Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
The trick is to make that "eventually" happen sooner. Because the politicians who are playing off of it are lying to us. So the political implications, not to mention economic implications, are much farther reaching than "Oops, we made a mistake."
The junk science has got to stop. GAO report: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.
and blamed the idea for their gross incompetence....
I don't dispute that they may have been grossly incompetent. But that doesn't change the fact that the idea is fundamentally unsound, if for no other reason than that there are vastly too many things that could go wrong. (Among them, things that don't accidentally go wrong but which someone can make go wrong.)
I agree with that line in the report, on all 3 counts:
Internet voting is not safe, should not be made legal, and should never be incorporated into emergency measures.
(Note: once again, I am not writing this for your benefit, because we've been over all this before. This is for other readers.)
Once again, how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. Which is no surprise to me at all. And it is equally of no interest to me, except where you distort my meaning by using my words out of context.
In other words: bok bok bok BOKKKKK. That's what I thought. Jane/Lonny Eachus is chicken.
Hahahaha. I have already stated my reasons, so let's be clear: I already know the answer to the problem, and that answer is supported by multiple textooks and experts in the field. So please explain to me what possible motivation I might have to bother, much less bet, Prof. Cox about it?
As I wrote earlier, if you feel you would like to make such a bet, go ahead. If I had been "afraid" of what you would find, I would not have encouraged you to do so. I just have zero reason to do it myself.
If Jane/Lonny Eachus were a real skeptic, he'd at least consider the possibility that Jane's "radiant power output" equation doesn't describe "electrical heating power". Jane's textbooks don't say to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power".
If I were a "real skeptic", I would have researched the real answer to this problem. But wait... I actually did! Unlike you, who found some equation for "electrical heating power" which applies to a space that is air-filled and subject to conduction and convection, I looked up the actual power equations for a vacuum-filled space with only radiant heat transfer.
And Prof. Cox isn't alone, not by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, Grant Petty is a professor of atmospheric science and wrote A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. He wrote a letter:
Spencer's experiment is not "atmospheric radiation". It involves a vacuum.
The rest of your comment is similar irrelevant straw-man fluff, attempting to support your fallacy.
No, he provided a small amount to the public. Then went to China to come out of the closet and claim it was him.
What choice did he have? That's a serious question. As others have pointed out, look at what was done to Assange and Manning.
Even if he didn't care about getting punished, as a government captive he would not have been able to keep supplying more of the information he had gathered.
Now the bulk of the rest of the information- and amount we will never know and if the government even has a clue to how much, they are sitting quiet claiming they are clueless too, is sitting with some journalist from the UK who is attempting to profit off of it.
And who would YOU give it to? Let's get real here. Anybody inside the U.S. who had it was likely to be arrested and confined.
I mean seriously. You aren't looking at ANYTHING from his point of view. As an actual, practical matter, what he did was completely sensible and rational.
All I said was that China and Russia call him a patriot and asked if you could be a patriot for more than one country.
They don't call him a Chinese Patriot or a Russian Patriot. They call him an American Patriot. And rightly so.
You don't seem to be asking yourself why an American Patriot (and we have plenty of evidence he is) had to flee to China and then Russia.
Ask yourself that. Give it some genuine, deep thought. Then get back to us.
NO, it is not. It is a terrible idea. There are many reasons why:
First off, it's based on a premise that is known to be broken: a "web of trust". We already have a very good example of that type of system failing, and failing big time: SSL Certificates.
SSL Certificates are a web authentication scheme that depend on Certificate Authorities (CAs) to certify that a particular site is legitimate and unique. So far so good. BUT... then a number of problems arose that should be harsh lessons.
[1] Some CAs sold multiple certificates to the same domain name... a definite no-no.
[2] Some CAs (even some of the same CAs as above) sold multiple identical certificates to different parties. This is not just a no-no but it completely breaks the whole scheme.
[3] In a web audit done a couple of years ago, security firms found that as many as 80% of existing SSL Certificates were installed improperly. For example, being installed on a subdomain when it should be installed on the main domain name.
The upshot is: the CA system is largely (but not completely ) a failure. AND this is the important thing: it hasn't failed because it was badly designed, these failures are all human error. (Including, as in point 2, intentional or fraudulent "error".) So what it boils down to is: the people you are supposed to trust in this "web of trust" have proven to be untrustworthy.
