People will never stop using cryptography, laws or not.
We went through this crap in the 80s, then the 90s, then again around 2000. It's just plain ridiculous, causes problems, and never works. Trying to "regulate" cryptography is like trying to regulate what a pencil is capable of writing.
In fact, if you look at the picture here of the trigger well machined out by the Ghost Gunner, it didn't do such a great job. The machining is var from "precision".
In fact it isn't even very good. A skilled (again, reasonably not especially skilled) person could do better. But at least it is straight, as one would expect.
As I stated earlier, the most important part is getting the holes right.
First he tries milling with a drill press, he fails badly and actually damages the drill press causing the bit's chuck to fall off the unit.
As TFA says, the guy has "a Cro-Magnon's mastery of power tools".
A person with reasonable (not exceptional in any way) power tool skill can pull it off without much difficulty.
If you already have a proper drill press, vise and bits, all you need are a couple of end mills.
Granted, the CNC machine might be a lot easier for Cro_Magnons who have software but no manual tool skills. Nevertheless, a lot of people already have most of the tools and can use them adequately... making the CNC machine superfluous.
An fancy expensive French Press can make good coffee, too, but you can get quite acceptable results with a $15 drip coffeemaker, if you have half a clue what you're doing.
Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification.
I did ignore the PETM paper because it's worth ignoring in this context. CO2 levels at the time were already several times what they are now, and according to that paper, they then briefly multiplied by 3 to 4 times that level. So they are referring to a rapid rise to roughly 9 to 12 times current CO2 levels or more. (You can see the blip in the chart I referenced.) We aren't looking at anything like that in the near future. Further, we are still left with the old quandary (and likelihood) of whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperature rise. Further yet, not just insects but plants and mammals thrived during that period.
It's a nice straw-man, but that's all it is.
Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another straw-man. Actually two. Hydro dams have been accused of emitting a "pulse" of CO2 when the plant-covered area behind them is flooded. Perhaps, but no more than if the same area burned in a forest fire. Hardly significant. THEN, the other accusation is that they emit CO2 because organic material falls on them and decomposes at the bottom. Also probably true. BUT... that is no more true of the dam than it is of any other large body of water. Apparently you have something against bodies of water. Do you think we should eliminate lakes because of the CO2 they emit? Because that's basically your argument. And beavers probably flood more total area than hydro dams do. I find that argument truly laughable.
Further, it's out of context because my comment specifically mentioned hydro dams in this area, not in the rest of the world. And by the way: most of those dams are in semi-arid areas, and didn't flood much vegetation at all.
I also know what the chemistry of ocean acidification is. I don't need a lecture from you about it.
Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change
It wasn't mistaken, it was quite deliberate. Nor was it misleading. I was comparing values from the Cambrian period. It's rather pointless to talk about "rate of change" between Cambrian and now (see chart again), when the time period was > 500 million years ago, and concentrations have had many rises and falls since then. Another straw man. I know your point is partly about rate of change, but it's ALSO about total change.
There are many variables to the PETM situation, not all of which are known. Among them, as I have stated, was whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures or the other way around. What caused the pulse of methane, or whatever it was (still unknown)? There are several theories, none of them strong enough to dominate.
The rest is further such claptrap. Waste of my time.
Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm).
Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't.
Really? Then why is the glare from PV installations of any appreciable size now regulated by the FAA in the US and the CAA in the UK? For absolutely no reason?
Simple common sense should also tell you that when you have a large field full of flat glass panels, all pointing in the same direction, you can get glare. I find that to be an interesting proposition. Apparently you haven't flown much in small planes.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources?
Since nobody has come up with a realistic or even credible means of estimating such cost, the answer would have to be "obviously no". But given that almost all electricity here is hydro, and the vast majority of any CO2 generation from those installations was in the past, realistically I would say: for the most part yes.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources? If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?
Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification? You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns. Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you.
While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoidsevolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today.
Once again, you dig up old shit as if I were saying it now. That's a really terrible habit, you know. Either you don't learn, or you think I don't.
But I'm glad you brought that up, as it illustrates the typical behavior of Your Assholiness. First, you totally ignored my comment back THEN about not having found the report, snidely remarking
Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report...
... when in the last sentence you had just finished quoting, I told you I had looked but didn't find it or I would have referred to it directly. But you just ignore those little "fine points" that don't fit your narrative, eh?
I did find it since, but I didn't get it from your link.
Then, you cherry-picked a quote out of it:
Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).
