Well... its a question of lots of different variables... many of whom seem to cancel each other out.
For example, the albedo of venus is an issue... but if you ignore it and ignore the greenhouse effect... apparently the temperature at 1 Bar is pretty close to earth at sea level. Which means the albedo is canceling the green house effect at that altitude or vice versa. Not saying it isn't relevant. Just pointing out how its sort of convenient how all these different things seem to so often be in balance with a countering force.
In any case, I did a further comparison with Jupiter and found that at 1 bar the temperature was also "close" with earth normal. It was a good deal colder by human standards but it was a temp you might find in the arctic on earth. What is more you didn't need to increase the pressure much to get balmy tropical temperature.
Look, what do I know... I'm just noticing for the first time here that pressure makes a huge difference to the temperature and if you match the pressure of the earth's atmosphere you seem to get temperatures that are pretty normal on earth.
Is that just a coincidence?
As to the first link you posted, the graphs don't match what we were seeing in the other graphs. Are you saying that graph is more accurate or that the other graph that showed a closer temperature match was in error?
As to CO2 absorbing IR. What would happen if it didn't? I don't think it just gets bounced back into space if the CO2 doesn't grab it. I think there are other things that can absorb the IR and that generally do absorb it. No? For one thing, the IR clearly makes it to the ground. I can feel it. Which means the oceans are probably gobbling anything that hits them. That being the case, how relevant can the CO2 be if anything that gets through is gobbled by the oceans?
We can talk about albedo which is mostly a discussion about clouds.... but that's not the CO2 discussion. In earth's case that's a discussion about water vapor and sulfuric acid. Right?
Again, I make NO claim to being an expert here. I'm just trying to work this out.
Are you agreeing with me or are you so confused that you didn't realize you just made my point?
Just curious.
As you said, part of that job was providing entertainment... the consultant as you likely gathered was grasping for some tension or something that he could use to spice the show up a bit so it was more interesting.
That's not unreasonable. The people in question want to be upset about that? Express that frustration in a reasonable way. Tell the interviewer why that is offensive and make that part of the show.
Playing it safe in a volatile environment is not childish. It is often prudent. Think of it like going below deck in a storm or grabbing your kids and taking them to storm cellar when there is a tornado. Avoiding the stock market when it starts see sawing all over the place.
Its not childish to avoid volatility. Its childish to create it without purpose.
The only time you want volatility is when you want to hurt people or destroy things. That is the use of volatility. Its destructive. In wars you love volatility... but only amongst the enemy. You want their whole world to be nothing but volatility.
Interesting times as the Chinese curse went. But in business? Its bad. And from employees, business partners, etc... unacceptable. Don't rock the boat because the damn thing will tip over and then everyone is fucked.
I guess I still don't understand why you can't match pressures and instead must match the temperature at bottom of the atmosphere.
Take the scale larger and look at a gas giant for example. Most gas giants are assumed to have a rocky core which might well be quite deep in the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you need to match the temperature at that rocky core? Why not match it at 1 bar?
I just checked jupitor and near 1 bar of pressure the temperature is something like 200 K which is pretty chilly. But you don't have to increase it much to get an acceptable temperature... its actually very close.
I had no idea the plants had this variation in their atmospheric temperature based on altitude. It seems obvious now but it just had never occurred to me before.
In any case... I guess I don't understand where the right place to measure the atmospheric temperature would be and why?
Comparing 1 Bar to 1 Bar seems like more of an apples to apples comparison then comparing 1 Bar to 60 Bar.
I'm saying that if evidence comes to light of government officials accepting bribes you need to come down on it like the hammer of God.
Corporations or individuals offering bribes? Yes, send them to jail.
No question... it should not be tolerated from any quarter.
But when the government accepts the bribe... You destroy that person. The toughest sentences used for fraud should be employed. And if we're talking about a major breach then even capital punishment can be on the table.
I'm not kidding. You cross that line and you need to understand you're playing with hand grenades.
It is one of the most profound crimes you can commit against society. To accept a position of privilege and authority, to take oaths of office swearing ethical and honorable conduct, and then to take that trust and abuse it for your own petty profit.
A private individual or corporation took no oath to society. They hold no position of authority or privilege over everyone else. Their corruption while punishable by law is not the same thing.
Would I put them in jail? Of course. But my focus on that issue is not comparable to a government official doing the same thing. If a corp does it... send them through the conventional system and let the chips fall where they may. If a government official does it... he needs to burn.
I don't need an accurate model. I need an approximate model. A simplified version that could be scaled up to give increasingly accurate results.
