Switched variable reluctance motors need very little in the way of rare earth elements. If rare earth magnets become too pricey before they figure out a nanostructure that doesn't need these elements to be a good magnet, then we could always use those. I'm inclined to bet on the latter, though the former will probably crop up from place to place.
Industry only pours money into research they think they will help their own company exclusively and/or which they can turn around into a profit in under X business quarters.
These national labs do the basic research that industry fails to fund.
If I point out a costal area where the coastal erosion has been steady for the past 100 years, even though sea level has increased, will you accept that as a refutation of your assertion?
Within the confines of that coastal area, sure. Elsewhere, no.
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years
Never said that. When buying a house, many purchasers want their kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it as an inheritance. Coastal erosion is a well know source of devaluation. 5cm of average sea level rise translates to several meters on a flat beach.
If everyone slacked off and never worked or studied, we'd live in a world without many of the luxuries we enjoy today.
If every species in the Universe adopted this attutude, that would be a recipe for one giant trailer park of cosmological existence.
Even if we make the (arguably reasonable) assumption that there is nothing unique about our little corner of existence, it is still incumbant upon us not just to enjoy our day to day lives, but to foster an environment that is conducive to more enjoyable lives. We can't control the past, but we do have some influence over the future.
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
5cm may not sound like much to you, but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property. Especially since the expectation is that, unchecked, this measurement will eventually be in meters.
Free source of gravity, free radiation deflector (if it has a magnetosphere), and relatively easily obtained materials makes a planet the most promising prospect for efficient colonization.
We won't get to Mars in sufficient numbers to sustain a population if we don't take care of Terra. We are quite capable of ruining our own economy/ecology to the point where we will too busy fighting the elements to spare the resources, and seem to be on such a course at present, barring a commercially viable breakthrough in fusion or a more serious committment to renewables.
Sure, but that sets up a false dichotomy where we only have the choice between the mostly sane party and the primary batshit-crazy opposition. In reality, a period of "one party rule" while a new opposition party forms that is not batshit crazy would not be that awful, especially given that our primary system allows us to hold elections within that party.
I think you're right about the framing ("partisan" bad "commecial" good mmkayyyy). It assumes blindly that party politics are only about politicians and not about the issues the party fights for.
However I do think there is a legitimate point to be had here. Putting aside the issue of corruption for the moment, that is. We can microtarget political constituancies for the purposes of GOTV (who's enthusiastic, what buttons to push), but somehow we fail in assesing the will of the public (who thinks what, and how well they've thought that opinion through) to the extent that we have some sets of laws that almost nobody wants. Hell we can't even run elections competently in many areas.
People here keep SAYING that Latour is wrong... but not one of them -- not even one, and not you -- has even attempted to show how he is actually wrong.
If he was correct, we would all be freezing our asses off right now. Even if the Earth were a black body, it would have an average temperature of 5C-ish while it is actually 14C-ish. The fact that Earth is not a black body just makes things farther off. Therefore there has to be something serving as an insulator. That something is the atmosphere, and we have known that far longer than before the idea of AGW was ever brought up.
His argument seems to be based on photon density equilibrium, which demands that the object reflect or transmit the photon, because its electrons are already excited to that energy level and another photon of that same energy level is just going to knock another one loose if absorbed. What he misses is that with a constant input power, electrons are being excited from those states to even higher states, and then emitted, resulting in lower energy states, which can indeed then absorb incident radiation. So that means the electric element is more efficiently producing the higher energy states, because it is supported by the reflected radiation.
So, is it stupid and wrong when Rubio does it, but okay when Obama does it? If you have that kind of double standard, then shame on you.
The elephant in the room here is that the R party has been fielding slates upon slates of actual true nutball candidates, some of which are actually getting elected. We're talking true believer zealots here. So yes, they get additional scrutiny. That, and while I really do prefer the President to be scientifically grounded, it is a less important qualification for that position than it is for a legislator with direct and privilaged influence on matters of science, even beyond the level of influence of most of his colleages. Senate comittee assignments are very important positions within their purview.
It's fun to pretend the rest of the world is composed of dimwits, but the reality is those people are the exception. The rule is people who do dimitted things due to stress or a lack of hope for the future, but are not intrinsically dimwitted. So no, I cannot lay the blame for poor retirement planning entirely or even majorly at the feet of the masses, especially considering the reasons their 401ks collapsed has so little to do with their own actions.
Having to constantly worry about their livelihood in the short term is not conducive to long term planning, and is more conducive towards saving for vacations to preserve one's sanity and get some laughs in before the whole shithouse collapses. Some people seem to like to promote this condition, in the hopes of squeezing these people for their own benefit. Those are the truly short-sighted dimwits.
Your linked articles are essentially a strawman, dissecting a poorly contrived and oversimplified example, since "back radiation" (or as AGW scientists call it, "downwelling radiation") isn't so much causing an increase in the temperature of the planet as it is decreasing the cooling rate of the planet. Radiation that would normally have gone through the troposphere into the stratosphere/space has to bounce around more in the lower layers of the atmosphere and surface, during which period there is more chance that it will be siphoned off by other heat transfer mechanisms while it is busy exciting electrons. This is why the stratosphere is cooling as the lower troposphere and surface warm due to increased opacity, as GHGs are added.
Essentially the article you linked is not trying to "debunk" AGW, it is trying to "debunk" the greenhouse effect entirely. CO2 or no CO2, warming or no warming, if the greenhouse effect did not exist at all, the earth with have an average temperature.33C lower than it does. I'd love to see the author of that try to explain some other mechanism by which the stratosphere would be cooling or by which the earth can be maintaining a temperature that doesn't match its equivalent black-body.
Basically I give the following advice to people who might not want to invest in watching every episode no matter how bad: Just watch all the episodes with Professor Song in the plot, and you won't miss many of the good ones. At least that way there is some sort of plot arc, albeit a very thin one.
They had no intention of staying in business. Wall Street entities that were planning on selling Hostess as scrap decided they'd try to milk some PR out of the whole process.
Slashdot Mirror
Switched variable reluctance motors need very little in the way of rare earth elements. If rare earth magnets become too pricey before they figure out a nanostructure that doesn't need these elements to be a good magnet, then we could always use those. I'm inclined to bet on the latter, though the former will probably crop up from place to place.
Industry only pours money into research they think they will help their own company exclusively and/or which they can turn around into a profit in under X business quarters.
These national labs do the basic research that industry fails to fund.
If I point out a costal area where the coastal erosion has been steady for the past 100 years, even though sea level has increased, will you accept that as a refutation of your assertion?
Within the confines of that coastal area, sure. Elsewhere, no.
Costal erosion is orders of magnitude more impactful than a 5cm average sea level rise.
And sea level rise amplifies the effect of coastal erosion, so your point is...?
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years
Never said that. When buying a house, many purchasers want their kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it as an inheritance. Coastal erosion is a well know source of devaluation. 5cm of average sea level rise translates to several meters on a flat beach.
You are cherry picking data sources. Also, as with most data from natural sources, noise is expected, which is why we employ statistical analysis.
Genius. I'll break out the 1000-mile wide scale, you lift greenland onto it.
If everyone slacked off and never worked or studied, we'd live in a world without many of the luxuries we enjoy today.
If every species in the Universe adopted this attutude, that would be a recipe for one giant trailer park of cosmological existence.
Even if we make the (arguably reasonable) assumption that there is nothing unique about our little corner of existence, it is still incumbant upon us not just to enjoy our day to day lives, but to foster an environment that is conducive to more enjoyable lives. We can't control the past, but we do have some influence over the future.
Only in a small zone near the freezing point.
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
5cm may not sound like much to you, but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property. Especially since the expectation is that, unchecked, this measurement will eventually be in meters.
Free source of gravity, free radiation deflector (if it has a magnetosphere), and relatively easily obtained materials makes a planet the most promising prospect for efficient colonization.
We won't get to Mars in sufficient numbers to sustain a population if we don't take care of Terra. We are quite capable of ruining our own economy/ecology to the point where we will too busy fighting the elements to spare the resources, and seem to be on such a course at present, barring a commercially viable breakthrough in fusion or a more serious committment to renewables.
No. Pick up a book once in a while. Or at least bother to look stuff up up on Wikipedia.
That's like saying "my windshield will survive hitting that moose, because glass bends ever so slightly."
Cue hat trick, can haz car anaology.
Sure, but that sets up a false dichotomy where we only have the choice between the mostly sane party and the primary batshit-crazy opposition. In reality, a period of "one party rule" while a new opposition party forms that is not batshit crazy would not be that awful, especially given that our primary system allows us to hold elections within that party.
