I should also note that while APK is a bit odd and I've run into him a few times. He's an agreeable sort so long as you understand how his mind works.
I deal with a lot of unusual people. Scientists. Psychopathic business people (they're really good at their jobs, don't judge). Marketing gurus that think they have mind control powers... literally. And all sorts of other fun stuff.
They're all a little nuts in their own way and I'm sure I am in mine. But as the man said I am only mad north by northwest, when the wind is southerly I can tell a hawk from a handsaw.;-)
I'll fire you a message from one of my spam accounts. If you flood it with child porn or something it won't effect me. Just fyi. I only use the account I will communicate with you for dangerous correspondence. No offense. Just standard protocol.
Can you show that math to me? I'd like to see it. Truly. I'm not asking for it just to trip you up or create make work for you. I honestly am curious to see it.
As to the thickness not matting, you're only seeing it from the perspective of absorption. Consider the perspective of radiation. The thicker the atmosphere the more insulation the lower layers have for insulation.
One thing which I think is missed in some of the calculations is that it isn't a race to see which planet hits a certain temperature first. I'm sure CO2 it better at picking up energy then other gases. But if something sits in the oven for long enough it is going to reach the same temperature as the oven. Lets say I have an asbestos box and I put it in an oven for an hour. The inside of that box will probably be cooler then the box that was made out of steel. Because asbestos is a good insulator.
Okay. But what if I leave both boxes in the oven for 100 years at a temperature of 400 degrees. This is over kill but the point is that the inside of both boxes should be equal.
The Earth turns and the orbit is elliptical but it is always getting hit by the sun. It is always in the oven.
Now the analogy is probably bad because the earth isn't in an oven. it is in a cold vacuum with the only relevant energy hitting it from one side at a time. But it is constantly hitting the earth.
What I am wondering here is if the planet is eating that energy every day all day for billions of years... does it really matter what the atmosphere is made out of given that even if it were asbestos it would pick the temperature up eventually. And in that case, mass does matter. Stand next to a rock that was sitting in the sun all day when the stars come out. If that rock really got hot during the day it is going to be warm all night.
Am I saying I am right here? I am saying these are concerns I have. And given that I obviously have trust issues, I really need to arrive and understand these things myself to feel comfortable with them. My own observations and thinking while likely inferior, unschooled, and imperfect... are still my reasonings. I don't credit the notion that I should just listen and believe. For better or worse that is not how my mind works.
I know a lot of things and I am not a stupid person. I don't know everything and I am not the smartest person in the world. But I have been able to understand a lot of complicated things in my life. Elements of electrical engineering, quite a bit of astrophysics, I can do some pretty nice charcoal drawings, I can program in a couple computer languages to a high level, and a lot of other stuff I won't bore you with. The point is that I have an expectation that I can understand this if I try.
I don't think that climate science is the most difficult science in the world. I think it is often the most disorganized science but that is just an impression looking at the way the data is structured. Just an opinion from a layman trying to vet some figures.
And that just makes me dubious. I don't believe that this is beyond my ability to understand it. And there seems to be this attitude that if you don't just fall into line immediately you're committing a moral sin. Were I to ask similar questions about volcanology no one would be giving me as much shit as I get for asking questions about AGW. I know this from personal experience. Because I've asked a lot of questions about that as well. And the people that answer them don't treat me like an asshole for asking questions.
All I want is a fucking validated climate model that was tested under falsifiable conditions. That isn't fucking unreasonable.
I'm not KSM and I don't like being referred to as him or it implied that one day I'll be strapped down and given the same treatment by the CIA.
It isn't credible.
During WW2 we did that and worse to Nazi spies.
During the Cold War we did that and worse to Soviet spies.
Terrorists technically fall into the same legal and moral spot that spies or sappers fall into. Sappers are like spies only instead of getting information they sneak bombs into places and blow stuff up. Typically rail yards, factories, and other places important for war logistics.
Point is... legally I a country can eat a spy on international television... alive. They can cut little bits of him bit by bit and eat him. There are literally no limits. Spies are understood to have ZERO rights if caught by an enemy.
During WW2, the US caught a lot of German spies. They were interrogated for a week or two and then executed. No laws of the Geneva Convention were broken.