I guess I wanted to see which variables they took as relevant and which they saw as irrelevant. And then I wanted to see how they interacted all those variables in equations to lead from one process to the next.
I wanted to understand the math.
I'm pretty bright and you'd be surprised how many times I've found errors in well accepted processes and systems.
Those experiences have taught me to never accept that the official system is without error or turn off my brain.
I can't impose upon you to provide all this... I can only keep my eyes, ears, and mind open.
Well... I'm pretty sure Venus both generates some internal geothermal energy and that the planet isn't still getting hotter.
Thus venus must be radiating SLIGHTLY more energy then its absorbing simply to keep it balanced and to account for the relatively small amount of geothermal activity.
As to the way venus absorbs energy, my understanding is that almost none of it gets to the surface. Its nearly all absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere.
I guess something I'm not getting here is what the correct treatment of the pressure of the Venus atmosphere should be in this situation.
Typically when earth and Venus are compared they are done at surface level on both planets. That is treating the transition from gas to solid as the relevant reference point.
At that level, Venus is dramatically hotter then the earth at surface level. However, in the other analysis they were matching the two atmospheres at similar air pressures. Which effectively compares the middle of venus's atmosphere with sea level on earth.
At that level, Venus is still hotter then earth by a fair margin but the difference isn't that extreme.
What he then did was compensate for differences in the volume of each atmosphere and the distance from the sun.
Then the temperature between venus and earth was the same to within.5 degrees C.
That to me seemed pretty remarkable but it could just be a coincidence or a matter of my not understanding all the variables properly.
In any case, I've looked at some analysis of this view on globlal warming and while they've said its wrong their reasons for it haven't been immediately obvious. They do talk a good deal about the albedo of venus. Basically saying that venus is so much more reflective that its nearness to the sun is actually canceled out. And then they say that absent global warming, venus would have an air temperature at surface level closer to 100 degrees F.
its all quite interesting.
I'm thinking that possibly the best place to do AGW models might be on venus itself rather then earth. I think if we understand venus properly we can grasp the AGW issue properly.
Whether AGW is or is not valid... we must admit that many of the AGW models have had problems. Especially with the "forcing" factors which seem to be the most controversial.
That is, even if most scientists agree that we have global warming, without forcing variables to trigger a runaway effect, the net consequences of a rather minor increase in CO2 won't cause enough of an effect to warrant concern.
As such the forcing variables appear to be a requirement for the justification of international resources.
All of it is interesting... I know how much I don't know. But I have to question or I have no right to pretend to understanding.
Except its on slashdot. Which means they did throw a temper tantrum because they went to the fucking media with it.
Why are people so fucking retarded? Can you not grasp the glaringly obvious fact that if we know about then someone flipped out and decided to air their dirty laundry in the public.
I don't mean to be rude to you, brother. But seriously... wake the fuck up. Obviously they had a hissy fit. Because we know about it.
And frankly, I have lots of experience in my own life of childish people pulling these sorts of stunts. They get upset about something and rather then deal with it in a reasonable, responsible, and mature fashion... they decide to make a giant dramatic production out of it. Its infantile.
And no where in here am I legitimizing what they were upset about or saying that management or pepsi or whomever was right and they were wrong. I am rather taking issue with the WAY these people protested the action.
Guess what doesn't make two rights?
A wrong. Taking this issue to social media or the media at all was wrong. Did the pepsi consultant screw up? Obviously... he pissed off some people for some reason. Legitimate or not that's always wrong. Ideally you shouldn't offend anyone even if you're not trying to offend anyone.
Just don't.
And on the flip side, if someone does something that offends you... Explain it to them in a calm and respectful manner then wait to see if their behavior changes.
If it does not... then either explain it to higher management to see if they'll get lower management to change, suck it up, or quit.
Those are the reasonable solutions. Going to the media is what you do when there is a threat to public safety that upper management refuses to deal with... I'm struggling to think of another justification for ever doing that.
I'm afraid the economics become important when you asked for money and the politics became relevant when you asked for power.
You wouldn't get millions of people excited about the issue if you weren't asking anything from them.
Now... since are you asking for money... a lot of money... and power... a lot of power... We are going to have to carefully control the process to avoid bad elements exploiting the situation to extract money for their own personal use or extract power for their own use.
In the service of all you may have money and power... However, you must demonstrate that you are acting in the interest of all to get it. AND very importantly... you must subject yourself to increasingly invasive audits as the money and power increases. Small amounts of money and power and you'll basically just have to submit occasional reports. Lots of money and power... you will be under 24 hour observation with every action scrutinized.
