The funniest open source projects from big companies I have seen have basically been fuck yous to competitors. "what's that? I'll make a competing product and give away for free!"...
Think of all the big open source projects from blue chip companies and most of them have been motivated by a mixture of spite and contempt. Its kind of delightful in a dark way.
Possibly... but for it to be issued at all is a first out of her so far as I know.
Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.
To the extent I care about this at all, it is in that context. I want the internet to be free for people to say whatever they want.
Anything from criticism of those in power to calling some random twit a cocktoddler. The fat shaming board was gross... I get no joy out of making fun of other people's misfortunes that haven't done anything to me. But... I wouldn't ban or censor speech.
This whole different between punching up or down... It doesn't matter. Everyone has a right to speak and think whatever they want. You don't like what someone has to say... then use your right to speak to say so and use your right to think to judge them. But you don't censor them.
My issue with Pao is that she's got no problem with censorship. And all things being equal nothing else matters to me on the topic.
Yep... the mental aspects are underrated. When the lead is going on target you want people on your side to go for the kill. That's how modern militaries protect themselves on the battlefield. It isn't armor. Its about killing the enemy quickly... ideally before they even know you're there.
Pretty much. Think of how bad it has to be for her to actually be admitting fault? We're talking about a chick that fired people that had to go off to chemo.
If she's apologizing it means that she's afraid. And at this point given her long series of unacceptable moves... that's just blood in the water.
Re: I lost interest when I saw brisket
on
When Nerds Do BBQ
·
· Score: 1
Re: I lost interest when I saw brisket
on
When Nerds Do BBQ
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't lying. I was mistaken. If you literally don't understand the difference then you're too stupid to have an opinion more meaningful than your favorite jello cup.
""Call It A Night, Cowboy! Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 50 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your username "Karmashock". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours. ""
Here is the message. I get this maybe once a month.
Re: I lost interest when I saw brisket
on
When Nerds Do BBQ
·
· Score: 1
Ah, SEE... this is what is so funny. There are so many fewer of you idiots than it appears! You were the shit head AC from that discussion weren't you?
Well... I copied the error the next time I got it: ""
Call It A Night, Cowboy! Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 50 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your username "Karmashock". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours. ""
I got this one the other day because I was arguing with so many halfwits... The hills were fucking alive with morons.
Anyway, I KNEW you'd keep stalking me so... when I got the error, I copied it. Bazzoom!
If you actually logged in... and you actually made a lot of posts... you'd get that message. I was wrong when I said 25 because I didn't remember the number. I love that you think you can claim I'm a liar for that... You're adorable.
I hate to break it to you but a work of fiction is a work of art and a work of art can mean anything the author intends it to mean which can include complex philosphical ideas amongst many other things.
So... what you need to argue now is that Herbert did not express complex philosophical ideas in his books.
Spoiler alert... He did.
I've read all his novels and I think all of his novellas and even short stories. So... can you make the same claim, shithead?
Kind of doubt it.
*pushes the filthy peasant back into the pig sty he climbed out of and wipes the filth from touching him onto a hanky and then throws the hanky into the sty*
Obviously not... did you have any intelligent to say or only more embarrassingly stupid comments that do little more than stroke my ego by proving I'm better than one more meat sack?
Your navy seals comment was actually pretty revealing... you think I'm mad?
Bro... I just got done telling... I don't CARE about you enough to have an opinion. There's nothing you're saying that could even begin to evoke any emotion stronger than maybe frustration at your stupidity or disgust at your existence. But that's about it.
I didn't explain properly. The military is not saying the new recruits are psychos. They're saying they don't have to be conditioned to kill. The average US WW2 vet was not a psycho. But after the war, he was much more able to shoot someone than he was prior to going to war.
He had had the violence normalized in his mind to a certain extent. However, that didn't mean he was a murderer. The crime rates after wars don't spike up above what they were went vets come home. They might go up above what they were during the war but they don't go up measurably above what they were before the war. And that is despite having many more people in your society that have psychologically normalized the concept of calculated methodical killing.