I am not feeling bad for KSM. He's a piece of shit and you could have sold tickets to kick the man in the balls in Gitmo.
Please pick another example that isn't understood to have gotten exactly what he had coming if you wish to imply any moral wrong doing.
Uhm no. That is not what I'm saying. I am not saying 10 years of day by day predictions or month by month predictions.
I am saying being able to predict a period of time relative to the period of time you've based your model on.
We have not had AGW for 500 years. We've had it at most since about the early 50s. Which means your prediction window can't be larger then your data window.
What I want is a falsifiable test. I want something where your theory CAN be wrong if it is wrong.
One thing that bothers me about a lot of this stuff is that there is literally no one way to argue against any of it because the claims are either so fucking vague that it is like talking about horoscopes or the period of time where things would be proven right or wrong is after we're all dead of old age.
I want something falsifiable. That is a core tenant of science or I could just make up a theory about fucking unicorns and call it science because there's no way to falsify it.
It is this reason that Creationism for example is not science. You can't disprove the existence of God. It isn't possible. Which means theories about God are non-falsifiable. And that means they're not fucking science.
AGW models in many cases are non-falsifiable. They're from what I can see almost never tested under circumstances where it is possible for them to be wrong. And that means they could be fucking anything and still be considered valid because apparently in much of climate science falsifiability isn't considered important. But it is important.
Until it has gone through some empirical falsifiable testing... it is not something you can use to back up anything.
So that is actually what I'm asking for here. I think I was pretty clear about that at the start. I want an empirical falsifiable test done on a model and I want it to pass before I am expected to take the model seriously. That is how you separate models about elves and dragons from models about the real world.
Requires? Do old laptops require new batteries after 4 years?
Not really... they just have shitty battery life unless you do replace them.
All the old EVs are lead acid batteries... the newer all electric ones are using the literal same tech in fucking laptop batteries. Which means... they should have the same life span. And do laptop batteries tend to suck after 4 years?
Commit seppuku immediately. Your have brought shame upon this house.
As to altitudes, etc... Venus isn't in Earth's orbit. So your insistence on the matching is odd. Obviously Venus is going to be hotter with or without global warming gases. It is closer to the sun. Mercury for example has almost no atmosphere and is quiet a bit hotter then the earth is because it is closer to the sun. But if it were in Earth's orbit, one could expect that the differences from solar proximity would vanish leaving us with any other difference between the planetary bodies.
As to why thicker atmosphere's retain more heat. I think successive layers of air just act as insulation trapping heat into deeper layers rather then emitting the energy directly out into space. The thicker the atmosphere all other things being equal... the hotter I expect it to be when compared to a thinner atmosphere under similar circumstances.
As to proving my hypothesis, I obviously lack the training and time to do that credibly. I can show you some math that calculates black body radiation etc. But it will be real back of the napkin work. Is that sufficient?
The trouble with this sort of thing is that it is impossible to build scale models.
Yep, I deal with XP machines all the time. They've got legacy software on them and they run DOS really well. And lots of new hardware runs on DOS. Medical hardware for example very frequently is a DOS system It does one thing and only one thing and it does it reliably for years and years and years. No updates. No tech problems. You tell it to do something and if someone hasn't smashed it with a hammer... it does it. Every single fucking time.
I actually like DOS and any OS that is that simple. They don't waste your time once you've set them up. They just do their jobs... forever.
""Mohammed traveled to the Philippines in 1994 to work with his nephew Yousef on the Bojinka plot, a Manila-based plot to destroy twelve commercial airliners flying routes between the United States, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The 9/11 Commission Report says that "this marked the first time KSM took part in the actual planning of a terrorist operation."[29]""
""According to a CNN interview with intelligence expert Rohan Gunaratna, "Daniel Pearl was going in search of the al Qaeda network that was operational in Karachi, and it was at the instruction of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that Daniel Pearl was killed."[44] On October 12, 2006, Time magazine reported that "KSM confessed under CIA interrogation that he personally committed the murder."[45]""
The output has to be close enough to approximate ten year average temperature ranges as well as capture decade long climate phenomenon. Such as the the "pause" that every single climate model has failed to predict or account for... it has been many years. I would think it is significant enough that the model would predict and explain it.
