I am busy with other things, so please pardon my frequent, overly-brief replies.
What I mean is, just because YOU and a few fellows define "climate change contrarian" to be anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint, that does not make it so.
Either by dictionary OR "popular usage", you are still wrong.
What does that have to do with my comment above? What you are saying, in effect, is that anybody who questions CO2 models is a "climate change contrarian", when even in POPULAR usage, "climate change" does not equal "CO2".
Dictionary or not, you can't just go around expecting English to mean anything you want, in any give month.
"... but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience."
Ah. I see. You are preparing even further ad hominem arguments. And you insist upon doing that FIRST, before addressing any actual issues I raised.
I expected nothing else from you.
You post a link on your own website to a page about "how to disagree" , and it is pretty obvious that on that same scale you can't bring yourself to do better than "DH1".
"Charming. As I said in my responses, I'll address your Sky Dragon misinformation when I get the time, but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience."
Again, you sidestep my question. Why can't you answer it?
And your further ad hominem, in regard to that article happening to be on a particular website, just makes you look that much more foolish. It is an article about physics. Would you like to refute the actual content?
The fact is that I suspect you will not actually address this. Unlike other things you post on your blog (which appear to be in a glaringy, self-servingly edited form). Because I don't think you really CAN refute LaTour's physics. Instead you will try to prove ME wrong.
And by the way: I really do expect you to run into legal trouble with that blog of yours, if you keep doing it the way you have. I meant that sincerely. But that is a far cry from ever threatening to cause any of it myself... that is something I never stated or even implied.
Correction: I was, at first, also arguing for other causes, too. I admit that. But I have since stopped doing so.
However, I have not, at any time, been denying that the climate is changing. The only thing that is even remotely in dispute, as far as I am concerned, is how much of it, if any, is due to CO2.
And by the way: I am NOT a "climate change contrarian". I simply dispute the validity of certain CO2 warming models. I have stated this MANY TIMES over the last couple of years. But it has seemed to keep going over your head.
To clarify my earlier reply: actually, if you want to refute my statement, you would have to show that the majority of CO2 warming models do not rely on the "back-radiation" concept.
But to clarify further, in light one of your own comments: "back radiation", in this context, is not the same as "back scatter".
The "reflection from clouds" idea of IR backscatter was disproved long, long ago. It was replaced with the concept of absorption then re-radiation. That is "back radiation", and it is distinct from "backscatter". And it also doesn't work in the manner used by the majority of CO2 models.
But this only proves that you did not even read the article I linked to, or the original article it was refuting, by Spencer.
If you DO ever get around to reading it, maybe then, if you know so much about it, you can come up with a model that actually does work:
"Since energy lost from the surface via blackbody radiation is blocked in the CO_2 band, the surface must warm up until total energy lost is (still) equal to the total energy input (averaged over both the surface and time and all wavelengths). End of story."
I'm not disputing this. But please: show me the mechanism. We know it can't be all backscatter (that was disproved long ago), and the "absorption and re-radiation" model doesn't work either, as LaTour clearly shows. I placed my argument in LaTour's hands; you have done nothing here to refute it.
And your own blog posts refer to "how to have a discussion".
Haha. So you have sunk yourself to blatantly obvious ad hominem. Not that I expected anything more from you.
Where is your refutation of any argument I made HERE, in this thread? Where is it? You are pretending that this stuff from your personal blog is RELEVANT to what I stated HERE?
You claim to be a scientist yourself, but you don't use logic and you don't address the actual issues. Instead, you would rather attempt to refute things I said MONTHS ago.
I think your posts reflect on you a lot more than they do on me. This is a gross example of nothing more than personal attack. Why aren't you discussing the issue I raised?
"Anyway, before you waste money hiring a lawyer, you might want to look up libel and copyright."
You persist in your implication that I "threatened" to sue you? That is laughable. I stated that I was NOT going to sue you. And just as I stated in that paragraph that you quoted above, anybody who clearly reads my whole, original comment can see that very clearly.