While completely ignoring the very next sentence:
"If both the C0 2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of C0 2."
But to return to the actual point I made:
So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact.
They had. In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:
While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern.
Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols. They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued.
So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it.
As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them.
I'm pretty amazed that everyone seems to be skipping over what appears to be OP's main point: that
"... where the barrier to legally building an untraceable, durable, and deadly semiautomatic rifle has reached an unprecedented low point in cost and skill."
Nonsense. Finishing these unfinished receivers is not difficult. You can do it with a drill press that will accept milling bits. The only real precision task is drilling the holes, which any decent drill press can do. The rest is just removal of some unwanted material.
So no. Actually this thing is MORE expensive, and might even require HIGHER skill level, than doing it without one.
I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact"
So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement.
... but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2.
I have nothing to retract. You wouldn't allow me to finish my discussion without trying to walk all over me. You have misinterpreted my claims there... they aren't the same as I made years ago. However, you have given me less than zero reason to want to continue to discuss that with you, here or anywhere.
As I have told you many times before, I will write it all up eventually. You're just going to have to wait. In the meantime, I suggest you cease misinterpreting my words to mean something I didn't actually say.
I am well aware that you don't seem to be able to imagine how I could mean anything different from what I stated years ago. But that's your problem, not mine. I am not responsible for your assumptions.
If you hadn't been such an asshole all this time, I would have explained it to you long ago.
Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
No, I didn't. You are misinterpreting my words, as usual. I was pointing out a subtle error in David's description of what happens. But you both insisted on carrying that conversation elsewhere, then wouldn't even discuss it in a reasonable manner. Instead, you wanted to have things your usual one-sided way.
Your own behavior (and David's) caused that discussion to be shitcanned, so you won't get any further illumination about it here. When you learn to discuss issues in a polite and impersonal manner, maybe that will change. I'm not holding my breath. But I repeat: all I was trying to do was point out a subtle error in David's description. You interpreted it otherwise. As you have always seemed to do.
Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?
Did I say anything of that nature here?
Your despicable habit of attempting to attack me at every turn, and trying to turn everything into a discussion of "Greenhouse Effect" will not be forgotten.
By the way... what ever happened to your comment to me here on Slashdot that you only expected to live a few months? That was many months ago. Dishonest much?
As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.
As I told you very clearly, on many occasions: I will not debate this topic with you, because you refuse to discuss it impersonally, logically, or even honestly. I have many recorded examples I could cite, if I cared to do so. But I'm not going to bother. It will all be written up, eventually.
No disagreement here. I will observe that his motives might be self-serving under these circumstances. But I think it's a good thing when the same acts serve self-interest and the common interest at the same time.
"... it looks like the Patriot Act will be gone by Monday morning."
Correction: key provisions of the Patriot Act. What most people call "the Patriot Act" was actually a collection of bills and laws, only some of which were part of the Patriot Act itself.
So yes, technically most if not all of the Patriot Act would expire... but there are other sibling laws that need to go down in flames, too, before the damage done will really be repaired.
not that i see a problem with that in the slightest
Let's also not forget that Obama ran for office on a platform that included "I will stop domestic spying."
And as soon as he got into office, he did the opposite. As OP states, he called on Congress to pass the so-called "Freedom Act", which was really anything but. It was worse than the original in some ways.
As we leave the solar system radiation should decrease the further out we go.
Just no.
You are confusing Solar radiation with cosmic radiation... and they are largely very different things.
The "solar wind" is largely photons and other, relatively low-energy charged particles from the sun. (Note the word "relatively".) Which is GOOD for us here on Earth. Because cosmic radiation has a much larger component of HIGH energy particles. The solar wind interacts with Earth's magnetic fields in such a way as to shield it from the cosmic high-energy particles.
But it's the cosmic high-energy particles that penetrate far enough into the atmosphere to ionize particles of matter, which form nuclei around which clouds form. So... high sunspot activity generally means fewer clouds, which in turn means it gets hotter. When "solar storm" activity is low, more cosmic rays leak in, forming more clouds, cooling the weather.
Unfortunately, it is these high-energy particles which require the most shielding. And in general, cells are more prone to damage than radiation-hardened silicon chips.
Again total crock of shit. Australian Uranium export laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.... Not only is mining totally and strictly regulated (no matter who the hell owns the mine, they can not even stick a shovel into the ground until approval is gained from local, state and federal government), it can only be sold to countries the Australian government has specific agreements with and is restricted to energy use only http://www.world-nuclear.org/i....
100% irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which was ownership of U.S. uranium interests by Russia. Not only is Australia a completely different continent, its politics are also completely different. Similar in some ways, but definitely not the same.
It is the US government that is seeking to directly control the mining and export of 'AUSTRALIAN' Uranium because 31% of worlds resource and Australia already exports Uranium to China and the US. There are a whole bunch of Uranium resources yet to be touched.
Again, completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If I lived in Australia, I'd object to sales to China OR the U.S.... but especially China.
Nuclear is not the only solution, nor is it particularly attractive when solar can achieve the same goals, without the side effects.
How do you claim absence of side effects?
Solar farms are already observed to fry birds and blind pilots. Not to mention the huge amount of landscape they consume. And in high latitudes, not only to they take up even more (and more ecologically sensitive) area, they aren't even usable a good part of the year. In my area, they don't even come close to competing with other sources for cost.
This has been studied and the result was that there is a localized heating effect in a small area immediately downwind of the wind turbine which is rapidly lost in the noise of the already-chaotic system in precisely the same way that the butterfly effect is bullshit â" if an entertaining thought exercise.
This causes me to think you haven't understood what the Butterfly Effect actually is. It says that slight differences in the initial conditions of some nonlinear systems can have a profound effect on later outcome. It doesn't apply to all chaotic systems by any means, nor does it necessarily mean a persistent change... just a big one. Nor, just off-hand, would it seem to apply to your windmill example at all.
You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to weather and climate modeling. Without it, we would not know even the relatively small amount that we do know.
The name "Butterfly Effect" was intended as an analogy to how it works... it isn't to be taken literally. But it does work, and is observed in the real world. If you doubt that, I strongly suggest you avoid flying in a modern jet.
If they don't know what they are doing, then why are they the leaders?
I disagree with others here. If they say they don't know if their organization has the talent to succeed, then indeed they don't know what they're doing.
Especially those who think their IT dept. is incompetent. What that means is (A) they are wrong, or (B) they are right... which in turn says they made bad hiring decisions and should clean house.
While this mostly seems like incoherent ranting -- pardon me if I am mistaken -- I was making a very simple point:
Let's say you, Sam, own a large farm. And somewhere on that farm, coincidentally, is a large deposit of naturally-occurring "Roundup". As long as it stays where it is, everything is fine. But if it got into your fields, your crops would mostly die.
You have several neighbors, many of whom are basically friendly to you. You also have one neighbor who also has fields, who directly competes with you. His name is Russel.
You and Russel both know that using Roundup on each other could kill each other's crops. So you have a mutual agreement to never use Roundup... but just in case the other guy does, you build up a pretty big reserve to use in retaliation. Just in case.
That pretty much describes the "cold war". And it wasn't irrational. It was stressful but it did work.
Now along comes some insane manager of your farm, who decides Russel isn't so bad after all. You, the owner (The People) know better, but that's the line your "manager" (President) is selling you.
Question: even though you are not actively in conflict, do you sell shares in your Roundup mine to Russel? Especially when you know he will in turn sell it to other neighbors who are even less friendly?
It would be IRRATIONAL to do so. It would be BETRAYING your farm and your family.
But that's just exactly what the Clinton Foundation helped do.
It's not fucking rocket science. Nor is it paranoia.
You're right, it was 24 years ago. I guess my mistake reflects just how much trouble I go to, to pay attention to your lengthy rantings.
they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world
But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? (I did read the paper, by the way.)
The models havenâ(TM)t predicted one thing, in 30+ years.... You donâ(TM)t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASNâ(TM)T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory.... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."
Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data
You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850?
No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that.
In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture.
Yes, indeed. If you should ever start actually using "all the available data", and were honest with yourself, I think you might start softening your tone.
Slashdot Mirror
People will never stop using cryptography, laws or not.
We went through this crap in the 80s, then the 90s, then again around 2000. It's just plain ridiculous, causes problems, and never works. Trying to "regulate" cryptography is like trying to regulate what a pencil is capable of writing.
In fact, if you look at the picture here of the trigger well machined out by the Ghost Gunner, it didn't do such a great job. The machining is var from "precision".
In fact it isn't even very good. A skilled (again, reasonably not especially skilled) person could do better. But at least it is straight, as one would expect.
As I stated earlier, the most important part is getting the holes right.
First he tries milling with a drill press, he fails badly and actually damages the drill press causing the bit's chuck to fall off the unit.