A certain amount of this is video games and violent movies. But that doesn't mean you're a psycho if you watch those things or even enjoy them as entertainment. But what it does mean is that when it comes time to actually pull the trigger it is less of a psychological shock. Parts of your mind are ready for it and it just blends into that same part of your mind.
Again, the military's attitude on the whole thing is that it is a mixed blessing. They like the "brains" of the new recruits. They find us to be better educated, smarter, faster with technology, less hesitant to pull the trigger, less psychologically conflicted about pulling the trigger... They are however fucking disgusted by the bodies. https://youtu.be/RXhKpUfITV0?t...
As to the added effect of CO2, you'll still talking about a very thin spectrum of the EM band and I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
Also, I've found some indication that this notion of heat trapping assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. Because after all, heat can move freely through the atmosphere simply by one gas touching another.
Lets say I had something that was hot... and I put that hot thing in a transparent bubble of CO2... are you suggesting that the hot thing would cool off or lose its heat more slowly than if the bubble were filled with nitrogen or oxygen or helium? Because I don't think that matters.
I mean, what we're really talking about here is light captured from the sun rays reflecting off the earth and being turned into heat before they can be make it out of the atmosphere. Right?
How much of the Earth's reflectivity is even in that spectrum in the first place? Because we're not talking about sunlight at that point. We're talking about Earth light.... like moonlight... just whatever the earth emits when the sun shines on it.
So we're looking at very narrow spectrum... how much of the earth's reflected light is even in that band? how much energy are we talking about?
And if some significant amount of energy is turned into heat by CO2... it would seem that the heat could just work its way through the atmosphere to emit into space. I saw several people complaining about the way this issue is discussed talking about how the treatment of this heat trapping effect assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. I think I cited the scientific term for the effect in play before. I can do it again.
As to Ocean acidification, I'm not sure about that as well. Apparently only records since 1988 are considered valid and if you look at record that go back an additional 60 years you don't see the same trend line. The data before that is not counted apparently because it isn't considered accurate. But absent a longer trend line I don't know if you can claim what is and is not the ocean's baseline.
Would you mind citing an ocean acidification graph that goes back more than 20 years? Ideally as far back as possible.
I'm actually downloading the data he's citing from the NOAA. There is a site I didn't know about where any jerk can query data from an automated system. It apparently takes hours for the data to be pulled. So I'll wait for the email and then I'll have a download link for some giant excel files.
This is a thing I see a lot... cherry picking the beginning of trend. So if you back out you'll see some graph that shoots up and down and up and down all over the place. But the graph as cited in many contexts will start at some arbitrary year that perfectly allows them to show a clean linear trend line that would be unsupportable if you showed a slightly longer time scale and noticed that before going up or down it was going down or up by some equal measure.
I feel more comfortable with longer trend lines.
As to how heat leaves our atmosphere, the CO2 isn't in the upper atmosphere pretty much at all. So... I don't know why you're saying the CO2 is relevant up there. If the heat is transferred to the upper atmosphere then its going to emit it the same way it always did. The CO2 isn't even up there. Just like the water vapor, the CO2 is mostly concentrated in the lower atmosphere.
7823Mt coal year 7,823,000,000 tonnes of coal per year
2.86 tonnes of co2 per ton of coal 22,373,780,000 tonnes of CO2 per year from coal 22,373,780,000,000 kg of CO2 per year from coal
87,310,923 barrels per day 31,868,486,895 per year 433 kg co2 per barrel 13,799,054,825,535 kg co2 from crude per year
~36,200,000,000,000 kg co2 from oil and coal per year
total mass of atmospheric carbon is supposed to be around 2.996 x 10^12 tonnes 2,996,000,000,000,000 kg Total atmospheric carbon ----36,200,000,000,000 kg Yearly human emissions of CO2 from human sourced fossil fuels excluding natural gas which probably isn't important for this anyway.
anyway, that works out to about 1.2% of global CO2 per year.
Did I cock this math up as well? Are my variables wrong?
I got the coal and gas numbers from futures investment companies and then cross referenced that with some stuff I saw on wikipedia. The information was very similar.