For someone claiming to be a scientist, you seem to be pretty weak at logic. I think your jumping in here was a pathetic attempt to justify yourself.
"a) CO_2 warming models don't "rely" on back radiation. "
Your logic may be 100% accurate, but it says nothing about the majority of CO2 models. Please, if you wish to actually refute my statement, show me some generally accepted models that do not make use of the back-radiation concept.
Please note that I did not say CO2 wasn't a cause of warming, I simply claimed that many models are flawed.
"IMO fairly professional opinion as a physicist, Olsen is not competent;"
That's fine, since I didn't reference Olsen at all. Did you even visit the link and view both sides of the discussion to which I *WAS* referring?
Based on your completely out-of-context reply to my argument, I wouldn't call you very competent, either.
"For what it is worth, you can see back radiation and side radiation and all sorts of radiation from the sky with your eyes. Blue sky? Rayleigh scattering."
Obviously you did not bother to even read the reference I gave. Rayleigh scattering is NOT "back radiation", in the context given.
No matter how competent a scientist you actually may be, you should probably take the time to actually learn what someone is arguing before you attempt to refute it.
"I'm going to have to call bullshit on those numbers."
As I said, they are commonly reported. I'm not vouching for their veracity... maybe the people reporting them are exaggerating. How should I know?
But the 7 LOC number (or some say 10) is a famous one and you can find many sources for it... it's hardly in dispute.
As for the other number, as I say maybe they are exaggerating, but I think there's good evidence for it. Sunday and Monday of last week I personally averaged more than 1000 lines per day. And that's not comments and whatnot either... that's actual lines of code.
"People who are heavy Word users don't tend to post on/. but no OO does not support most advanced Word features."
Yes, it does support "most" advanced Word features, but I would be the first to admit not all. They are not in the same places in the menus, but most of them are indeed there.
But that's kind of beside the point. MOST people don't need or use most of Word's "advanced" features.
I've installed NeoOffice (a Mac only OO fork) on several family member's computers to meet their needs.
That's nice. And it shows that you are at least a couple of years behind the curve. Open Office and Libre Office have had native OS X versions out for quite a while now. NeoOffice hasn't been necessary for a year or two.
"But anyone who is going to be using these programs regularly and heavily still likely needs things that OO just doesn't have."
I very much disagree. I have been using Open Office (or Libre Office) as my primary office suite for many years now. I regularly correspond with people who use Word, Excel, etc. And I have very seldom had any problems at all.
"... the high end is still a pricey piece of software people are willing to pay for."
Of course. But most of the people under discussion here aren't "high end" at all.
Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.
I encourage you to read Spencer's explanation of "back radiation" (linked to from that page) before reading LaTour's rebuttal. Most CO2 models require this nonexistent "back radiation" for their calculations to work.
In addition to that, you have to add in the radioactive releases of nuclear plants associated with bomb production, like the radioactive iodine releases from the Hanford nuclear reservation. Maybe not "bombs", but they were certainly related to bomb production, and they were not just environmental releases but DAMAGING environmental releases.
Nonsense. Early on there were quite a few surface and near-surface tests, and after that there were quite a lot of "underground" tests, which did not always quite stay underground.
"While fully autonomous cars may be the more desirable future, computer backup systems like this are a more likely first step. "
And once put into production, they will be recalled and shelved for 10 years due to suspicion (and legal accusations) that they actually CAUSED some serious or fatal accidents.
Tools like this need a LOT of proving before they will be generally accepted.
"Using "waterfall" you could also get 1000 lines of code in a single day from a coder too..."
Repeat: the oft-quoted "average" in a large waterfall project has often been reported at 7 usable (i.e., non-comment) lines of code a day.
The average for Agile is commonly reported to be somewhere around 300 to 500 lines. That's a pretty significant difference.
"(but some managers overestime the agility of Agile development and think that a major change that requires rearchitecting major pieces of the project can be incorporated into the next iteration)"
I agree, but that's a problem with the manager, not with the process.
"... and it works well in SOME environments using SOME teams..."
Well, of course. Did anybody here try to say that it works all the time, for everybody?