Absent that, I would question whether the previous warming tend was just the same thing. Some sort of short lived unexplained thing that was there and then went away for reasons people don't understand.
Do you see? You have to be able to explain decades long patterns to be credible when you claim to know why decades long patterns are happening. You need to be able to explain the pause and your model needs to predict it or I don't think you can be trusted to predict anything that doesn't last centuries.
As the existing warming pattern never went on that long... you're in a time range of prediction that roughly approximates the scale of the pause. So that would be a really good way of validating your model. Predicting and explaining the pause.
Would that be enough all on its own? Obviously not. But any model that can't do that pretty much instantly fails. Call that the first test if you will.
As to the japanese, I'll bring up my information again. It might not have been mann but it was someone very core to that group. It could have been Hansen or something. I'll give my information a look... *looking*... The article is years old at this point. I'll find it if I really need it.
I'll withdraw the point for the sake of argument until I dig it up.
To summarize, I want something that can with the evidence of the last couple decades predict the next couple decades. If it doesn't work that way and it can't predict things in more then 100 year increments then I question whether you have enough information to project out given that at most you're basing AGW on the period from 1949 to around 1998. Around 1998, as I'm sure you're aware, the models started having serious problems that are mostly unaddressed.
Here is what I am doing. I am matching the evidence required to the claim made. Make a smaller claim and I'll ask for less evidence. Simply saying "in small experiments, CO2 has been shown to absorb radiant energy more freely then some other gases" and I won't even ask for information.
Tell me however that you know the temperature will go up by.5 degrees in 20 years because gas X has increased in the atmosphere by Y percent and I'm going to need a pretty fucking good model for that claim.
Is that standard knowing what the mouse buttons do? Because I wouldn't call that literacy. That is about as much literacy as knowing what vowels are is english literacy.
I looked it up and I didn't see it tested against anything.
What about the whole pause in warming? That doesn't appear to be caught by your model.
I am not trying to be contentious here. I'm simply not seeing that model line up with what is going on and it makes me think it is a climate model for World of Warcraft rather then planet Earth.
I understand your frustration. If you'll permit the commiseration, I'll say it is frustrating on my end as well. I am not simply trying to tear things down. It is rather my understanding that natural philosophy requires a strong contingent that has the job of finding fault with any theory so as to test it.
Perhaps I am unworthy of that task. But it seems like very few are accredited that honor and should anyone make what appears to be a good point... they get called shills of the oil companies which is a political argument.
A shill from an oil company is not neccessarily wrong. Science shouldn't be about who you are or who agrees with you. It should be about who is right and who is wrong.
I don't know... it just seems like there is a certain amount of tribalism on the issue and it is very hard to work through it all.
You are busy... so am I. I attempt to understand these things in my free time sometimes for fun. For all my faults, I rather suspect I invest more time in trying to understand it then the vast majority of people that don't do it for a living.
I could have personally put a tourniquet on it in under a week.
And I say this as someone that manages a large network at a major corporation. It is really not that hard.
You might have to get drastic but when your house is on fire, I don't want to hear whining about people skuffing up your carpet.
A really quick example of something that would work instantly:
Terminal servers. First, isolate the servers getting pilfered. And then plot a few terminal servers down in that network and then give everyone that needs access to that information a login credential to the terminal servers. No file sharing between the system. If you want to access the data... then do so. No file transfers. No executable code transfers. No script transfers. You can still print from the terminal to the remote user's workstation.
That is an EXTREME solution. But anyone that tells me these things are hard or take a long time is either trying to avoid mussing up someone's hair or they're not aware that there are always drastic solutions. You do not let an on going hack continue for a year like that. It is indefensible incompetence.
Of relevance in the article was that the climate model was inputted into the super computer and was unable to accurately model the climate.
The model creators from the US were contacted to correct the problem and they solved the problem by inputting plug variables that forced the super computer to give the correct answer.
That is what the article was about.