The CO2 per tonne/barrel was obtained from a few people going through the molar equations on blogs and stuff. I don't know how valid that is... I was too lazy to do those calculations myself.
Anyway... It is looking like at our emissions rates it will take us 100 years... roughly to double atmospheric carbon... assuming carbon was not taken up by the biosphere at all which... it obviously does. So... that could mean the real doubling rate could be somewhere between never assuming the uptake rate is faster than our emission rate... or possibly hundreds or thousands of years.
Okay, looking at other data, it seems our CO2 has gone up by 18 percent since 1958. What I find the most interesting about those graphs is that the trend line is pretty constant while of course our emissions were not. I mean, we were emitting a lot less in 1958 then we are today. So... why hasn't the trend line accelerated? I'm looking at data from the NOAA. The CO2 from 1958 to 1970 shows a change in the trend line. But from 1970 to 2015 the trend line is linear while of course our emissions have increased consistently over that entire period.
I should see correlation between our emissions increases and the increase in atmospheric carbon. Our emissions haven't just gone up but they've gone up at an accelerating rate. That should be evident in the CO2 figures but it isn't.
That implies that the biosphere has to be eating it... and pretty quickly too.
But assuming current rates... we're looking at a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 1958 in another 228 years.... not 100 years. And I don't know how much of the actual increase is due to human or natural factors. And the actual consequences of that kind of increase appear to be... somewhere between confused and controversial. I saw something say it would happen in 100 years but they were saying that implied accelerating CO2 rates and... the graphs I saw from the NOAA shows linear growth. I'm seeing some people say its another.4 C with the doubling which I appreciate could mean disproportionate things for ice caps. But I'm having a hard time seeing the apocalypse here.
Yeah but the sats are calibrated with ground data. You don't take raw sat data and say "the reading from the sats is X". The sats have their information calibrated by the ground stations. And there has been the adjustments to the sat data is all an increase in temperature. The raw data from the sats shows a much lower temperature... I think they were actually showing global cooling. Every year their numbers are adjusted up...
I find that to be problematic because the output from the sats is then only as good as the calibration and the calibration is based on the ground stations which means we're still dealing with the ground stations as our only real source.
When everything references back to the same source that is a problem.
As to Zeta joules... don't be silly... I've explained that one, the issue is that the number can't be audited it. I can't cross reference that information with any other source to find confirmation or conflict.
What is more it doesn't tell us what we really care about which is how much the oceans have warmed. From what I can tell, their warming isn't outside of normal climate cycles. Can you show me evidence to the contrary? I don't want to talk about the zeta joules anymore... its not usable. Talk about temperature.
As to Vermeer, that contradicts what was in the Church paper that you cited yourself. I cited the figures that show a consistent trend line with no apparent acceleration.
You need to address that. I cited it in the previous post. Figures 5-7 which you actually cited yourself when I asked for historical figures but... you citation shows no acceleration in the trend.
Here is another thing, how long do you think CO2 remains in the atmosphere? That is how long do you think it takes before CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere in some manner?
Because I've seen citations of as low as 5-10 years. And that something like 90 percent of all CO2 in our atmosphere has been emitted in the last 20 years or so.
If true this implies the CO2 from our sources is being emitted at a lower rate than the biosphere's absorption ability.
I'll look as well, but one thing which I'd be interested to know is how long it takes for a volcanic emission of CO2 to disappear from the graph.
That is... a big volcanic emission is large enough that it can individually effect the global CO2 levels. And that means its showing on the graphs. How long does it take after it shows up on the graphs before the emission can no longer be detected? That is how long before the graph returns to a previous trend line or base line figure?
I don't think that takes centuries. I'll look as well, but I'd ask you look also because you seem like you're very good at finding some of these reports.
Wrong. That's what the point of the term "Denier" was... it was a term cooked up by political elements.... not scientists. You use it, and you're using their term which they cooked up for their purposes.
So you either use a non-political term or you're having a scientific discussion.
Choose what matters more to you? Politics or science?
As to significant digits, I'm sure you're right... I think my biggest problem is the idea of turning the entire data set into one number... I have a great suspecion of over simplification. I've seen that go horribly wrong in many situations.
An example you might be aware of was the 2008 credit crunch. Part of the issue there was that the banks had abstracted ALL risk in an investment to a single number. They had an equation that you'd key all the variables into and it would output a risk number.
Anyway... to get that figure required a lot of assumptions... certain variables and market properties were assumed to be a given... for example they assumed the market would always go up. Over time it does of course... or at least has always done so. However... whether your investments can survive the system crashing for a significant duration before recovering is another matter.
So that is just a general bias I have. I don't trust that sort of reduction. I'm struggling to think of any instance that I know really well where it didn't turn out to be very foolish.
As to weather instruments being better calibrated... not historically. Keep in mind they were for local weather and part of the reason they struck so many stations of the list was that they were getting temperature readings from certain stations that they didn't trust so they scrapped the station entirely.
Even in modern times I wouldn't be surprised if the stations are off by a degree one way or the other. It doesn't matter for the actual use of the station if it is off a degree. They wouldn't notice or care. If it says it's 86 degrees instead of 85 or 87... who's going to know or care?
Only the climate scientists are going to care about that and that's not why those stations were installed or why they're maintained.
As to denier. You either stop using that term or you're outing yourself as someone that has only interest in the political argument.
It would be like me referring to warmists as "grand wizards" or something. If you'll let me identify you with the KKK then I'll accept your attempt to associate me with Nazis. Otherwise I reject the term as a pathetic political ploy and any attempt to maintain the terminology will be taken as a declaration that you want to play political games. At that point, I'm 100 percent politics with you and will ignore any scientific argument utterly.
It gives me a genuine thrill of pride that you would think so... Really.
Ever had someone try to insult you but they know so little about you that they accidentally complimented you? Always amusing.
Thanks.:)
Re: I lost interest when I saw brisket
on
When Nerds Do BBQ
·
· Score: 1
You don't know how much time I spend. I can make no more than 50 posts in a day and very rarely hit that limit.
how long do you think it takes me to make a post on this site?
Average posts per day is something like 25... when I get dog piled by fucktards and feel like slapping them around I could hit 50 in a day but that's rare.
25 posts... how long does that take you?
How illiterate are you that 25 posts seems like a full day's work to you?
And I love that you hypocritical fuckwits think you can judge me when no one can audit your stupid asses. I'm convinced there are far fewer of you than it seems and its just the same couple fucktards posting as AC over and over again.
The military doesn't take that view. The marines especially have the notion that EVERY member of the marines is a "rifleman" first... which means universal fitness is mandatory. Not only that but competence with their rifles is required... it doesn't matter what you actually do most of the time. You must master that first and maintain that skill. Look at them.
There are no fat marines.
The army a bit looser on that but for a lot of reasons I won't get into, they're not going to tolerate big fat dudes. It literally offends large portions of the military to even contemplate it.
New recruits... sure. But they work you until you're fit.
According to the military, that isn't the problem. Apparently the current generation is more willing to kill than any prior generation that they kept records for... WW1's generation had a really hard time actually intentionally shooting someone.
Even up to Vietnam it was quite common for US soldiers to intentionally miss.
The military is saying the problem is not that people are sissies so much as they're fat and weak. So they've shifted a lot of the training from bits where they key up people's killer instincts and instead spend that time running laps and doing push ups.
I can send you reports from the marines and army. They're very happy with the "grit" of the men showing up to serve. They're just annoyed out how out of shape they are.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
The funniest open source projects from big companies I have seen have basically been fuck yous to competitors. "what's that? I'll make a competing product and give away for free!"...
Think of all the big open source projects from blue chip companies and most of them have been motivated by a mixture of spite and contempt. Its kind of delightful in a dark way.
Possibly... but for it to be issued at all is a first out of her so far as I know.
Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.
To the extent I care about this at all, it is in that context. I want the internet to be free for people to say whatever they want.
Anything from criticism of those in power to calling some random twit a cocktoddler. The fat shaming board was gross... I get no joy out of making fun of other people's misfortunes that haven't done anything to me. But... I wouldn't ban or censor speech.
This whole different between punching up or down... It doesn't matter. Everyone has a right to speak and think whatever they want. You don't like what someone has to say... then use your right to speak to say so and use your right to think to judge them. But you don't censor them.
My issue with Pao is that she's got no problem with censorship. And all things being equal nothing else matters to me on the topic.
Yep... the mental aspects are underrated. When the lead is going on target you want people on your side to go for the kill. That's how modern militaries protect themselves on the battlefield. It isn't armor. Its about killing the enemy quickly... ideally before they even know you're there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
VS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Japanese robots are very cute... a little too cute.
I mean... look at this:
https://youtu.be/_luhn7TLfWU?t...
Just some 'merican smack talk to inspire the japanese to try harder.
We're over here building skynet... so your work should be cut out for you.
Pretty much. Think of how bad it has to be for her to actually be admitting fault? We're talking about a chick that fired people that had to go off to chemo.
If she's apologizing it means that she's afraid. And at this point given her long series of unacceptable moves... that's just blood in the water.
Show me your posting history please.
I did no such thing.
I wasn't lying. I was mistaken. If you literally don't understand the difference then you're too stupid to have an opinion more meaningful than your favorite jello cup.
""Call It A Night, Cowboy!
Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 50 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your username "Karmashock". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours. ""
Here is the message. I get this maybe once a month.
Ah, SEE... this is what is so funny. There are so many fewer of you idiots than it appears! You were the shit head AC from that discussion weren't you?
Well... I copied the error the next time I got it:
""
Call It A Night, Cowboy!
Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 50 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your username "Karmashock". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours. ""
I got this one the other day because I was arguing with so many halfwits... The hills were fucking alive with morons.
Anyway, I KNEW you'd keep stalking me so... when I got the error, I copied it. Bazzoom!
If you actually logged in... and you actually made a lot of posts... you'd get that message. I was wrong when I said 25 because I didn't remember the number. I love that you think you can claim I'm a liar for that... You're adorable.
Now you know. Suck it.
I hate to break it to you but a work of fiction is a work of art and a work of art can mean anything the author intends it to mean which can include complex philosphical ideas amongst many other things.
So... what you need to argue now is that Herbert did not express complex philosophical ideas in his books.
Spoiler alert... He did.
I've read all his novels and I think all of his novellas and even short stories. So... can you make the same claim, shithead?
Kind of doubt it.
*pushes the filthy peasant back into the pig sty he climbed out of and wipes the filth from touching him onto a hanky and then throws the hanky into the sty*
Fucking peasants.
Obviously not... did you have any intelligent to say or only more embarrassingly stupid comments that do little more than stroke my ego by proving I'm better than one more meat sack?
Your navy seals comment was actually pretty revealing... you think I'm mad?
Bro... I just got done telling... I don't CARE about you enough to have an opinion. There's nothing you're saying that could even begin to evoke any emotion stronger than maybe frustration at your stupidity or disgust at your existence. But that's about it.
*kiss kiss*
I didn't explain properly. The military is not saying the new recruits are psychos. They're saying they don't have to be conditioned to kill. The average US WW2 vet was not a psycho. But after the war, he was much more able to shoot someone than he was prior to going to war.
He had had the violence normalized in his mind to a certain extent. However, that didn't mean he was a murderer. The crime rates after wars don't spike up above what they were went vets come home. They might go up above what they were during the war but they don't go up measurably above what they were before the war. And that is despite having many more people in your society that have psychologically normalized the concept of calculated methodical killing.
A certain amount of this is video games and violent movies. But that doesn't mean you're a psycho if you watch those things or even enjoy them as entertainment. But what it does mean is that when it comes time to actually pull the trigger it is less of a psychological shock. Parts of your mind are ready for it and it just blends into that same part of your mind.
Again, the military's attitude on the whole thing is that it is a mixed blessing. They like the "brains" of the new recruits. They find us to be better educated, smarter, faster with technology, less hesitant to pull the trigger, less psychologically conflicted about pulling the trigger... They are however fucking disgusted by the bodies.
https://youtu.be/RXhKpUfITV0?t...
As to the added effect of CO2, you'll still talking about a very thin spectrum of the EM band and I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
Also, I've found some indication that this notion of heat trapping assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. Because after all, heat can move freely through the atmosphere simply by one gas touching another.
Lets say I had something that was hot... and I put that hot thing in a transparent bubble of CO2... are you suggesting that the hot thing would cool off or lose its heat more slowly than if the bubble were filled with nitrogen or oxygen or helium? Because I don't think that matters.
I mean, what we're really talking about here is light captured from the sun rays reflecting off the earth and being turned into heat before they can be make it out of the atmosphere. Right?
How much of the Earth's reflectivity is even in that spectrum in the first place? Because we're not talking about sunlight at that point. We're talking about Earth light.... like moonlight... just whatever the earth emits when the sun shines on it.
So we're looking at very narrow spectrum... how much of the earth's reflected light is even in that band? how much energy are we talking about?
And if some significant amount of energy is turned into heat by CO2... it would seem that the heat could just work its way through the atmosphere to emit into space. I saw several people complaining about the way this issue is discussed talking about how the treatment of this heat trapping effect assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. I think I cited the scientific term for the effect in play before. I can do it again.
As to Ocean acidification, I'm not sure about that as well. Apparently only records since 1988 are considered valid and if you look at record that go back an additional 60 years you don't see the same trend line. The data before that is not counted apparently because it isn't considered accurate. But absent a longer trend line I don't know if you can claim what is and is not the ocean's baseline.
Would you mind citing an ocean acidification graph that goes back more than 20 years? Ideally as far back as possible.
Here is one thing I found that is sort of interesting to me anyway:
http://www.abeqas.com/wp-conte...
I'm actually downloading the data he's citing from the NOAA. There is a site I didn't know about where any jerk can query data from an automated system. It apparently takes hours for the data to be pulled. So I'll wait for the email and then I'll have a download link for some giant excel files.
This is a thing I see a lot... cherry picking the beginning of trend. So if you back out you'll see some graph that shoots up and down and up and down all over the place. But the graph as cited in many contexts will start at some arbitrary year that perfectly allows them to show a clean linear trend line that would be unsupportable if you showed a slightly longer time scale and noticed that before going up or down it was going down or up by some equal measure.
I feel more comfortable with longer trend lines.
As to how heat leaves our atmosphere, the CO2 isn't in the upper atmosphere pretty much at all. So... I don't know why you're saying the CO2 is relevant up there. If the heat is transferred to the upper atmosphere then its going to emit it the same way it always did. The CO2 isn't even up there. Just like the water vapor, the CO2 is mostly concentrated in the lower atmosphere.
As to this energy budget thing... this is interesting:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
Examine figure 1... .6 watts per square meter is the imbalance... with a margin of error of 17 watts.
I mean... when your margin of error exceed your value... you bas
More of my shoddy back of napkin math:
7823Mt coal year
7,823,000,000 tonnes of coal per year
2.86 tonnes of co2 per ton of coal
22,373,780,000 tonnes of CO2 per year from coal
22,373,780,000,000 kg of CO2 per year from coal
87,310,923 barrels per day
31,868,486,895 per year
433 kg co2 per barrel
13,799,054,825,535 kg co2 from crude per year
~36,200,000,000,000 kg co2 from oil and coal per year
total mass of atmospheric carbon is supposed to be around
2.996 x 10^12 tonnes
2,996,000,000,000,000 kg Total atmospheric carbon
----36,200,000,000,000 kg Yearly human emissions of CO2 from human sourced fossil fuels excluding natural gas which probably isn't important for this anyway.
anyway, that works out to about 1.2% of global CO2 per year.
Did I cock this math up as well? Are my variables wrong?
I got the coal and gas numbers from futures investment companies and then cross referenced that with some stuff I saw on wikipedia. The information was very similar.