NSTIC is trying to build an authentication system based on this same basic model: a "web of trust". You are supposed to trust the "authority" responsible for verifying that authentication. We have seen with SSLs how that kind of system can badly fall down. And in this case it's even worse, because the "authority" you are supposed to trust is the government itself.
When was the last time you knew the people in your government to be worthy of that kind of trust? You've got Eric Holder, the EPA, FCC, FAA all making intrusive and even blatantly illegal regulations. And despite what NSTIC claims, this basically amounts to a kind of "national ID".
I would never cooperate with such a system, either in the sites I build, or as an individual surfing the web.
Also, you say it might be a good system "if done right". When was the last time you knew of government doing something like this right?
Sure: an ObamaCare website that cost nearly $400 Million and is still down a lot. (I am aware the govt. claims that money was not spent on the website, but in fact if you trace the contracts, almost all of it was.)
Then get an IP rated fan, or a larger, fanless radiator.
The latter. Even if the fan can stand brief immersion, it probably isn't suitable for something that is exposed to water jets.
So the ideal system would probably be something like this:
[1] Water blocks on CPU and GPU, and possibly another air-water heat exchanger somewhere internally to keep the internal ambient temperature down.
[2] At least one internal fan to circulate the air, keeping for example the memory modules (which should have large heat sinks) cool.
[3] The coolant goes to an exchanger attached to a large external heat sink which is sufficient to passively cool the system in dry air. Ideally the heat sink fins would be oriented vertically to take advantage of convection, as well as shedding water properly. Then you're covered if the water is intermittent, or just not there. if water does come along, so much the better.
Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power".
I haven't "confused" anything. I understand perfectly well how you think your own erroneous "solution" to the problem worked... or more accurately, didn't work.
I am very definitely not the party here who is confused.
Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics.
No, once again you've put words in my mouth that I never actually stated. Why have you kept doing that? Are you allergic to simply telling the truth?
The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. I have not argued with you about that in many months, and I do not intend to argue further with you about that... because you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof.
If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to.
The only reason I agreed to work through the Spencer experiment with you was because I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. Well, I got that chance. And as soon as I get it written up (which as I have stated before will take a while), I fully intend to show everybody. You asked me if I really was willing to publish the results, no matter the outcome. Well, now that in fact it didn't go well for you, sour grapes isn't going to get you anywhere.
I have no other business with you, or arguments with you. If you try to argue with me I will not respond, except (possibly) to show others where you err and misquote me. And maybe not even then.
No. I was responding specifically to this question of yours:
Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
I pointed you to a peer-reviewed article that details warming due to geothermal effects. I provided a reasonable reply to the question. If that good enough for your taste, too bad.
I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.
You asked the question I quoted above, verbatim. That was the question I was responding to.
You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
I "butted in" because I am sick and fucking tired of people who can't spend 2 minutes on Google and look something up, and incessantly demand somebody else do it for them.
There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation.
Then you have a pretty weird idea of what constitutes logic.
I didn't see anybody claiming that there were no papers pertaining to geothermal activity.
I refer you again to the question I quoted above. If I misunderstood your question, perhaps you should have stated it more clearly.
You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
I professed no ignorance; I merely disclaimed expertise. This seems to be another attempt to put words in my mouth. Your "logic" failed you again.
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
Then why don't you try actually doing so, rather than the distorted versions you did print? You have misunderstood my clear statements at least twice, and insinuated that I stated things in this exchange that I did not in fact state.
You can probably do better, if you simply try to stick to what other people actually wrote, instead of trying to put your own "spin" or interpretation on it.
Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:
In a particular, very specific context, which you have not bothered to explain here.
No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy.
No, it hasn't. It has been "khayman80 shown to violate something... I'm not sure what. But you "scientifically" show squat... you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion.
I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong.
Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding.
I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish... or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one.
Jane becasue of certain common responses on Slashdot that your post could be understood in two ways is not solely your fault. Unfortunately you created a misunderstanding because you did not originally identify that your intent was to bring attention to the difference.
Perhaps. Reading my original comment again, I do see how it could be taken two ways. But one of them would be a mistake, and one of them would not.
When there is ambiguity, should the reader assume the meaning that would be a mistake? Or is it more likely the writer meant it the other way, which is not a mistake?
No, this is NOT the same. The ads they put at the top are separated from the rest of the search results, and clearly marked (as required by law... at least it is for newspapers) as advertisements or "sponsored" content.
This is different. The claim is that they will rearrange based on some subjective measure of the "legitimacy" of the content. That is not the same at all. It's not just advertising, it's changing your search results according to endorsement by Google.