"I call that one tool in a shed, not the golden swiss army/ginsu blade that does everything."
Again, did I even imply that it did everything for everybody?
But a report like this, that appears to imply it does little for anybody, appears to be, just as I said, FUD.
"Companies use it MAINLY because they've hired program managers that are familiar with it, typically younger ones that want change. Change is good, as long as it provides a benefit. The company typically doesn't care so long as the work gets done in a reasonable amount of time."
Again: companies would not use it -- especially so often -- if it did not provide benefit. It has been around far too long to be a fad.
Besides, like the other responder, I still don't think you're getting the point.
Many people won't (already don't) want to upgrade their operating system just to run a new browser.
Gaming is less of an issue with each passing month, with companies supporting Linux and OS X more and more.
And as for productivity software: sure, there are enterprise applications that are Windows-only, but those are also becoming more of a commodity. With most of the functionality of Microsoft Office (plus some features of their own), Open Office and Libre Office have made office software not just a commodity, but a free one.
I haven't been in IT for years, but if I were, unless I had proprietary software that I could not run natively, or under Wine or a VM, I would not use Windows at all.
"These are troll! and the fact that Slashdot has referenced them in such a provocative article is unconscionable!"
Mod up.
This is nothing but a self-serving "report" from a company that is trying to spread FUD for profit.
Agile is a proven methodology. In the old "waterfall" software industry, the famous "standard" was 7 lines of code per day per programmer.
Thanks largely to Agile methodologies, you can get up to as many as 1000 lines of code per day (though that's a bit on the high side), with even fewer bugs than the old 7-lines-per-day methods thanks in part to thorough, continuing testing being built-in to the process.
I call that a huge success.
Keep in mind that one or another form of Agile (arguably XP falls in that category) have been around for 20 years or more. Companies would not use it if it did not provide benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I am busy with other things, so please pardon my frequent, overly-brief replies.
What I mean is, just because YOU and a few fellows define "climate change contrarian" to be anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint, that does not make it so.
Either by dictionary OR "popular usage", you are still wrong.
What does that have to do with my comment above? What you are saying, in effect, is that anybody who questions CO2 models is a "climate change contrarian", when even in POPULAR usage, "climate change" does not equal "CO2".
Dictionary or not, you can't just go around expecting English to mean anything you want, in any give month.
"... but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience."
Ah. I see. You are preparing even further ad hominem arguments. And you insist upon doing that FIRST, before addressing any actual issues I raised.
I expected nothing else from you.
You post a link on your own website to a page about "how to disagree" , and it is pretty obvious that on that same scale you can't bring yourself to do better than "DH1".
"Charming. As I said in my responses, I'll address your Sky Dragon misinformation when I get the time, but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience."
Again, you sidestep my question. Why can't you answer it?
And your further ad hominem, in regard to that article happening to be on a particular website, just makes you look that much more foolish. It is an article about physics. Would you like to refute the actual content?
The fact is that I suspect you will not actually address this. Unlike other things you post on your blog (which appear to be in a glaringy, self-servingly edited form). Because I don't think you really CAN refute LaTour's physics. Instead you will try to prove ME wrong.
And by the way: I really do expect you to run into legal trouble with that blog of yours, if you keep doing it the way you have. I meant that sincerely. But that is a far cry from ever threatening to cause any of it myself... that is something I never stated or even implied.
It's only "the definition" if you do not possess a frigging dictionary.
Correction: I was, at first, also arguing for other causes, too. I admit that. But I have since stopped doing so.
However, I have not, at any time, been denying that the climate is changing. The only thing that is even remotely in dispute, as far as I am concerned, is how much of it, if any, is due to CO2.
And by the way: I am NOT a "climate change contrarian". I simply dispute the validity of certain CO2 warming models. I have stated this MANY TIMES over the last couple of years. But it has seemed to keep going over your head.
But to clarify further, in light one of your own comments: "back radiation", in this context, is not the same as "back scatter".
