As to my point, what you'll find if you actually make the comparison is that if you compensate for pressure the temperature on venus is quite comparable to that of earth despite having vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather the big difference in temperature is mostly due to atmospheric density and not CO2... and the little temperature difference after that is due to venus being closer to the sun. But nearly all the temperature difference vanishes once you compensate for pressure.
That is my point.
As to unsubstantiated claims, that is my point. The claim that that box has relevance to the wider atmosphere is not validated. What is more, the observation about temperature versus pressure makes it very unlikely that it is valid.
As to waiting for your model to be falsified, the problem is that you're not giving me the option to wait until the model is validated before I have to take the model seriously. As such, within the time frame of "RIGHT NOW" they are not falsifiable.
If you'll withdraw any attempt to use the credibility of unverified models to justify various solutions then we have no problem. That of course leaves you with nothing to base predictions upon besides supposition.
As to my citations, what would you like cited? I have asked YOU to cite something. So I'll tell you what. I'll cite something if you cite a validated climate model.
Because we appear to need one. And I don't mean an engine that search P2P torrents or something but rather one that is like google or Bing but run P2P sort of like Tor or something.
It doesn't need to be fast. It just needs to work.
Compare the temperature of Venus with the temperature of the earth at 1 atmosphere.
Compare the surface temperature of Mars with the temperature of the earth at an altitude where the air pressure is about mars surface temperature.
Compare the temperature of the earth with the temperature of Jupiter at 1 atmosphere.
Your citation of some little box retaining more heat with some gases then others doesn't mean the experiment scales to a planetary scale.
And beyond that, the point remains that you do not have a working climate model that has been validated under falsifiable conditions. And lacking that, you don't have a predictive model. And lacking a predictive model you have no means to scientifically predict climate conditions in the future scientifically.
Citing some boiler plate from wikipedia isn't going to cut it. You want this... you're going to have to get into the trenches and grapple for it. I am not an idiot.
And as to plus 5 insightful... that just proves I was right when I said you're losing the political fight. I strongly suggest you do not use typical AGW talking points. They've only been taken seriously by the converted for years. I'd suggest you take a more dynamic approach... just so this is at least interesting.
They're trying to sell them. You can see a few companies doing it as well as some demos. As to broad industrial adoption. Is that's the standard then nothing would ever get approved since you've created a chicken and egg situation. How do you get adoption without adoption?
Point is, it works. They're trying to get it installed in places like rural Alaska in the case of Toshiba. I believe GE was trying to pitch these things to third world countries bitching about energy prices and saying they wanted to go nuclear. The idea is that GE or whomever can sell these countries plug and play reactors without anyone worrying that they're going to start building nuclear weapons.
I've seen no model that can do that which does not rely on plug variables to predetermine results.
That is, I have seen many models that can model past events however they do it by telling the model what the correct answer is and force it to not vary its conclusion much beyond that those values.
Every model I've seen that has not done that when subjected to unfamiliar climate periods just outputs garbage results. That is, if it is put in a context where it is given all the information the model believes is relevant but the modelers were not given prior notice as to the time period or exact data set.
If the models are valid they should work on any empirical data set. They tend to work on a specific time period and with a specific data set that the modelers were working with to develop the model. But if given a new data set from a different time period... they fail.
Now before you rejoin by asking for even more evidence... quid pro quo. I want that validated climate model.
Keep in mind, I'd love for you to prove me wrong. I really would. Though I am annoyed with a lot of AGW activists because I think they pollute the discussion with their idiotic ideology. I like learning and I like being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means growth. It means change. It means adaptation. I value these things. Please prove me wrong. But this is not an undefended hamlet you can just take by planting your flag in it. To prove this wrong, you're going to have to make some kind of effort here or at least give me some information I'm not already aware of... I am not uneducated. I want you to prove me wrong. Please. It would actually be a relief. It is troubling to believe that so many in the establishment are this wrong or possibly even corrupt. I don't like coming to that conclusion. But I am a thinking creature. And just because I don't like an idea doesn't mean that I automatically don't believe in it. The data in so far as I see it points towards AGW being overly hyped and or completely bunk. That is just how it looks to me. But I'd love to be wrong. I want to be wrong. Please... please prove me wrong.