I don't give the slightest DAMN what Google thinks about the contents of sites I search for. I just want honest search results, not "paid distortions" of their order.
The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].
That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity. I supplied one. End of story. I did not claim it was any kind of proof of what anybody else said.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.
Why the hell are you asking me? I simply pointed to a paper about volcanic activity under the Western ice sheet. Did you see me anywhere here claiming I was an expert about it?
My suggestion would be to go find someone who is loudly proclaiming their vast knowledge of the subject... then ask someone else, and you are probably more likely to get the truth.
But I specifically deny expertise about the Western ice sheet. Maybe I'll go learn about it.
I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.
You call it wrong. If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail. You look pretty silly basing any call on that.
You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").
Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?
Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were.
I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements... I promise a true accounting). This will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums.
The actual paper (which cites the one you linked to) says geothermal activity is responsible for part of the melting, not all of it. I'm getting used to you either lying or being confused by abstracts. It explains your ridiculous position which flies in the face of evidence.
Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?
Attributing words to me that I didn't write is the only lie here. Why did you do that?
You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?
What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.
Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.
Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.
Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.
Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.
So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.
I suspect that this is bullshit.
You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.
I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper:
These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.
Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.
You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.
Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.
Really. Citation please.
Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?
Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely
I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.
Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now. Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.
Alas, THIS PAIROF PAPERS shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.
Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.
The last 6 months were the warmest on record for the NOAA and the GISTEMP data sets, so I think that the hiatus may have finished.
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.
And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record. Not the coldest ever, but right down there in the bottom 10.
Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years. About 1-1.5 mm per year, on average.
The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.
Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully, and this kind of situation is especially full of traps, because it borders so closely on "thought crime".
Slashdot Mirror
Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
The trick is to make that "eventually" happen sooner. Because the politicians who are playing off of it are lying to us. So the political implications, not to mention economic implications, are much farther reaching than "Oops, we made a mistake."
The junk science has got to stop. GAO report: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.
and blamed the idea for their gross incompetence....
I don't dispute that they may have been grossly incompetent. But that doesn't change the fact that the idea is fundamentally unsound, if for no other reason than that there are vastly too many things that could go wrong. (Among them, things that don't accidentally go wrong but which someone can make go wrong.)
I agree with that line in the report, on all 3 counts:
Internet voting is not safe, should not be made legal, and should never be incorporated into emergency measures.
What I haven't figured out yet is why you seem to have that figured out but you still argue like this changes anything.
Yes, this much is obvious.
Once again, how bizarre. The whole reason Slayers deny that an enclosed source warms is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:
I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. Which is no surprise to me at all. And it is equally of no interest to me, except where you distort my meaning by using my words out of context.
In other words: bok bok bok BOKKKKK. That's what I thought. Jane/Lonny Eachus is chicken.
Hahahaha. I have already stated my reasons, so let's be clear: I already know the answer to the problem, and that answer is supported by multiple textooks and experts in the field. So please explain to me what possible motivation I might have to bother, much less bet, Prof. Cox about it?
As I wrote earlier, if you feel you would like to make such a bet, go ahead. If I had been "afraid" of what you would find, I would not have encouraged you to do so. I just have zero reason to do it myself.
If Jane/Lonny Eachus were a real skeptic, he'd at least consider the possibility that Jane's "radiant power output" equation doesn't describe "electrical heating power". Jane's textbooks don't say to use a "radiant power output" equation to describe "electrical heating power".
If I were a "real skeptic", I would have researched the real answer to this problem. But wait... I actually did! Unlike you, who found some equation for "electrical heating power" which applies to a space that is air-filled and subject to conduction and convection, I looked up the actual power equations for a vacuum-filled space with only radiant heat transfer.
And Prof. Cox isn't alone, not by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, Grant Petty is a professor of atmospheric science and wrote A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. He wrote a letter:
Spencer's experiment is not "atmospheric radiation". It involves a vacuum.
The rest of your comment is similar irrelevant straw-man fluff, attempting to support your fallacy.
I don't often find myself agreeing with sumdumass but: this.
It is a violation of both the 4th and 5th Amendments.
And it is a violation of the 5th amendment in two different ways: first, lack of due process, and second, lack of just compensation.
No, he provided a small amount to the public. Then went to China to come out of the closet and claim it was him.
What choice did he have? That's a serious question. As others have pointed out, look at what was done to Assange and Manning.
Even if he didn't care about getting punished, as a government captive he would not have been able to keep supplying more of the information he had gathered.
Now the bulk of the rest of the information- and amount we will never know and if the government even has a clue to how much, they are sitting quiet claiming they are clueless too, is sitting with some journalist from the UK who is attempting to profit off of it.
And who would YOU give it to? Let's get real here. Anybody inside the U.S. who had it was likely to be arrested and confined.
I mean seriously. You aren't looking at ANYTHING from his point of view. As an actual, practical matter, what he did was completely sensible and rational.
All I said was that China and Russia call him a patriot and asked if you could be a patriot for more than one country.
They don't call him a Chinese Patriot or a Russian Patriot. They call him an American Patriot. And rightly so.
You don't seem to be asking yourself why an American Patriot (and we have plenty of evidence he is) had to flee to China and then Russia.
Ask yourself that. Give it some genuine, deep thought. Then get back to us.
Done right it's a great idea...
NO, it is not. It is a terrible idea. There are many reasons why:
First off, it's based on a premise that is known to be broken: a "web of trust". We already have a very good example of that type of system failing, and failing big time: SSL Certificates.
SSL Certificates are a web authentication scheme that depend on Certificate Authorities (CAs) to certify that a particular site is legitimate and unique. So far so good. BUT... then a number of problems arose that should be harsh lessons.
[1] Some CAs sold multiple certificates to the same domain name... a definite no-no.
[2] Some CAs (even some of the same CAs as above) sold multiple identical certificates to different parties. This is not just a no-no but it completely breaks the whole scheme.
[3] In a web audit done a couple of years ago, security firms found that as many as 80% of existing SSL Certificates were installed improperly. For example, being installed on a subdomain when it should be installed on the main domain name.
The upshot is: the CA system is largely (but not completely ) a failure. AND this is the important thing: it hasn't failed because it was badly designed, these failures are all human error. (Including, as in point 2, intentional or fraudulent "error".) So what it boils down to is: the people you are supposed to trust in this "web of trust" have proven to be untrustworthy.
NSTIC is trying to build an authentication system based on this same basic model: a "web of trust". You are supposed to trust the "authority" responsible for verifying that authentication. We have seen with SSLs how that kind of system can badly fall down. And in this case it's even worse, because the "authority" you are supposed to trust is the government itself.
When was the last time you knew the people in your government to be worthy of that kind of trust? You've got Eric Holder, the EPA, FCC, FAA all making intrusive and even blatantly illegal regulations. And despite what NSTIC claims, this basically amounts to a kind of "national ID".
I would never cooperate with such a system, either in the sites I build, or as an individual surfing the web.
Also, you say it might be a good system "if done right". When was the last time you knew of government doing something like this right?
Sure: an ObamaCare website that cost nearly $400 Million and is still down a lot. (I am aware the govt. claims that money was not spent on the website, but in fact if you trace the contracts, almost all of it was.)
Then get an IP rated fan, or a larger, fanless radiator.
The latter. Even if the fan can stand brief immersion, it probably isn't suitable for something that is exposed to water jets.
So the ideal system would probably be something like this:
[1] Water blocks on CPU and GPU, and possibly another air-water heat exchanger somewhere internally to keep the internal ambient temperature down.
[2] At least one internal fan to circulate the air, keeping for example the memory modules (which should have large heat sinks) cool.
[3] The coolant goes to an exchanger attached to a large external heat sink which is sufficient to passively cool the system in dry air. Ideally the heat sink fins would be oriented vertically to take advantage of convection, as well as shedding water properly. Then you're covered if the water is intermittent, or just not there. if water does come along, so much the better.
Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power".
I haven't "confused" anything. I understand perfectly well how you think your own erroneous "solution" to the problem worked... or more accurately, didn't work.
I am very definitely not the party here who is confused.
Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics.
No, once again you've put words in my mouth that I never actually stated. Why have you kept doing that? Are you allergic to simply telling the truth?
The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. I have not argued with you about that in many months, and I do not intend to argue further with you about that... because you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof.
If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to.
The only reason I agreed to work through the Spencer experiment with you was because I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. Well, I got that chance. And as soon as I get it written up (which as I have stated before will take a while), I fully intend to show everybody. You asked me if I really was willing to publish the results, no matter the outcome. Well, now that in fact it didn't go well for you, sour grapes isn't going to get you anywhere.
I have no other business with you, or arguments with you. If you try to argue with me I will not respond, except (possibly) to show others where you err and misquote me. And maybe not even then.
Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?
I pointed you to a peer-reviewed article that details warming due to geothermal effects. I provided a reasonable reply to the question. If that good enough for your taste, too bad.
I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.
You asked the question I quoted above, verbatim. That was the question I was responding to.
You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
I "butted in" because I am sick and fucking tired of people who can't spend 2 minutes on Google and look something up, and incessantly demand somebody else do it for them.
There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation.
Then you have a pretty weird idea of what constitutes logic.
I didn't see anybody claiming that there were no papers pertaining to geothermal activity.
I refer you again to the question I quoted above. If I misunderstood your question, perhaps you should have stated it more clearly.
You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.
I professed no ignorance; I merely disclaimed expertise. This seems to be another attempt to put words in my mouth. Your "logic" failed you again.
I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.
Then why don't you try actually doing so, rather than the distorted versions you did print? You have misunderstood my clear statements at least twice, and insinuated that I stated things in this exchange that I did not in fact state.
You can probably do better, if you simply try to stick to what other people actually wrote, instead of trying to put your own "spin" or interpretation on it.
Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:
In a particular, very specific context, which you have not bothered to explain here.
No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy.
No, it hasn't. It has been "khayman80 shown to violate something... I'm not sure what. But you "scientifically" show squat... you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion.
I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong.
Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding.
I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish... or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one.
Jane becasue of certain common responses on Slashdot that your post could be understood in two ways is not solely your fault. Unfortunately you created a misunderstanding because you did not originally identify that your intent was to bring attention to the difference.
Perhaps. Reading my original comment again, I do see how it could be taken two ways. But one of them would be a mistake, and one of them would not.
When there is ambiguity, should the reader assume the meaning that would be a mistake? Or is it more likely the writer meant it the other way, which is not a mistake?
Regardless, I shall try to keep this in mind.
They ALREADY put ads on top. They have for years.
No shit, Sherlock. Figured that out, did you?
This is the same.
No, this is NOT the same. The ads they put at the top are separated from the rest of the search results, and clearly marked (as required by law... at least it is for newspapers) as advertisements or "sponsored" content.
This is different. The claim is that they will rearrange based on some subjective measure of the "legitimacy" of the content. That is not the same at all. It's not just advertising, it's changing your search results according to endorsement by Google.
I don't give the slightest DAMN what Google thinks about the contents of sites I search for. I just want honest search results, not "paid distortions" of their order.
The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].
That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity. I supplied one. End of story. I did not claim it was any kind of proof of what anybody else said.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.
So what is the cause of the rest of the melting?
Why the hell are you asking me? I simply pointed to a paper about volcanic activity under the Western ice sheet. Did you see me anywhere here claiming I was an expert about it?
My suggestion would be to go find someone who is loudly proclaiming their vast knowledge of the subject... then ask someone else, and you are probably more likely to get the truth.
But I specifically deny expertise about the Western ice sheet. Maybe I'll go learn about it.
I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.
You call it wrong. If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail. You look pretty silly basing any call on that.
You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").
Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?
Ah, the muckraker troll rears his head again.
Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were.
I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements... I promise a true accounting). This will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums.
Which is a valid concern and deserves consideration.
It deserves a hell of a lot more than just "consideration". I honestly believe "NO" is the only rational answer.
Looks like you're right. I must have gotten my links mixed up. Thank you to those who pointed this out.
Anyway, here is a link to one paper. It isn't the only one.
The actual paper (which cites the one you linked to) says geothermal activity is responsible for part of the melting, not all of it. I'm getting used to you either lying or being confused by abstracts. It explains your ridiculous position which flies in the face of evidence.
Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?
Attributing words to me that I didn't write is the only lie here. Why did you do that?
You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?
What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.
Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.
Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.
Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.
Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.
Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.
So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.
I suspect that this is bullshit.
You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.
I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.
Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.
You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.
Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.
Really. Citation please.
Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?
Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely
That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself, I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
If you don't believe, try looking HERE, and HERE.
I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.
Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now. Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.
Alas, THIS PAIR OF PAPERS shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.
Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.
The last 6 months were the warmest on record for the NOAA and the GISTEMP data sets, so I think that the hiatus may have finished.
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.
And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record. Not the coldest ever, but right down there in the bottom 10.
Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years. About 1-1.5 mm per year, on average.
The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.
I meant to say:
Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully, and this kind of situation is especially full of traps, because it borders so closely on "thought crime".