As to consensus from the climate community... I've seen a lot of meteorologists and quiet a few geologists take issue with them. And I remember quite clearly there was a virologist that was furious that his research was taken out of context for an IPCC report that effectively claimed his research predicted a massive increase in disease if global warming continued. In fairness you have to admit there is some hype coming out of the IPCC. That inclusion of the interview from a climbing magazine that claimed the Himalayan glacier was melting was a big scandal. And these "errors" only seem to go in one direction. That implies bias does it not?
Beyond this, every day I see some silly article that pops up... you must see them as well blaming everything on global warming. You know they're going to go into high gear next summer just as they have every summer for years.
I hear all sorts of stuff. The polar bears are dying off they say... and then I look into it and the polar bear populations are healthy and fine. In fact, the whole report was based on some scientist noticing a dead polar bear and casually noting that to a journalist and before you know it... the polar bears are dying. I see pictures of polar bears stuck on little bits of ice like they're trapped... when I know they like to swim. Sort of like showing a fish "trapped" in a bowl of water. Oh god no... save the fish... it might drown.
There is just so much propaganda coming from ALL sides that I have a hard time knowing what to take seriously. I have to process it myself because I can't hold any source as reliable at this point. There is too much money flowing around and the politics have gotten too intense.
When I see how close the temps match between earth, mars, and Venus at equal pressures despite entirely different chemical compositions... I have a hard time taking the chemical composition of the atmosphere's seriously. The data from what I can see implies it isn't that important. It doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. Again, at equal pressures, the earth and Venus are only 50 degrees apart. What does the math say they should be apart without Venus's greater green house gas content? Mars and earth pretty much match exactly at equal pressures which is sort of weird. I assume some sort of compensation has to be made for being that near the ground which would of course change the way I'm looking at the venus numbers a bit.
I read some stuff by a mathematician that was looking into it and he was calculating the surface area of the planetary atmosphere's, solar radiation, etc. And that is basically where I got fixated on this idea of the atmospheric density.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. He stated quite clearly that he wasn't a climate guy. He just did the calculations out of curiosity. And when the numbers came up so close he felt it was a little suspicious. I basically agree with that assessment. It is really close given all the hay being made out of the greenhouse concept. Obviously the atmosphere matters and obviously the density matters. But I'm not sure the chemical composition matters on a planetary scale for heat trapping potential.
I don't know. I get fed all that and then the usual suspects show up asking for money and power to save the children, save the world, and whatever else they seem to think will pull heart strings. So many people crying wolf it is very hard to know what to take seriously.
And as much as I want to believe science is incorruptible... they've been able to corrupt just about everything so I've grown pretty paranoid about sources unless I can vet the information. Sort of where I am at this point.
I've noticed. It is sort of sad how corrupt the media has become. They don't even realize it themselves. You talk to them, and I do talk to newspaper people on occasion... and they just don't see it.
As to islam being the way it is because of no pope. That assumes that both religions are analogous. They're not really.
And I think a bigger problem for Islam is that they have a very strong prohibition against changing or reinterpreting their religion. That is a big problem because it means it is very hard to mold them into something more reasonable. As to the Ottomans, they also had the Janissaries. The real irony is that the Ottomans went into decline pretty much the instant they abolished the Janissaries. Look it up, they got rid of them around 1826 and were officially in decline around 1828. Two years and down the crapper.
What we can see from Islamic society is that it doesn't self regulate very well. The solution appears to be using institutions to prevent it from destroying itself.
The modern Turks use their military to keep their government mostly secular. The Ottomans relied upon a slave caste that basically ran the empire for them. They did all sorts of stuff. Clerical work, audits, enforcement, etc. They were the voice of the Sultan. He would give an order and they would see it done. Once removed all of that stopped happening and/or was incompetently done.
Slashdot Mirror
Which model predicted the pause?
I should also note that while APK is a bit odd and I've run into him a few times. He's an agreeable sort so long as you understand how his mind works.
I deal with a lot of unusual people. Scientists. Psychopathic business people (they're really good at their jobs, don't judge). Marketing gurus that think they have mind control powers... literally. And all sorts of other fun stuff.