That is simply the way of things. Think of what major politicians have to deal with on a daily basis. Everyone knows their name. Their every comment is captured, recorded, and then often played back for them for the rest of their lives.
Why? Because they got power.
You're asking for more power then most major politicians have and FAR more money. So yes... any AGW program will be audited and every major member of it will be monitored.
It goes along with taking the money and the power.
Just what "is". If you don't want to deal with that... then don't ask for either. Its non-negotiable.
No government regulations come from nothing... doesn't mean all laws are reasonable, ethical, or effective. I could cite the most barbaric horrific law in the history of the world and show that it was justified by something or there was some sort of intention behind it. So the fuck what? Good intentions does not automatically mean that whatever you're doing is good or desirable.
Kindly demonstrate a fundamental grasp of logic or people can safety assume you lack one.
As to "97%" absorption... that's interesting... I heard some other people in the thread saying that Venus reflects most of the light because its cloud layers are reflective to most of the light. The argument they made was that Venus would be about 100 degree F without the green house effect because it reflects so much of the light. Now you're saying it absorbs 97 percent which would argue the closer distance to the sun would cause it to heat up more indifferent to global warming.
I'm not trying to catch you in a mistake here. I'm seriously just trying to understand what is going on here.
Riiiiight, where as YOUR idea that we give all power and control to a cabal of environmental scientist Clergy and government politician Nobility is far more modern.
Kill yourself. You are officially an oxygen thief.
No. I am saying that if you have a problem, you can express it like a rational civilized educated adult.
aka... Calm down. Collect your thoughts. Then go to the relevant authority in this case which is not the pepsi consultant, and inform them of your problem.
In the event that you can't get them to change, you can try various other things.
1. Suck it up. Lots of people have work environments that are occasionally uncomfortable. Yet people do the job every day. Its part of being an adult is occasionally dealing with unpleasant things and not whining like a baby when things get rough.
2. Quit. Quitting is always an option if you don't like your job. Quitting doesn't mean flipping your desk over and screaming at people or starting a social media campaign against your boss. Even if your boss is a prick, you part on good terms because its in everyone's interest that you do that. Its in their interest because they don't need a scene or bad moral in the office. And you need it because leaving a company with a pissed off boss is bad for your resume. Doubtless you find this unjust... tough shit... its reality. Anyone that really can't accept this needs to grow the fuck up.
3. You could always try taking the guy out for a cup of coffee and talk to him person to person. Express your position as respectfully as possible and there's a good chance he'll moderate his behavior.
Look... you have a lot of options sort of what these people did. What happened here is that Pepsi was made to look like assholes when they didn't do anything. They had a consultant that likely did things they wouldn't have approved of and took licenses with his authority. So be it. Does that mean you have a massive freak out every time that happens?
No... I shouldn't be seeing this on Slashdot. This should have been peacefully and mutually resolved at the scene with no hurt feelings. That was entirely possible and if not, then the people refusing to be reasonable need to go.
I have ZERO regard for adults that believe they have a license to act like children when they get upset. I can accept this sort of behavior from people under 20. Over 25... I would give them the cold dead fish eye.
I don't see any reason to give people a license to behave like children.
You're either an adult or you're not.
As to behaving like an asshole, that doesn't mean you have to respect or work with people.
If someone shows you a lack of respect or you simply don't like them. Then you don't have to work with them. There are many ways mature adults can express their dissatisfaction or frustration with another human being short of a hissy fit.
Simply excuse yourself from the interview, contact someone higher up the chain of command, and tell them that unfortunately you can't work with that individual due to personality problems.
That's entirely reasonable. If they prompt you for clarification, you can say that he appears to have a tendency to denigrate your gender which makes your environment uncomfortable.
Done.
Nothing more need be said. That gives everyone all the information they need to deal with the problem. Isolate that guy from the women or simply remove him the project, or maybe management just pulls him aside and explains that he needs to be more careful.
That's all that needed to happen. This media campaign on the issue that is destroying the project for everyone is a massive waste.
They killed everything over a minor issue that management likely would have been very happy to fix. Do you think Pepsi hates women? Do you think they want to be known as the company that hates women? Obviously not.
Pepsi only did this because they thought it would make them look good. And instead of that, the whole thing blew up in their faces because one of their marketing guys rubbed some people the wrong way.
Well, guess what pepsi is going to do going forward? What do all companies do when they get their finger bitten off by issues like this? They go into siege mode. They close everything down and only make safe decisions.
Which means this project is dead and projects like it are less likely.
So who wins here? No one.
This reaction by these women was IDIOTIC. They hurt themselves and they hurt their peers... male and female.
The smart move... the adult move... would be to find a reasonable solution to a minor issue in a way that inconvenienced the smallest number of people and kept the machine going.
They destroyed it for nothing. That's dumb.
The first rule of big business and big government is KEEP THE MACHINE GOING. Everything else is secondary. That is how upper management at any big company thinks. The primary thing they hear is the heart beat of that machine in their ears. Beat. Beat. Beat. If you're the sort that likes to jam up the works then that machine doesn't want you anywhere near it. And the money it was going to pump into your organization... Gone.
First some real actual evidence of what you claim to be true, would be nice. Posting a let me Google that for you which doesn't even point to what you claim is simply foolish.
This is not an actual answer to my question. From this, I would not be able to distinguish evidence you would accept from evidence you would not.
Please define what constitutes acceptable evidence in your mind.
As to papers being posted on the internet... obviously there are a lot of them out there. But given that they're often not validated by the science journals they're often not taken seriously by... well people like you that dismiss evidence on what appears to be arbitrary grounds.
Now maybe I'm being unfair with you, but I do need a criteria for what constitutes acceptable evidence.
I am not going to waste my time getting links for you when all you have to do is refuse to accept it for no apparent reason. I need to have something from you that says you'll accept evidence if it meets certain standards. Then I know if I meet those standards you will be forced to accept it. Anything less then that and I have no reason to waste my time gathering evidence.
Are you saying you've got data from one of those sensors and it doesn't match the data in that source from the same sensor? Or from another sensor in the same area?
I looked at the recorded temperature for that specific sensor on that day and they didn't match.
So... I'm assuming they do some sort of data homogenizing scheme where they blend lots of data sources together to get a more even result. Which is fine... but I'd actually prefer to start with raw data and work from there so I can examine the whole process line by line.
They don't really provide that. Which means I have to go through and do it all myself. And then the methodology isn't specifically spelled out such that you can do it yourself. They tend to summerize it.
I saw you were listing something with source code for models or maybe someone else did that. Which might be the answer to my question. But it isn't really useful to me. It doesn't need to be useful to me but I personally would need everything spelled out in such a way that I could do it myself. Maybe that is unreasonable. But absent that I have no way to verify anything. I just have to take it all on faith.
And honestly... that's where 99.999 percent of the human population is with this thing... and I find that problematic given the sacrifices these people are asking us ALL to make. I think at least 20% of the population should be able to follow along with this issue. Little cartoon suns with squiggly line heat rays are not really helpful. We need the math so we can do the calculations ourselves. By all means, do the research so you know which equations work... but don't tell me I can't even do them myself if provided them. I can calculate just fine.
As to the models, the ones they have are all have too many calculations for me to reasonably audit. Not their fault... just my personal limitation.
I'd need a simplified model that would APPROXIMATE the results in a number of steps I could reasonably go through one at a time.
That is not a requirement for science... that is a requirement for this one person to be able to actually feel with confidence that he understands the system enough to have an opinion.
As to my link... Oh well, I figured it would have problems.
I won't pretend to know why it didn't work but it is something to know someone attempted to answer this one at some point.
I'd like to know more about it but I can't reasonably impose upon you to provide that information unless you actually want to do it.
What seems somewhat problematic here is that what seems to make global warming required for the temperature in Venus is its high reflectivity. Assuming for the sake of argument that it didn't do that and global warming didn't exist... it would seem the temperature would be about the same. That is the, global warming is compensating for the reflectivity. That seems pretty convenient mathematically. Such coincidences do happen and it proves nothing one way or the other. But it is sort of interesting how these very different processes are canceling each other out.
I remember seeing a spectrum for H2O and CO2... as I remember, most of the the CO2 spectrum overlapped with the H2O. Which might mean the impact of CO2 would be less as H2O will absorb a lot of energy indifferent to the CO2 and once converted from light into heat it can't be double counted.
Look, I'm just doing my best to stay in the game. I know how rudimentary my thinking is on the whole thing. I just feel my only right to have any more opinion then an utter savage comes from making these sorts of attempts.
What do you think about that line of reasoning? Your scientific opinion please... not a political opinion such as "I don't know this guy" or "he has no support from his peers". Is there a flaw in this logic and if so what is it?
Truly asking... Its elegant enough that I could actually process it completely. The climate models thrown around are generally unauditable because they're too complicated for someone like me to go through line by line and often rely on undisclosed datasets that I simply don't have access to in the first place.
Its not a venerable source trusted by one and all... but that doesn't make it right or wrong. That's just a reflection of this person's social status in our society... not the particular accuracy of anything he might have to say from one moment to the next.
Please look it over and tell me what your scientific opinion of it is... not your political opinion.
I agree that the discussion should be mostly between the experts. However, you can't cherry pick what expert means to exclude anyone that disagrees with you.
There are quite a few people with the requisite education that are being blacklisted in this discussion. That is not acceptable.
When you define expert as "anyone that agrees with us on everything" you've created a circular logic loop where everyone that's an expert agrees because only those that agree are experts.
Its fallacious.
You're going to have to tolerate alternative views to retrain the credibility of the discussion. Exclude them and you invalidate the process.
There is nothing I have more contempt for in our culture then this belief that grown adults are permitted and sometimes even encouraged to behave emotionally in matters of business, politics, philosophy, and sometimes even science.
By all means... have your feelings. But don't get so out of control that you stop talking or can't make a rational argument anymore. Be mad... but make your case clearly and rationally. Wait your turn as others have their say. Then let the chips fall where they may. Ultimately, if you decide to walk out on a project do it because of the logic... not because you're having a temper tantrum.
Was the marketing guy annoying people with his nonsense? Yes... not allowing coffee on set is obnoxious amongst his other little requirements. But honestly, who cares. You could just get a coffee thermos and put a mountain dew sticker on it. What he cared about was that the camera didn't see coffee. Easily done.
As to the gender nonsense... that's actually a real question that people outside the industry would want to know. Answer the question. if you just hate the question that much then say so... and yes... be mad about it.... but don't throw a hissy fit.
In regards to evidence, what evidence would you accept?
I've had similar discussions with people on different topics... one says something the other doesn't like... the One provides evidence then the other dismisses the evidence...
YOU cannot have a rational discussion unless you have a criteria for accepting evidence. What evidence would YOU accept?
I've actually looked over most of that information and it isn't really auditable. Most of the raw data isn't actually raw for one thing. I've compared specific land site temperature data with their sources and they don't match perfectly. Which means the data has been filtered and modified to some extent. I have no information on how that was done and can't reproduce the filtration system.
Second, the methodology itself isn't fully stated to the extent that I can't take data, input into a system, and get the same output they're showing.
So... Thank you for your citation but I don't know if you've actually tried to click on any of those links or use them or verify any of them. What you have there is a giant list that looks impressive but I don't think its very useful in this discussion.
Understand, I'm not saying they're wrong because of that. Its just that the list isn't useful.
Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I just want as many eyes on it as possible.
Please give me your scientific opinion. Not your political one. Saying "I don't know this guy" or "this person has low social status in the scientific community" is a political evaluation. Its also ad hominem. Lets avoid classic logical fallacies. Do you have a scientific reason for dismissing the argument?
I find the argument to be interesting. I don't know if its valid. It guess that its probably not... but its very elegant nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... its a question of lots of different variables... many of whom seem to cancel each other out.
For example, the albedo of venus is an issue... but if you ignore it and ignore the greenhouse effect... apparently the temperature at 1 Bar is pretty close to earth at sea level. Which means the albedo is canceling the green house effect at that altitude or vice versa. Not saying it isn't relevant. Just pointing out how its sort of convenient how all these different things seem to so often be in balance with a countering force.
In any case, I did a further comparison with Jupiter and found that at 1 bar the temperature was also "close" with earth normal. It was a good deal colder by human standards but it was a temp you might find in the arctic on earth. What is more you didn't need to increase the pressure much to get balmy tropical temperature.
Look, what do I know... I'm just noticing for the first time here that pressure makes a huge difference to the temperature and if you match the pressure of the earth's atmosphere you seem to get temperatures that are pretty normal on earth.
Is that just a coincidence?
As to the first link you posted, the graphs don't match what we were seeing in the other graphs. Are you saying that graph is more accurate or that the other graph that showed a closer temperature match was in error?
As to CO2 absorbing IR. What would happen if it didn't? I don't think it just gets bounced back into space if the CO2 doesn't grab it. I think there are other things that can absorb the IR and that generally do absorb it. No? For one thing, the IR clearly makes it to the ground. I can feel it. Which means the oceans are probably gobbling anything that hits them. That being the case, how relevant can the CO2 be if anything that gets through is gobbled by the oceans?