The "reflection from clouds" idea of IR backscatter was disproved long, long ago. It was replaced with the concept of absorption then re-radiation. That is "back radiation", and it is distinct from "backscatter". And it also doesn't work in the manner used by the majority of CO2 models.
But this only proves that you did not even read the article I linked to, or the original article it was refuting, by Spencer.
If you DO ever get around to reading it, maybe then, if you know so much about it, you can come up with a model that actually does work:
"Since energy lost from the surface via blackbody radiation is blocked in the CO_2 band, the surface must warm up until total energy lost is (still) equal to the total energy input (averaged over both the surface and time and all wavelengths). End of story."
I'm not disputing this. But please: show me the mechanism. We know it can't be all backscatter (that was disproved long ago), and the "absorption and re-radiation" model doesn't work either, as LaTour clearly shows. I placed my argument in LaTour's hands; you have done nothing here to refute it.
Haha. So you have sunk yourself to blatantly obvious ad hominem. Not that I expected anything more from you.
Where is your refutation of any argument I made HERE, in this thread? Where is it? You are pretending that this stuff from your personal blog is RELEVANT to what I stated HERE?
You claim to be a scientist yourself, but you don't use logic and you don't address the actual issues. Instead, you would rather attempt to refute things I said MONTHS ago.
I think your posts reflect on you a lot more than they do on me. This is a gross example of nothing more than personal attack. Why aren't you discussing the issue I raised?
"Anyway, before you waste money hiring a lawyer, you might want to look up libel and copyright."
You persist in your implication that I "threatened" to sue you? That is laughable. I stated that I was NOT going to sue you. And just as I stated in that paragraph that you quoted above, anybody who clearly reads my whole, original comment can see that very clearly.
For someone claiming to be a scientist, you seem to be pretty weak at logic. I think your jumping in here was a pathetic attempt to justify yourself.
If you are attempting to refute an actual argument I made, please point out where, in this massive pile of your own maunderings, it exists.
I generally do link to my sources, troll. And your comment about "trying to flog a book" is entirely an ad hominem argument, not worthy of a response.
"a) CO_2 warming models don't "rely" on back radiation. "
Your logic may be 100% accurate, but it says nothing about the majority of CO2 models. Please, if you wish to actually refute my statement, show me some generally accepted models that do not make use of the back-radiation concept.
Please note that I did not say CO2 wasn't a cause of warming, I simply claimed that many models are flawed.
"IMO fairly professional opinion as a physicist, Olsen is not competent;"
That's fine, since I didn't reference Olsen at all. Did you even visit the link and view both sides of the discussion to which I *WAS* referring?
Based on your completely out-of-context reply to my argument, I wouldn't call you very competent, either.
"For what it is worth, you can see back radiation and side radiation and all sorts of radiation from the sky with your eyes. Blue sky? Rayleigh scattering."
Obviously you did not bother to even read the reference I gave. Rayleigh scattering is NOT "back radiation", in the context given.
No matter how competent a scientist you actually may be, you should probably take the time to actually learn what someone is arguing before you attempt to refute it.
Pseudo-scientific? You are claiming that Pierre LaTour is a "lame pseudo-scientist"?
Interesting position you have there.
"I'm going to have to call bullshit on those numbers."
As I said, they are commonly reported. I'm not vouching for their veracity... maybe the people reporting them are exaggerating. How should I know?
But the 7 LOC number (or some say 10) is a famous one and you can find many sources for it... it's hardly in dispute.
As for the other number, as I say maybe they are exaggerating, but I think there's good evidence for it. Sunday and Monday of last week I personally averaged more than 1000 lines per day. And that's not comments and whatnot either... that's actual lines of code.
"People who are heavy Word users don't tend to post on /. but no OO does not support most advanced Word features."
Yes, it does support "most" advanced Word features, but I would be the first to admit not all. They are not in the same places in the menus, but most of them are indeed there.
But that's kind of beside the point. MOST people don't need or use most of Word's "advanced" features.
I've installed NeoOffice (a Mac only OO fork) on several family member's computers to meet their needs.