As TFA says, the guy has "a Cro-Magnon's mastery of power tools".
A person with reasonable (not exceptional in any way) power tool skill can pull it off without much difficulty.
If you already have a proper drill press, vise and bits, all you need are a couple of end mills.
Granted, the CNC machine might be a lot easier for Cro_Magnons who have software but no manual tool skills. Nevertheless, a lot of people already have most of the tools and can use them adequately... making the CNC machine superfluous.
An fancy expensive French Press can make good coffee, too, but you can get quite acceptable results with a $15 drip coffeemaker, if you have half a clue what you're doing.
Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification.
I did ignore the PETM paper because it's worth ignoring in this context. CO2 levels at the time were already several times what they are now, and according to that paper, they then briefly multiplied by 3 to 4 times that level. So they are referring to a rapid rise to roughly 9 to 12 times current CO2 levels or more. (You can see the blip in the chart I referenced.) We aren't looking at anything like that in the near future. Further, we are still left with the old quandary (and likelihood) of whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperature rise. Further yet, not just insects but plants and mammals thrived during that period.
It's a nice straw-man, but that's all it is.
Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another straw-man. Actually two. Hydro dams have been accused of emitting a "pulse" of CO2 when the plant-covered area behind them is flooded. Perhaps, but no more than if the same area burned in a forest fire. Hardly significant. THEN, the other accusation is that they emit CO2 because organic material falls on them and decomposes at the bottom. Also probably true. BUT... that is no more true of the dam than it is of any other large body of water. Apparently you have something against bodies of water. Do you think we should eliminate lakes because of the CO2 they emit? Because that's basically your argument. And beavers probably flood more total area than hydro dams do. I find that argument truly laughable.
Further, it's out of context because my comment specifically mentioned hydro dams in this area, not in the rest of the world. And by the way: most of those dams are in semi-arid areas, and didn't flood much vegetation at all.
I also know what the chemistry of ocean acidification is. I don't need a lecture from you about it.
Once again, you're mistakenly calculating the absolute value of atmospheric CO2 ("400 to 5000 ppm") rather than calculating its rate of change
It wasn't mistaken, it was quite deliberate. Nor was it misleading. I was comparing values from the Cambrian period. It's rather pointless to talk about "rate of change" between Cambrian and now (see chart again), when the time period was > 500 million years ago, and concentrations have had many rises and falls since then. Another straw man. I know your point is partly about rate of change, but it's ALSO about total change.
There are many variables to the PETM situation, not all of which are known. Among them, as I have stated, was whether CO2 concentrations lagged temperatures or the other way around. What caused the pulse of methane, or whatever it was (still unknown)? There are several theories, none of them strong enough to dominate.
The rest is further such claptrap. Waste of my time.
Correction: CO2 levels in the Cambrian are estimated to be well over 10 times what they are now. Not a hundred or hundreds. Still, we've had only a rise in recent times of roughly 14%... nowhere near 1250% (from 400 to 5000 ppm).
Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't.
Really? Then why is the glare from PV installations of any appreciable size now regulated by the FAA in the US and the CAA in the UK? For absolutely no reason?
Simple common sense should also tell you that when you have a large field full of flat glass panels, all pointing in the same direction, you can get glare. I find that to be an interesting proposition. Apparently you haven't flown much in small planes.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources?
Since nobody has come up with a realistic or even credible means of estimating such cost, the answer would have to be "obviously no". But given that almost all electricity here is hydro, and the vast majority of any CO2 generation from those installations was in the past, realistically I would say: for the most part yes.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources? If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?
Since the authors themselves don't come to any real conclusions, and only suggest, again there is no way to estimate. Do hydro dams cause ocean acidification? Does an increase of 50PPM CO2 in the atmosphere cause significant ocean acidification? You have pretty much implied what your answer would be, but the truth is that these are unknowns. Be afraid if you like, but I won't join you.
While the paper rather vaguely and timidly suggests that there may be danger in rapid changes of pH, the fact remains that corals, many shellfish, and giant ammonoids evolved in the Cambrian Period when CO2 concentration was many times -- in some cases over a hundred times -- what it is today.
But I'm glad you brought that up, as it illustrates the typical behavior of Your Assholiness. First, you totally ignored my comment back THEN about not having found the report, snidely remarking
Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report...
... when in the last sentence you had just finished quoting, I told you I had looked but didn't find it or I would have referred to it directly. But you just ignore those little "fine points" that don't fit your narrative, eh?