They're all a little nuts in their own way and I'm sure I am in mine. But as the man said I am only mad north by northwest, when the wind is southerly I can tell a hawk from a handsaw. ;-)
I'll fire you a message from one of my spam accounts. If you flood it with child porn or something it won't effect me. Just fyi. I only use the account I will communicate with you for dangerous correspondence. No offense. Just standard protocol.
Asking me to be patient yet believe you before it has been tested means you're asking me to believe you on faith. That is not how science works.
I expect proof BEFORE the point where you ask me to believe you. The proof is a falsifiable empirical test.
So. We have a problem.
Can you show that math to me? I'd like to see it. Truly. I'm not asking for it just to trip you up or create make work for you. I honestly am curious to see it.
As to the thickness not matting, you're only seeing it from the perspective of absorption. Consider the perspective of radiation. The thicker the atmosphere the more insulation the lower layers have for insulation.
One thing which I think is missed in some of the calculations is that it isn't a race to see which planet hits a certain temperature first. I'm sure CO2 it better at picking up energy then other gases. But if something sits in the oven for long enough it is going to reach the same temperature as the oven. Lets say I have an asbestos box and I put it in an oven for an hour. The inside of that box will probably be cooler then the box that was made out of steel. Because asbestos is a good insulator.
Okay. But what if I leave both boxes in the oven for 100 years at a temperature of 400 degrees. This is over kill but the point is that the inside of both boxes should be equal.
The Earth turns and the orbit is elliptical but it is always getting hit by the sun. It is always in the oven.
Now the analogy is probably bad because the earth isn't in an oven. it is in a cold vacuum with the only relevant energy hitting it from one side at a time. But it is constantly hitting the earth.
What I am wondering here is if the planet is eating that energy every day all day for billions of years... does it really matter what the atmosphere is made out of given that even if it were asbestos it would pick the temperature up eventually. And in that case, mass does matter. Stand next to a rock that was sitting in the sun all day when the stars come out. If that rock really got hot during the day it is going to be warm all night.
Am I saying I am right here? I am saying these are concerns I have. And given that I obviously have trust issues, I really need to arrive and understand these things myself to feel comfortable with them. My own observations and thinking while likely inferior, unschooled, and imperfect... are still my reasonings. I don't credit the notion that I should just listen and believe. For better or worse that is not how my mind works.
I know a lot of things and I am not a stupid person. I don't know everything and I am not the smartest person in the world. But I have been able to understand a lot of complicated things in my life. Elements of electrical engineering, quite a bit of astrophysics, I can do some pretty nice charcoal drawings, I can program in a couple computer languages to a high level, and a lot of other stuff I won't bore you with. The point is that I have an expectation that I can understand this if I try.
I don't think that climate science is the most difficult science in the world. I think it is often the most disorganized science but that is just an impression looking at the way the data is structured. Just an opinion from a layman trying to vet some figures.
And that just makes me dubious. I don't believe that this is beyond my ability to understand it. And there seems to be this attitude that if you don't just fall into line immediately you're committing a moral sin. Were I to ask similar questions about volcanology no one would be giving me as much shit as I get for asking questions about AGW. I know this from personal experience. Because I've asked a lot of questions about that as well. And the people that answer them don't treat me like an asshole for asking questions.
All I want is a fucking validated climate model that was tested under falsifiable conditions. That isn't fucking unreasonable.
I'm not KSM and I don't like being referred to as him or it implied that one day I'll be strapped down and given the same treatment by the CIA.
It isn't credible.
During WW2 we did that and worse to Nazi spies.
During the Cold War we did that and worse to Soviet spies.
Terrorists technically fall into the same legal and moral spot that spies or sappers fall into. Sappers are like spies only instead of getting information they sneak bombs into places and blow stuff up. Typically rail yards, factories, and other places important for war logistics.
Point is... legally I a country can eat a spy on international television... alive. They can cut little bits of him bit by bit and eat him. There are literally no limits. Spies are understood to have ZERO rights if caught by an enemy.
During WW2, the US caught a lot of German spies. They were interrogated for a week or two and then executed. No laws of the Geneva Convention were broken.
I am not feeling bad for KSM. He's a piece of shit and you could have sold tickets to kick the man in the balls in Gitmo.
Please pick another example that isn't understood to have gotten exactly what he had coming if you wish to imply any moral wrong doing.