The micro reactors are already a marketed product from GE. They already exist.
GE's concept is to sell them like light bulbs or batteries. You buy one, it arrives on a truck, it is screwed into a socket, and it run until it is spent. Then you order a new one, the old one is screwed out of its socket and the new one gets put into place.
That is, you do not maintain the reactor or open the reactor at the plant site. Rather, it is removed entirely when spent for reprocessing. There is no residual radioactive material left behind. All of that happens at the reprocessing center.
What that also means is that you don't have to have giant reactor complexes. You can instead have tiny reactor substations that provide enough nuclear power for a community or neighborhood but not the entire city. Every portion of the city can have its own independent power supply provided by their own onsite reactor. Just a little bitty guy that produces enough power for them. Any excesses are provided by the grid and any surpluses are offered to the grid.
False comparison. Viruses are quite variable in their means of attack, methods of spreading, etc.
Where as the forces that drive planetary climates are consistent throughout the universe. It is just physics.
I'd suggest you stay away from biology when crafting climate analogies they're not analogous.
If you're curious, compare the temperature of earth, mars, Venus, and Jupiter all at the same air pressure.
You can either take the pressure on mars and compare it to everything. But I find it more interesting to ignore mars and just compare the temperature of Venus and Jupiter to earth at 1 atmosphere.
What you'll find is that the temperature at equal pressures is about the same. Which is very interesting given that the chemical composition of each atmosphere is very different and of course each planet is at varying distances from the Sun. And yet, the temperature of the atmospheres is quite similar at equal pressures. This implies that the chemical composition of the atmosphere is less important then the density of that atmosphere.
Venus is the model upon which AGW theory is based. Look at all the CO2 and look at how hot that atmosphere is they say. What they fail to note is that the atmosphere on Venus is also a great deal denser then it is on earth and really without a change in the density of our atmosphere, there is little chance of a substantial change in global climate outside of natural forces.
Before you contradict me... actually look up the temperature of those worlds at equal pressure. I'll wait.
First, had he not gone anti gun, he would have won the election clearly. He ultimately lost because he made stupid political decisions which is pretty much all he's done his whole career.
As to 9/11 being an inside job... I'm not sure if you're serious about that. If you are, then you're just a crank. if not... then I don't know your intention with the statement.
You missed the part where I asked pro AGW people to show me a proven climate model. Absent that, you don't actually have facts or theories but rather opinions. And opinions are like assholes... are they not?
Okay, given that how far do you think your model can accurately predict into the future?
If I gave you climate data from 1000 years ago, how far beyond that point could you predict climate conditions? Could you for example tell me the 30 year average climate conditions 200 years after that?
If I gave you climate data from 1000 AD could you tell me what the 30 year average climate was in 1200 AD? Again, ranging 15 years before and after that point?
I'm going to let you set the standard by which your model is judged. That standard likewise will determine how far in the future your model can project which will determine how far into the future YOU can project.
It is only by using our model that we can make any prediction at all while calling it science. We have opinions of course. But opinions are not science.
Also none of these things explains why or validates a given model. Rather you're just saying there is warming going on. But the reason for it is unknown unless you have a model.
The sea level rise is probably the best thing to talk about. From what I've seen of the data, we're looking at about 2 mm per year throughout most of the world right now. At that rate, we're looking at about 7 inches per 100 years. At that rate, it is hard to argue we have a problem. Variations of that kind furthermore are well known in the climate record.
It isn't a competition between two political factions in science. It is a competition between your theory and reality.
Being more right then anyone else because you're the only one offering a model doesn't make your model accurate. It just means no one else is even bothering to try. And maybe that is sad. But it doesn't mean your model is correct simply because no one else is offering one.
If you were in a village 4000 years ago and offered a theory of gravity that was wrong... but you were the only one offering such a theory... would your theory hold weight? No.
Or lets say there was someone else also offering a theory and his theory was even worse then yours. Would your theory be valid then?
No.
It isn't a competition against other humans. That is politics.
It is rather a competition against the universe. That is science.
If you want to play politics then that is an entirely different game. Politics isn't about truth. It is about getting people on your side however you do it. Maybe you bribe some people. Maybe you trick them. Maybe they just like you. It doesn't really matter how you do it. You do it and you win. That is politics.
Is that the game you want to play? Because if you want to compete against other humans then it is going to turn into politics. if you want this to be about science, then rather compete against the universe. That is your rival.
I'm asking for one that PASSED such a test. I'm sure they test them all the time. They just fail or the standards are so vague that the models are effectively non-falsifiable. A model that fails validation is not citable as evidence of anything but failure. A non-falsifiable theory is not science.
I'm asking for one climate model that was tested under falsifiable conditions and passed.
First, I'm asking you to show me any earth climate model that has been subjected to empirical testing and survived.
One.
As to my expectations, those are actually set by the bounds of the predictions that climate scientists presume to make on the backs of these models. I've seen predictions that go out hundreds of years into the future for example. I expect a model capable of accurately predicting climate conditions hundreds of years into the future to be able to make such statements.
The ability of your model to remain accurate over time determines the durations over which you can make predictions. Simple, no? So I expect levels of accuracy out of the models equal to the predictions being justified by these models.
If your predictions only go a few months into the future, then I only need your model to remain accurate to a couple months. If your make predictions that span years, then I need your model to remain accurate to that time period. And so on.
As to the makers of the models setting the standards by which their models are to be judged, that is valid to a certain extent. However, when they make their findings public and make predictions then they lose the ability to dictate how their models are judged. Rather, the public and their peers in science will judge if their work validates their claims. And that manner in which that is done is not something they get to control. Instead, they can complain if criticism is unfair and attempt to rebut criticism. However, they cannot simply veto various methods or attempts to check their work.
Its only expensive when you have to consider the price of decontamination. And that is only an issue if the reactor is huge and can't just be loaded onto the back of a truck.
If instead of big mono reactors you build dozens or hundreds of micro reactors then decontamination is a simpler matter. You just bundle the spent reactor up and send it off to a storage facility.
Here again we run into problems because no one wants to store the spent fuel. Resolve that issue by paying the land owners. That is really all this stupid controversy is about. Money. They have a reasonable complaint. Living next to a spent nuclear fuel storage facility won't be great for property values. Pay them. And solve a national problem.
Well, the climate models cannot predict the past unless they're fed the correct answers into the model using plug variables that force the output to approximate the correct answer. There is to my knowledge, no climate model that can be given an unspecified time's climate data and accurate predict known climate conditions that followed that time point.
That is, the test cannot let the model maker know what the right answer is... the only person that needs to know the right answer is the person testing the model.
There are models that are configured to model specific time periods and they do it quite well. But that is because they already know the right answers and so build the correct answers for that time period into the model. That is not a general climate model. I can't take climate conditions from 1000 years earlier, feed them into it, and get sensible output. And that is what the climate model must do to be useful.
Then I can feed current known climate data into it and have a prayer that it will model future events with some accuracy.
If we rest exclusively on modeling future events then we have to wait sometimes years or decades before we know that a given model is wrong. I don't think we have to wait that long. Verify the model against historical information without telling the model makers which time period we're using and it will either succeed or fail.
No, if Bill had done it instead then would have been very different. Gore was very dismissive and disinterested in bridge building. A more skilled politician would have realized that he'd need a more bipartisan solution and would have kept his options open.
Gore is incompetent. And anything he touches is run incompetently.
Slashdot Mirror
Very cool. That may be what we have to shift to if they keep fucking with the search engines.
As to my point, what you'll find if you actually make the comparison is that if you compensate for pressure the temperature on venus is quite comparable to that of earth despite having vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather the big difference in temperature is mostly due to atmospheric density and not CO2... and the little temperature difference after that is due to venus being closer to the sun. But nearly all the temperature difference vanishes once you compensate for pressure.
That is my point.
As to unsubstantiated claims, that is my point. The claim that that box has relevance to the wider atmosphere is not validated. What is more, the observation about temperature versus pressure makes it very unlikely that it is valid.
As to waiting for your model to be falsified, the problem is that you're not giving me the option to wait until the model is validated before I have to take the model seriously. As such, within the time frame of "RIGHT NOW" they are not falsifiable.
If you'll withdraw any attempt to use the credibility of unverified models to justify various solutions then we have no problem. That of course leaves you with nothing to base predictions upon besides supposition.
As to my citations, what would you like cited? I have asked YOU to cite something. So I'll tell you what. I'll cite something if you cite a validated climate model.
Deal?
Because we appear to need one. And I don't mean an engine that search P2P torrents or something but rather one that is like google or Bing but run P2P sort of like Tor or something.
It doesn't need to be fast. It just needs to work.
You don't get to tell me what the future is going to be if your models fail validation.
End of story.
Compare the temperature of Venus with the temperature of the earth at 1 atmosphere.
Compare the surface temperature of Mars with the temperature of the earth at an altitude where the air pressure is about mars surface temperature.
Compare the temperature of the earth with the temperature of Jupiter at 1 atmosphere.
Your citation of some little box retaining more heat with some gases then others doesn't mean the experiment scales to a planetary scale.
And beyond that, the point remains that you do not have a working climate model that has been validated under falsifiable conditions. And lacking that, you don't have a predictive model. And lacking a predictive model you have no means to scientifically predict climate conditions in the future scientifically.
Citing some boiler plate from wikipedia isn't going to cut it. You want this... you're going to have to get into the trenches and grapple for it. I am not an idiot.
And as to plus 5 insightful... that just proves I was right when I said you're losing the political fight. I strongly suggest you do not use typical AGW talking points. They've only been taken seriously by the converted for years. I'd suggest you take a more dynamic approach... just so this is at least interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
They're trying to sell them. You can see a few companies doing it as well as some demos. As to broad industrial adoption. Is that's the standard then nothing would ever get approved since you've created a chicken and egg situation. How do you get adoption without adoption?
Point is, it works. They're trying to get it installed in places like rural Alaska in the case of Toshiba. I believe GE was trying to pitch these things to third world countries bitching about energy prices and saying they wanted to go nuclear. The idea is that GE or whomever can sell these countries plug and play reactors without anyone worrying that they're going to start building nuclear weapons.
I've seen no model that can do that which does not rely on plug variables to predetermine results.
That is, I have seen many models that can model past events however they do it by telling the model what the correct answer is and force it to not vary its conclusion much beyond that those values.
Every model I've seen that has not done that when subjected to unfamiliar climate periods just outputs garbage results. That is, if it is put in a context where it is given all the information the model believes is relevant but the modelers were not given prior notice as to the time period or exact data set.
If the models are valid they should work on any empirical data set. They tend to work on a specific time period and with a specific data set that the modelers were working with to develop the model. But if given a new data set from a different time period... they fail.
Here you're going to ask for evidence. Okay:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Just one example.
Now before you rejoin by asking for even more evidence... quid pro quo. I want that validated climate model.
Keep in mind, I'd love for you to prove me wrong. I really would. Though I am annoyed with a lot of AGW activists because I think they pollute the discussion with their idiotic ideology. I like learning and I like being proven wrong. Being proven wrong means growth. It means change. It means adaptation. I value these things. Please prove me wrong. But this is not an undefended hamlet you can just take by planting your flag in it. To prove this wrong, you're going to have to make some kind of effort here or at least give me some information I'm not already aware of... I am not uneducated. I want you to prove me wrong. Please. It would actually be a relief. It is troubling to believe that so many in the establishment are this wrong or possibly even corrupt. I don't like coming to that conclusion. But I am a thinking creature. And just because I don't like an idea doesn't mean that I automatically don't believe in it. The data in so far as I see it points towards AGW being overly hyped and or completely bunk. That is just how it looks to me. But I'd love to be wrong. I want to be wrong. Please... please prove me wrong.
The micro reactors are already a marketed product from GE. They already exist.
GE's concept is to sell them like light bulbs or batteries. You buy one, it arrives on a truck, it is screwed into a socket, and it run until it is spent. Then you order a new one, the old one is screwed out of its socket and the new one gets put into place.
That is, you do not maintain the reactor or open the reactor at the plant site. Rather, it is removed entirely when spent for reprocessing. There is no residual radioactive material left behind. All of that happens at the reprocessing center.
What that also means is that you don't have to have giant reactor complexes. You can instead have tiny reactor substations that provide enough nuclear power for a community or neighborhood but not the entire city. Every portion of the city can have its own independent power supply provided by their own onsite reactor. Just a little bitty guy that produces enough power for them. Any excesses are provided by the grid and any surpluses are offered to the grid.
False comparison. Viruses are quite variable in their means of attack, methods of spreading, etc.
Where as the forces that drive planetary climates are consistent throughout the universe. It is just physics.
I'd suggest you stay away from biology when crafting climate analogies they're not analogous.
If you're curious, compare the temperature of earth, mars, Venus, and Jupiter all at the same air pressure.
You can either take the pressure on mars and compare it to everything. But I find it more interesting to ignore mars and just compare the temperature of Venus and Jupiter to earth at 1 atmosphere.
What you'll find is that the temperature at equal pressures is about the same. Which is very interesting given that the chemical composition of each atmosphere is very different and of course each planet is at varying distances from the Sun. And yet, the temperature of the atmospheres is quite similar at equal pressures. This implies that the chemical composition of the atmosphere is less important then the density of that atmosphere.
Venus is the model upon which AGW theory is based. Look at all the CO2 and look at how hot that atmosphere is they say. What they fail to note is that the atmosphere on Venus is also a great deal denser then it is on earth and really without a change in the density of our atmosphere, there is little chance of a substantial change in global climate outside of natural forces.
Before you contradict me... actually look up the temperature of those worlds at equal pressure. I'll wait.
First, had he not gone anti gun, he would have won the election clearly. He ultimately lost because he made stupid political decisions which is pretty much all he's done his whole career.
As to 9/11 being an inside job... I'm not sure if you're serious about that. If you are, then you're just a crank. if not... then I don't know your intention with the statement.
You missed the part where I asked pro AGW people to show me a proven climate model. Absent that, you don't actually have facts or theories but rather opinions. And opinions are like assholes... are they not?
Okay, given that how far do you think your model can accurately predict into the future?
If I gave you climate data from 1000 years ago, how far beyond that point could you predict climate conditions? Could you for example tell me the 30 year average climate conditions 200 years after that?
If I gave you climate data from 1000 AD could you tell me what the 30 year average climate was in 1200 AD? Again, ranging 15 years before and after that point?
I'm going to let you set the standard by which your model is judged. That standard likewise will determine how far in the future your model can project which will determine how far into the future YOU can project.
It is only by using our model that we can make any prediction at all while calling it science. We have opinions of course. But opinions are not science.
Also none of these things explains why or validates a given model. Rather you're just saying there is warming going on. But the reason for it is unknown unless you have a model.
The sea level rise is probably the best thing to talk about. From what I've seen of the data, we're looking at about 2 mm per year throughout most of the world right now. At that rate, we're looking at about 7 inches per 100 years. At that rate, it is hard to argue we have a problem. Variations of that kind furthermore are well known in the climate record.
Hillary wouldn't have a campaign at all without BC. She's only relevant because she's Mrs Clinton.
It isn't a competition between two political factions in science. It is a competition between your theory and reality.
Being more right then anyone else because you're the only one offering a model doesn't make your model accurate. It just means no one else is even bothering to try. And maybe that is sad. But it doesn't mean your model is correct simply because no one else is offering one.
If you were in a village 4000 years ago and offered a theory of gravity that was wrong... but you were the only one offering such a theory... would your theory hold weight? No.
Or lets say there was someone else also offering a theory and his theory was even worse then yours. Would your theory be valid then?
No.
It isn't a competition against other humans. That is politics.
It is rather a competition against the universe. That is science.
If you want to play politics then that is an entirely different game. Politics isn't about truth. It is about getting people on your side however you do it. Maybe you bribe some people. Maybe you trick them. Maybe they just like you. It doesn't really matter how you do it. You do it and you win. That is politics.
Is that the game you want to play? Because if you want to compete against other humans then it is going to turn into politics. if you want this to be about science, then rather compete against the universe. That is your rival.
Then you need to be accurate to 30 years at a minimum.
Note I did not say precise. I said accurate.
So, I should be able to feel climate data from 30 years ago into your climate model and predict ROUGHLY what we've got today. No?
Or how about feed in information from 4000 years ago and pretend 4030?
That is the sort of thing your model has to do or it isn't capable of projection and if you don't have projection then you don't have prediction.
I'm asking for one that PASSED such a test. I'm sure they test them all the time. They just fail or the standards are so vague that the models are effectively non-falsifiable. A model that fails validation is not citable as evidence of anything but failure. A non-falsifiable theory is not science.
I'm asking for one climate model that was tested under falsifiable conditions and passed.
Absent that... ERROR - Null Argument.
So are you going to cite a model that passed such a test or not?
Anyone that says "no amount of truth would convince you" when asked for evidence is just covering for the fact that they don't have the evidence.
I am asking for a validated climate model. You either have that or you have nothing but your pretensions.
First, I'm asking you to show me any earth climate model that has been subjected to empirical testing and survived.
One.
As to my expectations, those are actually set by the bounds of the predictions that climate scientists presume to make on the backs of these models. I've seen predictions that go out hundreds of years into the future for example. I expect a model capable of accurately predicting climate conditions hundreds of years into the future to be able to make such statements.
The ability of your model to remain accurate over time determines the durations over which you can make predictions. Simple, no? So I expect levels of accuracy out of the models equal to the predictions being justified by these models.
If your predictions only go a few months into the future, then I only need your model to remain accurate to a couple months. If your make predictions that span years, then I need your model to remain accurate to that time period. And so on.
As to the makers of the models setting the standards by which their models are to be judged, that is valid to a certain extent. However, when they make their findings public and make predictions then they lose the ability to dictate how their models are judged. Rather, the public and their peers in science will judge if their work validates their claims. And that manner in which that is done is not something they get to control. Instead, they can complain if criticism is unfair and attempt to rebut criticism. However, they cannot simply veto various methods or attempts to check their work.
Its only expensive when you have to consider the price of decontamination. And that is only an issue if the reactor is huge and can't just be loaded onto the back of a truck.
If instead of big mono reactors you build dozens or hundreds of micro reactors then decontamination is a simpler matter. You just bundle the spent reactor up and send it off to a storage facility.
Here again we run into problems because no one wants to store the spent fuel. Resolve that issue by paying the land owners. That is really all this stupid controversy is about. Money. They have a reasonable complaint. Living next to a spent nuclear fuel storage facility won't be great for property values. Pay them. And solve a national problem.
Well, the climate models cannot predict the past unless they're fed the correct answers into the model using plug variables that force the output to approximate the correct answer. There is to my knowledge, no climate model that can be given an unspecified time's climate data and accurate predict known climate conditions that followed that time point.
That is, the test cannot let the model maker know what the right answer is... the only person that needs to know the right answer is the person testing the model.
There are models that are configured to model specific time periods and they do it quite well. But that is because they already know the right answers and so build the correct answers for that time period into the model. That is not a general climate model. I can't take climate conditions from 1000 years earlier, feed them into it, and get sensible output. And that is what the climate model must do to be useful.
Then I can feed current known climate data into it and have a prayer that it will model future events with some accuracy.
If we rest exclusively on modeling future events then we have to wait sometimes years or decades before we know that a given model is wrong. I don't think we have to wait that long. Verify the model against historical information without telling the model makers which time period we're using and it will either succeed or fail.
No, if Bill had done it instead then would have been very different. Gore was very dismissive and disinterested in bridge building. A more skilled politician would have realized that he'd need a more bipartisan solution and would have kept his options open.
Gore is incompetent. And anything he touches is run incompetently.
End of story.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you please rephrase?