That's nice. And it shows that you are at least a couple of years behind the curve. Open Office and Libre Office have had native OS X versions out for quite a while now. NeoOffice hasn't been necessary for a year or two.
"But anyone who is going to be using these programs regularly and heavily still likely needs things that OO just doesn't have."
I very much disagree. I have been using Open Office (or Libre Office) as my primary office suite for many years now. I regularly correspond with people who use Word, Excel, etc. And I have very seldom had any problems at all.
"... the high end is still a pricey piece of software people are willing to pay for."
Of course. But most of the people under discussion here aren't "high end" at all.
Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.
I encourage you to read Spencer's explanation of "back radiation" (linked to from that page) before reading LaTour's rebuttal. Most CO2 models require this nonexistent "back radiation" for their calculations to work.
Absolutely! Let's start with CFC-based hairspray!
In addition to that, you have to add in the radioactive releases of nuclear plants associated with bomb production, like the radioactive iodine releases from the Hanford nuclear reservation. Maybe not "bombs", but they were certainly related to bomb production, and they were not just environmental releases but DAMAGING environmental releases.
Nonsense. Early on there were quite a few surface and near-surface tests, and after that there were quite a lot of "underground" tests, which did not always quite stay underground.
"While fully autonomous cars may be the more desirable future, computer backup systems like this are a more likely first step. "
And once put into production, they will be recalled and shelved for 10 years due to suspicion (and legal accusations) that they actually CAUSED some serious or fatal accidents.
Tools like this need a LOT of proving before they will be generally accepted.
"Using "waterfall" you could also get 1000 lines of code in a single day from a coder too..."
Repeat: the oft-quoted "average" in a large waterfall project has often been reported at 7 usable (i.e., non-comment) lines of code a day.
The average for Agile is commonly reported to be somewhere around 300 to 500 lines. That's a pretty significant difference.
"(but some managers overestime the agility of Agile development and think that a major change that requires rearchitecting major pieces of the project can be incorporated into the next iteration)"
I agree, but that's a problem with the manager, not with the process.
"... and it works well in SOME environments using SOME teams..."
Well, of course. Did anybody here try to say that it works all the time, for everybody?
"I call that one tool in a shed, not the golden swiss army/ginsu blade that does everything."
Again, did I even imply that it did everything for everybody?
But a report like this, that appears to imply it does little for anybody, appears to be, just as I said, FUD.
"Companies use it MAINLY because they've hired program managers that are familiar with it, typically younger ones that want change. Change is good, as long as it provides a benefit. The company typically doesn't care so long as the work gets done in a reasonable amount of time."
Again: companies would not use it -- especially so often -- if it did not provide benefit. It has been around far too long to be a fad.
Besides, like the other responder, I still don't think you're getting the point.
Many people won't (already don't) want to upgrade their operating system just to run a new browser.
Gaming is less of an issue with each passing month, with companies supporting Linux and OS X more and more.
And as for productivity software: sure, there are enterprise applications that are Windows-only, but those are also becoming more of a commodity. With most of the functionality of Microsoft Office (plus some features of their own), Open Office and Libre Office have made office software not just a commodity, but a free one.
I haven't been in IT for years, but if I were, unless I had proprietary software that I could not run natively, or under Wine or a VM, I would not use Windows at all.
"No they won't."
They already ARE. Remember, XP doesn't support IE 8 either.
"These are troll! and the fact that Slashdot has referenced them in such a provocative article is unconscionable!"
Mod up.
This is nothing but a self-serving "report" from a company that is trying to spread FUD for profit.
Agile is a proven methodology. In the old "waterfall" software industry, the famous "standard" was 7 lines of code per day per programmer.
Thanks largely to Agile methodologies, you can get up to as many as 1000 lines of code per day (though that's a bit on the high side), with even fewer bugs than the old 7-lines-per-day methods thanks in part to thorough, continuing testing being built-in to the process.
I call that a huge success.
Keep in mind that one or another form of Agile (arguably XP falls in that category) have been around for 20 years or more. Companies would not use it if it did not provide benefit.