I did find it since, but I didn't get it from your link.
Then, you cherry-picked a quote out of it:
Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).
While completely ignoring the very next sentence:
"If both the C0 2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of C0 2."
But to return to the actual point I made:
So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact.
They had. In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:
While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern.
Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols. They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued.
So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it.
As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them.
Look Out!
I'm pretty amazed that everyone seems to be skipping over what appears to be OP's main point: that
"... where the barrier to legally building an untraceable, durable, and deadly semiautomatic rifle has reached an unprecedented low point in cost and skill."
Nonsense. Finishing these unfinished receivers is not difficult. You can do it with a drill press that will accept milling bits. The only real precision task is drilling the holes, which any decent drill press can do. The rest is just removal of some unwanted material.
So no. Actually this thing is MORE expensive, and might even require HIGHER skill level, than doing it without one.
I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact"
So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement.
... but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2.
I have nothing to retract. You wouldn't allow me to finish my discussion without trying to walk all over me. You have misinterpreted my claims there... they aren't the same as I made years ago. However, you have given me less than zero reason to want to continue to discuss that with you, here or anywhere.
As I have told you many times before, I will write it all up eventually. You're just going to have to wait. In the meantime, I suggest you cease misinterpreting my words to mean something I didn't actually say.
I am well aware that you don't seem to be able to imagine how I could mean anything different from what I stated years ago. But that's your problem, not mine. I am not responsible for your assumptions.
If you hadn't been such an asshole all this time, I would have explained it to you long ago.
Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
No, I didn't. You are misinterpreting my words, as usual. I was pointing out a subtle error in David's description of what happens. But you both insisted on carrying that conversation elsewhere, then wouldn't even discuss it in a reasonable manner. Instead, you wanted to have things your usual one-sided way.
Your own behavior (and David's) caused that discussion to be shitcanned, so you won't get any further illumination about it here. When you learn to discuss issues in a polite and impersonal manner, maybe that will change. I'm not holding my breath. But I repeat: all I was trying to do was point out a subtle error in David's description. You interpreted it otherwise. As you have always seemed to do.
Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?
Did I say anything of that nature here?
Your despicable habit of attempting to attack me at every turn, and trying to turn everything into a discussion of "Greenhouse Effect" will not be forgotten.
By the way... what ever happened to your comment to me here on Slashdot that you only expected to live a few months? That was many months ago. Dishonest much?
As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.
As I told you very clearly, on many occasions: I will not debate this topic with you, because you refuse to discuss it impersonally, logically, or even honestly. I have many recorded examples I could cite, if I cared to do so. But I'm not going to bother. It will all be written up, eventually.
No disagreement here. I will observe that his motives might be self-serving under these circumstances. But I think it's a good thing when the same acts serve self-interest and the common interest at the same time.
When more cosmic rays leaked in, the climate didn't change.
I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.
But that's all irrelevant. The point I was making was that cosmic rays and solar irradiance have (on average) a very different makeup of components.
Probably because they don't know what to call it yet.
Nitinol was just fine, but C*ntinol would probably not go over well.
No, wait... that would be nitrogen. I bet they're thinking it, though.
"... it looks like the Patriot Act will be gone by Monday morning."
Correction: key provisions of the Patriot Act. What most people call "the Patriot Act" was actually a collection of bills and laws, only some of which were part of the Patriot Act itself.
So yes, technically most if not all of the Patriot Act would expire... but there are other sibling laws that need to go down in flames, too, before the damage done will really be repaired.
not that i see a problem with that in the slightest
Let's also not forget that Obama ran for office on a platform that included "I will stop domestic spying."
And as soon as he got into office, he did the opposite. As OP states, he called on Congress to pass the so-called "Freedom Act", which was really anything but. It was worse than the original in some ways.
Thus combining rigid control with a complete extraction of personal dignity. Sounds about like what upper management is aiming for.
Honestly, what it reminds me of is government a la the Progressive Left:
"Hmmm... that didn't work. So let's try more of it."
4 years later:
"Hmmm... that didn't work. So let's try more of it."
As we leave the solar system radiation should decrease the further out we go.
Just no.
You are confusing Solar radiation with cosmic radiation... and they are largely very different things.
The "solar wind" is largely photons and other, relatively low-energy charged particles from the sun. (Note the word "relatively".) Which is GOOD for us here on Earth. Because cosmic radiation has a much larger component of HIGH energy particles. The solar wind interacts with Earth's magnetic fields in such a way as to shield it from the cosmic high-energy particles.