I think you're right about the framing ("partisan" bad "commecial" good mmkayyyy). It assumes blindly that party politics are only about politicians and not about the issues the party fights for.
However I do think there is a legitimate point to be had here. Putting aside the issue of corruption for the moment, that is. We can microtarget political constituancies for the purposes of GOTV (who's enthusiastic, what buttons to push), but somehow we fail in assesing the will of the public (who thinks what, and how well they've thought that opinion through) to the extent that we have some sets of laws that almost nobody wants. Hell we can't even run elections competently in many areas.
but 7,000 volts sounds kinda' deadly
Depends on the effective output resistance of the circuit.
Or figure out how to tap it to heat their cardboard boxes.
People here keep SAYING that Latour is wrong... but not one of them -- not even one, and not you -- has even attempted to show how he is actually wrong.
If he was correct, we would all be freezing our asses off right now. Even if the Earth were a black body, it would have an average temperature of 5C-ish while it is actually 14C-ish. The fact that Earth is not a black body just makes things farther off. Therefore there has to be something serving as an insulator. That something is the atmosphere, and we have known that far longer than before the idea of AGW was ever brought up.
A implies B and not B therefore not A.
His argument seems to be based on photon density equilibrium, which demands that the object reflect or transmit the photon, because its electrons are already excited to that energy level and another photon of that same energy level is just going to knock another one loose if absorbed. What he misses is that with a constant input power, electrons are being excited from those states to even higher states, and then emitted, resulting in lower energy states, which can indeed then absorb incident radiation. So that means the electric element is more efficiently producing the higher energy states, because it is supported by the reflected radiation.
Sadly it is in large part because military procurement is very goal oriented, and so has no time for fairy tales.
Happily it is also because for most of our history, even the nutcases felt obliged not to badmouth higher education.
So, is it stupid and wrong when Rubio does it, but okay when Obama does it? If you have that kind of double standard, then shame on you.
The elephant in the room here is that the R party has been fielding slates upon slates of actual true nutball candidates, some of which are actually getting elected. We're talking true believer zealots here. So yes, they get additional scrutiny. That, and while I really do prefer the President to be scientifically grounded, it is a less important qualification for that position than it is for a legislator with direct and privilaged influence on matters of science, even beyond the level of influence of most of his colleages. Senate comittee assignments are very important positions within their purview.
It's fun to pretend the rest of the world is composed of dimwits, but the reality is those people are the exception. The rule is people who do dimitted things due to stress or a lack of hope for the future, but are not intrinsically dimwitted. So no, I cannot lay the blame for poor retirement planning entirely or even majorly at the feet of the masses, especially considering the reasons their 401ks collapsed has so little to do with their own actions.
Having to constantly worry about their livelihood in the short term is not conducive to long term planning, and is more conducive towards saving for vacations to preserve one's sanity and get some laughs in before the whole shithouse collapses. Some people seem to like to promote this condition, in the hopes of squeezing these people for their own benefit. Those are the truly short-sighted dimwits.
Your linked articles are essentially a strawman, dissecting a poorly contrived and oversimplified example, since "back radiation" (or as AGW scientists call it, "downwelling radiation") isn't so much causing an increase in the temperature of the planet as it is decreasing the cooling rate of the planet. Radiation that would normally have gone through the troposphere into the stratosphere/space has to bounce around more in the lower layers of the atmosphere and surface, during which period there is more chance that it will be siphoned off by other heat transfer mechanisms while it is busy exciting electrons. This is why the stratosphere is cooling as the lower troposphere and surface warm due to increased opacity, as GHGs are added.
Essentially the article you linked is not trying to "debunk" AGW, it is trying to "debunk" the greenhouse effect entirely. CO2 or no CO2, warming or no warming, if the greenhouse effect did not exist at all, the earth with have an average temperature.33C lower than it does. I'd love to see the author of that try to explain some other mechanism by which the stratosphere would be cooling or by which the earth can be maintaining a temperature that doesn't match its equivalent black-body.
Basically I give the following advice to people who might not want to invest in watching every episode no matter how bad: Just watch all the episodes with Professor Song in the plot, and you won't miss many of the good ones. At least that way there is some sort of plot arc, albeit a very thin one.
They had no intention of staying in business. Wall Street entities that were planning on selling Hostess as scrap decided they'd try to milk some PR out of the whole process.