Uhm no. That is not what I'm saying. I am not saying 10 years of day by day predictions or month by month predictions.
I am saying being able to predict a period of time relative to the period of time you've based your model on.
We have not had AGW for 500 years. We've had it at most since about the early 50s. Which means your prediction window can't be larger then your data window.
What I want is a falsifiable test. I want something where your theory CAN be wrong if it is wrong.
One thing that bothers me about a lot of this stuff is that there is literally no one way to argue against any of it because the claims are either so fucking vague that it is like talking about horoscopes or the period of time where things would be proven right or wrong is after we're all dead of old age.
I want something falsifiable. That is a core tenant of science or I could just make up a theory about fucking unicorns and call it science because there's no way to falsify it.
It is this reason that Creationism for example is not science. You can't disprove the existence of God. It isn't possible. Which means theories about God are non-falsifiable. And that means they're not fucking science.
AGW models in many cases are non-falsifiable. They're from what I can see almost never tested under circumstances where it is possible for them to be wrong. And that means they could be fucking anything and still be considered valid because apparently in much of climate science falsifiability isn't considered important. But it is important.
Until it has gone through some empirical falsifiable testing... it is not something you can use to back up anything.
So that is actually what I'm asking for here. I think I was pretty clear about that at the start. I want an empirical falsifiable test done on a model and I want it to pass before I am expected to take the model seriously. That is how you separate models about elves and dragons from models about the real world.
Requires? Do old laptops require new batteries after 4 years?
Not really... they just have shitty battery life unless you do replace them.
All the old EVs are lead acid batteries... the newer all electric ones are using the literal same tech in fucking laptop batteries. Which means... they should have the same life span. And do laptop batteries tend to suck after 4 years?
Commit seppuku immediately. Your have brought shame upon this house.
As to altitudes, etc... Venus isn't in Earth's orbit. So your insistence on the matching is odd. Obviously Venus is going to be hotter with or without global warming gases. It is closer to the sun. Mercury for example has almost no atmosphere and is quiet a bit hotter then the earth is because it is closer to the sun. But if it were in Earth's orbit, one could expect that the differences from solar proximity would vanish leaving us with any other difference between the planetary bodies.
As to why thicker atmosphere's retain more heat. I think successive layers of air just act as insulation trapping heat into deeper layers rather then emitting the energy directly out into space. The thicker the atmosphere all other things being equal... the hotter I expect it to be when compared to a thinner atmosphere under similar circumstances.
As to proving my hypothesis, I obviously lack the training and time to do that credibly. I can show you some math that calculates black body radiation etc. But it will be real back of the napkin work. Is that sufficient?
The trouble with this sort of thing is that it is impossible to build scale models.
Yep, I deal with XP machines all the time. They've got legacy software on them and they run DOS really well. And lots of new hardware runs on DOS. Medical hardware for example very frequently is a DOS system It does one thing and only one thing and it does it reliably for years and years and years. No updates. No tech problems. You tell it to do something and if someone hasn't smashed it with a hammer... it does it. Every single fucking time.
I actually like DOS and any OS that is that simple. They don't waste your time once you've set them up. They just do their jobs... forever.
You mean this guy:
""Mohammed traveled to the Philippines in 1994 to work with his nephew Yousef on the Bojinka plot, a Manila-based plot to destroy twelve commercial airliners flying routes between the United States, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The 9/11 Commission Report says that "this marked the first time KSM took part in the actual planning of a terrorist operation."[29]""
""According to a CNN interview with intelligence expert Rohan Gunaratna, "Daniel Pearl was going in search of the al Qaeda network that was operational in Karachi, and it was at the instruction of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that Daniel Pearl was killed."[44] On October 12, 2006, Time magazine reported that "KSM confessed under CIA interrogation that he personally committed the murder."[45]""
Because fuck that guy.
The output has to be close enough to approximate ten year average temperature ranges as well as capture decade long climate phenomenon. Such as the the "pause" that every single climate model has failed to predict or account for... it has been many years. I would think it is significant enough that the model would predict and explain it.
Absent that, I would question whether the previous warming tend was just the same thing. Some sort of short lived unexplained thing that was there and then went away for reasons people don't understand.