But it's the cosmic high-energy particles that penetrate far enough into the atmosphere to ionize particles of matter, which form nuclei around which clouds form. So... high sunspot activity generally means fewer clouds, which in turn means it gets hotter. When "solar storm" activity is low, more cosmic rays leak in, forming more clouds, cooling the weather.
Unfortunately, it is these high-energy particles which require the most shielding. And in general, cells are more prone to damage than radiation-hardened silicon chips.
Again total crock of shit. Australian Uranium export laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.... Not only is mining totally and strictly regulated (no matter who the hell owns the mine, they can not even stick a shovel into the ground until approval is gained from local, state and federal government), it can only be sold to countries the Australian government has specific agreements with and is restricted to energy use only http://www.world-nuclear.org/i....
100% irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which was ownership of U.S. uranium interests by Russia. Not only is Australia a completely different continent, its politics are also completely different. Similar in some ways, but definitely not the same.
It is the US government that is seeking to directly control the mining and export of 'AUSTRALIAN' Uranium because 31% of worlds resource and Australia already exports Uranium to China and the US. There are a whole bunch of Uranium resources yet to be touched.
Again, completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If I lived in Australia, I'd object to sales to China OR the U.S.... but especially China.
Nuclear is not the only solution, nor is it particularly attractive when solar can achieve the same goals, without the side effects.
How do you claim absence of side effects?
Solar farms are already observed to fry birds and blind pilots. Not to mention the huge amount of landscape they consume. And in high latitudes, not only to they take up even more (and more ecologically sensitive) area, they aren't even usable a good part of the year. In my area, they don't even come close to competing with other sources for cost.
This has been studied and the result was that there is a localized heating effect in a small area immediately downwind of the wind turbine which is rapidly lost in the noise of the already-chaotic system in precisely the same way that the butterfly effect is bullshit â" if an entertaining thought exercise.
This causes me to think you haven't understood what the Butterfly Effect actually is. It says that slight differences in the initial conditions of some nonlinear systems can have a profound effect on later outcome. It doesn't apply to all chaotic systems by any means, nor does it necessarily mean a persistent change... just a big one. Nor, just off-hand, would it seem to apply to your windmill example at all.
You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to weather and climate modeling. Without it, we would not know even the relatively small amount that we do know.
The name "Butterfly Effect" was intended as an analogy to how it works... it isn't to be taken literally. But it does work, and is observed in the real world. If you doubt that, I strongly suggest you avoid flying in a modern jet.
If they don't know what they are doing, then why are they the leaders?
I disagree with others here. If they say they don't know if their organization has the talent to succeed, then indeed they don't know what they're doing.
Especially those who think their IT dept. is incompetent. What that means is (A) they are wrong, or (B) they are right... which in turn says they made bad hiring decisions and should clean house.
While this mostly seems like incoherent ranting -- pardon me if I am mistaken -- I was making a very simple point:
Let's say you, Sam, own a large farm. And somewhere on that farm, coincidentally, is a large deposit of naturally-occurring "Roundup". As long as it stays where it is, everything is fine. But if it got into your fields, your crops would mostly die.
You have several neighbors, many of whom are basically friendly to you. You also have one neighbor who also has fields, who directly competes with you. His name is Russel.
You and Russel both know that using Roundup on each other could kill each other's crops. So you have a mutual agreement to never use Roundup... but just in case the other guy does, you build up a pretty big reserve to use in retaliation. Just in case.
That pretty much describes the "cold war". And it wasn't irrational. It was stressful but it did work.
Now along comes some insane manager of your farm, who decides Russel isn't so bad after all. You, the owner (The People) know better, but that's the line your "manager" (President) is selling you.
Question: even though you are not actively in conflict, do you sell shares in your Roundup mine to Russel? Especially when you know he will in turn sell it to other neighbors who are even less friendly?
It would be IRRATIONAL to do so. It would be BETRAYING your farm and your family.
But that's just exactly what the Clinton Foundation helped do.
It's not fucking rocket science. Nor is it paranoia.
they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world
But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? (I did read the paper, by the way.)
The models havenâ(TM)t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You donâ(TM)t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASNâ(TM)T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."
Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data
You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850?
No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that.
In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture.
Yes, indeed. If you should ever start actually using "all the available data", and were honest with yourself, I think you might start softening your tone.
That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing.
I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient.