It

Nope, not going to say it because the majority of people on the planet don't care, and those that do would have already heard it, even if I had posted this on Thursday. Not feeling a point to wasting the Internet saying it again.

Unfortunately this has left me without much to say. Although, as I'm sure some friends of mine would attest to, my having little to say may be a good thing. (I think my average length for a personal email is still well over 1000 thousand words.) I guess I can say this though. I've had an idea that I doubt is original, but I don't care. I think I will still do it.

Not Sure What to Do With This

I've been working on something for this blog for awhile and now that I've finally finished it, I can't figure out what I want to do with it! It's an image I put together that I thought would be fitting for this blog, but I can't find a way to stick it in here that I like. Also I can't get it in here in its original form; a vector graphic. Well, here's a PNG version that isn't as great, but it's something:

Put a fair amount of time into this, which you can probably see on the pencil and brush. The camera was relatively easy, though I admit the buttons don't look right, but I'm not sure how to make them look better. The person I admit also doesn't look right but there is no chance I'm going to get that right. But hey, the top portion looks good, so I'm happy.
Maybe I'll figure out how to use it on here in the future. We'll just have to see.

See the Silver Lining, Now Finding the Cloud

I wish I was more interesting. Then I might be writing more stuff for here. Anyway, here's something interesting that is not about me.

I like science in general, so I follow and read a lot of science news, including climate science. To be inflammatory though, you could call it climate propaganda given some of the information being put out there of late. Basically what this information is saying is that claims about global warming climate change are not being thoroughly investigated. First up, biofuels:

Biofuels are these beautiful things, aren't they? You grow a plant, process some of it, and you get fuel to not burn in your car (ethanol is actually bad for your engine, at least in concentrations above ~15%). The combustion of the fuel releases carbon – bad – but growing the plants takes carbon from the atmosphere – good – so everything balances out, right? Actually there is no evidence of this, as was found by a meta-study (meaning it studied other studies). No one has ever bothered to actually measure the total carbon output and input of producing and using biofuels. The studies just assume the output is the same as the input. At the same time as making that assumption though it also counts the carbon plants absorb…. So along with the assumption, they are double-counting the carbon sink. Add onto that lack of scientific rigor the fact that apparently the nitrogen cycle, which could have ever great impacts than the carbon cycle, has largely been ignored when considering biofuels. (That's from another study I don't have the link handy for.)

So why am I talking about this today? After all, that study I link to above is from June. Because I just got another piece of science news that again shows a lack of scientific rigor.

One of the ideas put forth concerning climate change is that it will increase droughts, and according to one measure, that is true. Unfortunately that measure, as scientists are now pointing out, is completely useless for this measurement.The means of measuring drought for this concept is to compare precipitation and evaporation. Well, measuring precipitation is easy with a rain gauge. Measuring evaporation is quite difficult though, because of all the factors involved, including wind, humidity, and temperature. For this drought measurement though, it only considers temperature and assumes that higher temperatures directly lead to more evaporation. So again it is an assumption that is being touted as truth.

When using a different measure of drought, it actually turns out that it was worse in the 1950s and 60s, before global warming was a thing. Wasn't that when people thought we were heading to an ice age and over population was the source of all ills.

For what it's worth though, this is how science has always worked; someone makes a claim, likely without examining all aspects, and someone else comes around to do that investigation. The problem now is the people who try to shape the world on the 'silver-lining science' (that's what I'm calling it) before finding the cloud.

Still Here

I know it's been awhile since I last posted something. That was primarily because there was nothing interesting to share. Now I have something interesting but I've also been left in a brown out!
That's right, I'm a victim of the storm that hit the Northeast US, Sandy. I am luckier than some though, as I'm just experiencing a brown out so there is some power, but usually not enough to power a computer. I'm posting this from my phone, so I'm going to keep it short and end with this:
As wonderful as fluorescent lights may seem to be, they are mostly useless in a brown out. Incandescent lights however work fine at half voltage! Bring me back my bulbs so I can see in emergency situations. Protecting the environment is great, but protect the people too. Besides, fluorescent lights that burn out during a brown out are hazardous waste, but most people just throw them into landfills. Pretty sure that is worse for everyone/thing involved; humans and Nature.