Do you see? You have to be able to explain decades long patterns to be credible when you claim to know why decades long patterns are happening. You need to be able to explain the pause and your model needs to predict it or I don't think you can be trusted to predict anything that doesn't last centuries.
As the existing warming pattern never went on that long... you're in a time range of prediction that roughly approximates the scale of the pause. So that would be a really good way of validating your model. Predicting and explaining the pause.
Would that be enough all on its own? Obviously not. But any model that can't do that pretty much instantly fails. Call that the first test if you will.
As to the japanese, I'll bring up my information again. It might not have been mann but it was someone very core to that group. It could have been Hansen or something. I'll give my information a look... *looking*... The article is years old at this point. I'll find it if I really need it.
I'll withdraw the point for the sake of argument until I dig it up.
To summarize, I want something that can with the evidence of the last couple decades predict the next couple decades. If it doesn't work that way and it can't predict things in more then 100 year increments then I question whether you have enough information to project out given that at most you're basing AGW on the period from 1949 to around 1998. Around 1998, as I'm sure you're aware, the models started having serious problems that are mostly unaddressed.
Here is what I am doing. I am matching the evidence required to the claim made. Make a smaller claim and I'll ask for less evidence. Simply saying "in small experiments, CO2 has been shown to absorb radiant energy more freely then some other gases" and I won't even ask for information.
Tell me however that you know the temperature will go up by .5 degrees in 20 years because gas X has increased in the atmosphere by Y percent and I'm going to need a pretty fucking good model for that claim.
You run into XP machines all the time.
excel is not computer literacy. Excel is excel.
When I recommend a file for someone, I literally give them a link to one of my file servers.
Is that standard knowing what the mouse buttons do? Because I wouldn't call that literacy. That is about as much literacy as knowing what vowels are is english literacy.
Raise the bar.
Is it though?
I looked it up and I didn't see it tested against anything.
What about the whole pause in warming? That doesn't appear to be caught by your model.
I am not trying to be contentious here. I'm simply not seeing that model line up with what is going on and it makes me think it is a climate model for World of Warcraft rather then planet Earth.
I'm not asking for 100 percent accuracy. I'm asking for enough accuracy to be credible at making predictions.
I'm asking for something validated against historical data.
I understand your frustration. If you'll permit the commiseration, I'll say it is frustrating on my end as well. I am not simply trying to tear things down. It is rather my understanding that natural philosophy requires a strong contingent that has the job of finding fault with any theory so as to test it.
Perhaps I am unworthy of that task. But it seems like very few are accredited that honor and should anyone make what appears to be a good point... they get called shills of the oil companies which is a political argument.
A shill from an oil company is not neccessarily wrong. Science shouldn't be about who you are or who agrees with you. It should be about who is right and who is wrong.
I don't know... it just seems like there is a certain amount of tribalism on the issue and it is very hard to work through it all.
You are busy... so am I. I attempt to understand these things in my free time sometimes for fun. For all my faults, I rather suspect I invest more time in trying to understand it then the vast majority of people that don't do it for a living.
For whatever that is worth...
*tips hat*
I could have personally put a tourniquet on it in under a week.
And I say this as someone that manages a large network at a major corporation. It is really not that hard.
You might have to get drastic but when your house is on fire, I don't want to hear whining about people skuffing up your carpet.
A really quick example of something that would work instantly:
Terminal servers. First, isolate the servers getting pilfered. And then plot a few terminal servers down in that network and then give everyone that needs access to that information a login credential to the terminal servers. No file sharing between the system. If you want to access the data... then do so. No file transfers. No executable code transfers. No script transfers. You can still print from the terminal to the remote user's workstation.
That is an EXTREME solution. But anyone that tells me these things are hard or take a long time is either trying to avoid mussing up someone's hair or they're not aware that there are always drastic solutions. You do not let an on going hack continue for a year like that. It is indefensible incompetence.
Of relevance in the article was that the climate model was inputted into the super computer and was unable to accurately model the climate.
The model creators from the US were contacted to correct the problem and they solved the problem by inputting plug variables that forced the super computer to give the correct answer.
That is what the article was about.
As to consensus from the climate community... I've seen a lot of meteorologists and quiet a few geologists take issue with them. And I remember quite clearly there was a virologist that was furious that his research was taken out of context for an IPCC report that effectively claimed his research predicted a massive increase in disease if global warming continued. In fairness you have to admit there is some hype coming out of the IPCC. That inclusion of the interview from a climbing magazine that claimed the Himalayan glacier was melting was a big scandal. And these "errors" only seem to go in one direction. That implies bias does it not?
Beyond this, every day I see some silly article that pops up... you must see them as well blaming everything on global warming. You know they're going to go into high gear next summer just as they have every summer for years.
I hear all sorts of stuff. The polar bears are dying off they say... and then I look into it and the polar bear populations are healthy and fine. In fact, the whole report was based on some scientist noticing a dead polar bear and casually noting that to a journalist and before you know it... the polar bears are dying. I see pictures of polar bears stuck on little bits of ice like they're trapped... when I know they like to swim. Sort of like showing a fish "trapped" in a bowl of water. Oh god no... save the fish... it might drown.
There is just so much propaganda coming from ALL sides that I have a hard time knowing what to take seriously. I have to process it myself because I can't hold any source as reliable at this point. There is too much money flowing around and the politics have gotten too intense.
When I see how close the temps match between earth, mars, and Venus at equal pressures despite entirely different chemical compositions... I have a hard time taking the chemical composition of the atmosphere's seriously. The data from what I can see implies it isn't that important. It doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. Again, at equal pressures, the earth and Venus are only 50 degrees apart. What does the math say they should be apart without Venus's greater green house gas content? Mars and earth pretty much match exactly at equal pressures which is sort of weird. I assume some sort of compensation has to be made for being that near the ground which would of course change the way I'm looking at the venus numbers a bit.
I read some stuff by a mathematician that was looking into it and he was calculating the surface area of the planetary atmosphere's, solar radiation, etc. And that is basically where I got fixated on this idea of the atmospheric density.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. He stated quite clearly that he wasn't a climate guy. He just did the calculations out of curiosity. And when the numbers came up so close he felt it was a little suspicious. I basically agree with that assessment. It is really close given all the hay being made out of the greenhouse concept. Obviously the atmosphere matters and obviously the density matters. But I'm not sure the chemical composition matters on a planetary scale for heat trapping potential.
I don't know. I get fed all that and then the usual suspects show up asking for money and power to save the children, save the world, and whatever else they seem to think will pull heart strings. So many people crying wolf it is very hard to know what to take seriously.
And as much as I want to believe science is incorruptible... they've been able to corrupt just about everything so I've grown pretty paranoid about sources unless I can vet the information. Sort of where I am at this point.
I've noticed. It is sort of sad how corrupt the media has become. They don't even realize it themselves. You talk to them, and I do talk to newspaper people on occasion... and they just don't see it.
As to islam being the way it is because of no pope. That assumes that both religions are analogous. They're not really.
And I think a bigger problem for Islam is that they have a very strong prohibition against changing or reinterpreting their religion. That is a big problem because it means it is very hard to mold them into something more reasonable.
As to the Ottomans, they also had the Janissaries. The real irony is that the Ottomans went into decline pretty much the instant they abolished the Janissaries. Look it up, they got rid of them around 1826 and were officially in decline around 1828. Two years and down the crapper.
What we can see from Islamic society is that it doesn't self regulate very well. The solution appears to be using institutions to prevent it from destroying itself.
The modern Turks use their military to keep their government mostly secular. The Ottomans relied upon a slave caste that basically ran the empire for them. They did all sorts of stuff. Clerical work, audits, enforcement, etc. They were the voice of the Sultan. He would give an order and they would see it done. Once removed all of that stopped happening and/or was incompetently done.
You don't need to keep everything on line. That was the thing that was so stupid. They had everything online with a common key to access everything.
First, Sony knew they had a problem over a year ago. They're refusing to admit it but everyone knows.
Second, they way Sony laid out their network was dumb. They should have compartmentalized and archived.
Third, when you know you are getting hacked don't just sit there with your thumb up your ass. Do something about it.
Cite the model please.