The CO2 per tonne/barrel was obtained from a few people going through the molar equations on blogs and stuff. I don't know how valid that is... I was too lazy to do those calculations myself.
Anyway... It is looking like at our emissions rates it will take us 100 years... roughly to double atmospheric carbon... assuming carbon was not taken up by the biosphere at all which... it obviously does. So... that could mean the real doubling rate could be somewhere between never assuming the uptake rate is faster than our emission rate... or possibly hundreds or thousands of years.
Okay, looking at other data, it seems our CO2 has gone up by 18 percent since 1958. What I find the most interesting about those graphs is that the trend line is pretty constant while of course our emissions were not. I mean, we were emitting a lot less in 1958 then we are today. So... why hasn't the trend line accelerated? I'm looking at data from the NOAA. The CO2 from 1958 to 1970 shows a change in the trend line. But from 1970 to 2015 the trend line is linear while of course our emissions have increased consistently over that entire period.
I should see correlation between our emissions increases and the increase in atmospheric carbon. Our emissions haven't just gone up but they've gone up at an accelerating rate. That should be evident in the CO2 figures but it isn't.
That implies that the biosphere has to be eating it... and pretty quickly too.
But assuming current rates... we're looking at a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 1958 in another 228 years.... not 100 years. And I don't know how much of the actual increase is due to human or natural factors. And the actual consequences of that kind of increase appear to be... somewhere between confused and controversial. I saw something say it would happen in 100 years but they were saying that implied accelerating CO2 rates and... the graphs I saw from the NOAA shows linear growth. I'm seeing some people say its another .4 C with the doubling which I appreciate could mean disproportionate things for ice caps. But I'm having a hard time seeing the apocalypse here.
... and another non-falsifiable argument. Congrats.
It is impossible for you to be wrong.
It is also impossible for you to be right... because you didn't actually make an argument.
You're like one of those idiots that calls tech support because he can't find the fucking "on" button.
Yeah but the sats are calibrated with ground data. You don't take raw sat data and say "the reading from the sats is X". The sats have their information calibrated by the ground stations. And there has been the adjustments to the sat data is all an increase in temperature. The raw data from the sats shows a much lower temperature... I think they were actually showing global cooling. Every year their numbers are adjusted up...
I find that to be problematic because the output from the sats is then only as good as the calibration and the calibration is based on the ground stations which means we're still dealing with the ground stations as our only real source.
When everything references back to the same source that is a problem.
As to Zeta joules... don't be silly... I've explained that one, the issue is that the number can't be audited it. I can't cross reference that information with any other source to find confirmation or conflict.
What is more it doesn't tell us what we really care about which is how much the oceans have warmed. From what I can tell, their warming isn't outside of normal climate cycles. Can you show me evidence to the contrary? I don't want to talk about the zeta joules anymore... its not usable. Talk about temperature.
As to Vermeer, that contradicts what was in the Church paper that you cited yourself. I cited the figures that show a consistent trend line with no apparent acceleration.
You need to address that. I cited it in the previous post. Figures 5-7 which you actually cited yourself when I asked for historical figures but... you citation shows no acceleration in the trend.
Here is another thing, how long do you think CO2 remains in the atmosphere? That is how long do you think it takes before CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere in some manner?
Because I've seen citations of as low as 5-10 years. And that something like 90 percent of all CO2 in our atmosphere has been emitted in the last 20 years or so.
If true this implies the CO2 from our sources is being emitted at a lower rate than the biosphere's absorption ability.
I'll look as well, but one thing which I'd be interested to know is how long it takes for a volcanic emission of CO2 to disappear from the graph.
That is... a big volcanic emission is large enough that it can individually effect the global CO2 levels. And that means its showing on the graphs. How long does it take after it shows up on the graphs before the emission can no longer be detected? That is how long before the graph returns to a previous trend line or base line figure?
I don't think that takes centuries. I'll look as well, but I'd ask you look also because you seem like you're very good at finding some of these reports.
Wrong. That's what the point of the term "Denier" was... it was a term cooked up by political elements.... not scientists. You use it, and you're using their term which they cooked up for their purposes.
So you either use a non-political term or you're having a scientific discussion.
Choose what matters more to you? Politics or science?
Says the AC shithead? I got rated up for saying that.
I got 7 downvotes in the last 24 hours... and 20 upvotes. Suck it.
As to significant digits, I'm sure you're right... I think my biggest problem is the idea of turning the entire data set into one number... I have a great suspecion of over simplification. I've seen that go horribly wrong in many situations.
An example you might be aware of was the 2008 credit crunch. Part of the issue there was that the banks had abstracted ALL risk in an investment to a single number. They had an equation that you'd key all the variables into and it would output a risk number.
Anyway... to get that figure required a lot of assumptions... certain variables and market properties were assumed to be a given... for example they assumed the market would always go up. Over time it does of course... or at least has always done so. However... whether your investments can survive the system crashing for a significant duration before recovering is another matter.
So that is just a general bias I have. I don't trust that sort of reduction. I'm struggling to think of any instance that I know really well where it didn't turn out to be very foolish.
As to weather instruments being better calibrated... not historically. Keep in mind they were for local weather and part of the reason they struck so many stations of the list was that they were getting temperature readings from certain stations that they didn't trust so they scrapped the station entirely.
Even in modern times I wouldn't be surprised if the stations are off by a degree one way or the other. It doesn't matter for the actual use of the station if it is off a degree. They wouldn't notice or care. If it says it's 86 degrees instead of 85 or 87... who's going to know or care?
Only the climate scientists are going to care about that and that's not why those stations were installed or why they're maintained.
As to denier. You either stop using that term or you're outing yourself as someone that has only interest in the political argument.
It would be like me referring to warmists as "grand wizards" or something. If you'll let me identify you with the KKK then I'll accept your attempt to associate me with Nazis. Otherwise I reject the term as a pathetic political ploy and any attempt to maintain the terminology will be taken as a declaration that you want to play political games. At that point, I'm 100 percent politics with you and will ignore any scientific argument utterly.
It gives me a genuine thrill of pride that you would think so... Really.
Ever had someone try to insult you but they know so little about you that they accidentally complimented you? Always amusing.
Thanks. :)
You don't know how much time I spend. I can make no more than 50 posts in a day and very rarely hit that limit.
how long do you think it takes me to make a post on this site?
Average posts per day is something like 25... when I get dog piled by fucktards and feel like slapping them around I could hit 50 in a day but that's rare.
25 posts... how long does that take you?
How illiterate are you that 25 posts seems like a full day's work to you?
And I love that you hypocritical fuckwits think you can judge me when no one can audit your stupid asses. I'm convinced there are far fewer of you than it seems and its just the same couple fucktards posting as AC over and over again.
Drill sergeants are a given so that's a zero sum game. The military is not replacing drill sergeants with anything.
They would sooner get rid of infantry than replace their non-coms.
The military doesn't take that view. The marines especially have the notion that EVERY member of the marines is a "rifleman" first... which means universal fitness is mandatory. Not only that but competence with their rifles is required... it doesn't matter what you actually do most of the time. You must master that first and maintain that skill. Look at them.
There are no fat marines.
The army a bit looser on that but for a lot of reasons I won't get into, they're not going to tolerate big fat dudes. It literally offends large portions of the military to even contemplate it.
New recruits... sure. But they work you until you're fit.
Cost, live human feedback, live adaptability, proven effectiveness of existing methods...
You know... just the really obvious things that anyone could cite if they thought about it for at least 2 full seconds.
According to the military, that isn't the problem. Apparently the current generation is more willing to kill than any prior generation that they kept records for... WW1's generation had a really hard time actually intentionally shooting someone.
Even up to Vietnam it was quite common for US soldiers to intentionally miss.
The military is saying the problem is not that people are sissies so much as they're fat and weak. So they've shifted a lot of the training from bits where they key up people's killer instincts and instead spend that time running laps and doing push ups.
I can send you reports from the marines and army. They're very happy with the "grit" of the men showing up to serve. They're just annoyed out how out of shape they are.