We can talk about albedo which is mostly a discussion about clouds.... but that's not the CO2 discussion. In earth's case that's a discussion about water vapor and sulfuric acid. Right?
Again, I make NO claim to being an expert here. I'm just trying to work this out.
Are you agreeing with me or are you so confused that you didn't realize you just made my point?
Just curious.
As you said, part of that job was providing entertainment... the consultant as you likely gathered was grasping for some tension or something that he could use to spice the show up a bit so it was more interesting.
That's not unreasonable. The people in question want to be upset about that? Express that frustration in a reasonable way. Tell the interviewer why that is offensive and make that part of the show.
That's good television.
Killing the show... bad television.
Playing it safe in a volatile environment is not childish. It is often prudent. Think of it like going below deck in a storm or grabbing your kids and taking them to storm cellar when there is a tornado. Avoiding the stock market when it starts see sawing all over the place.
Its not childish to avoid volatility. Its childish to create it without purpose.
The only time you want volatility is when you want to hurt people or destroy things. That is the use of volatility. Its destructive. In wars you love volatility... but only amongst the enemy. You want their whole world to be nothing but volatility.
Interesting times as the Chinese curse went. But in business? Its bad. And from employees, business partners, etc... unacceptable. Don't rock the boat because the damn thing will tip over and then everyone is fucked.
Its bad for business. Don't do it.
I guess I still don't understand why you can't match pressures and instead must match the temperature at bottom of the atmosphere.
Take the scale larger and look at a gas giant for example. Most gas giants are assumed to have a rocky core which might well be quite deep in the atmosphere.
Are you saying that you need to match the temperature at that rocky core? Why not match it at 1 bar?
I just checked jupitor and near 1 bar of pressure the temperature is something like 200 K which is pretty chilly. But you don't have to increase it much to get an acceptable temperature... its actually very close.
I had no idea the plants had this variation in their atmospheric temperature based on altitude. It seems obvious now but it just had never occurred to me before.
In any case... I guess I don't understand where the right place to measure the atmospheric temperature would be and why?
Comparing 1 Bar to 1 Bar seems like more of an apples to apples comparison then comparing 1 Bar to 60 Bar.
I'm saying that if evidence comes to light of government officials accepting bribes you need to come down on it like the hammer of God.
Corporations or individuals offering bribes? Yes, send them to jail.
No question... it should not be tolerated from any quarter.
But when the government accepts the bribe... You destroy that person. The toughest sentences used for fraud should be employed. And if we're talking about a major breach then even capital punishment can be on the table.
I'm not kidding. You cross that line and you need to understand you're playing with hand grenades.
It is one of the most profound crimes you can commit against society. To accept a position of privilege and authority, to take oaths of office swearing ethical and honorable conduct, and then to take that trust and abuse it for your own petty profit.
A private individual or corporation took no oath to society. They hold no position of authority or privilege over everyone else. Their corruption while punishable by law is not the same thing.
Would I put them in jail? Of course. But my focus on that issue is not comparable to a government official doing the same thing. If a corp does it... send them through the conventional system and let the chips fall where they may. If a government official does it... he needs to burn.
I don't need an accurate model. I need an approximate model. A simplified version that could be scaled up to give increasingly accurate results.
I guess I wanted to see which variables they took as relevant and which they saw as irrelevant. And then I wanted to see how they interacted all those variables in equations to lead from one process to the next.
I wanted to understand the math.
I'm pretty bright and you'd be surprised how many times I've found errors in well accepted processes and systems.
Those experiences have taught me to never accept that the official system is without error or turn off my brain.
I can't impose upon you to provide all this... I can only keep my eyes, ears, and mind open.
Well... I'm pretty sure Venus both generates some internal geothermal energy and that the planet isn't still getting hotter.
Thus venus must be radiating SLIGHTLY more energy then its absorbing simply to keep it balanced and to account for the relatively small amount of geothermal activity.
As to the way venus absorbs energy, my understanding is that almost none of it gets to the surface. Its nearly all absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere.
I guess something I'm not getting here is what the correct treatment of the pressure of the Venus atmosphere should be in this situation.
Typically when earth and Venus are compared they are done at surface level on both planets. That is treating the transition from gas to solid as the relevant reference point.
At that level, Venus is dramatically hotter then the earth at surface level. However, in the other analysis they were matching the two atmospheres at similar air pressures. Which effectively compares the middle of venus's atmosphere with sea level on earth.
At that level, Venus is still hotter then earth by a fair margin but the difference isn't that extreme.
What he then did was compensate for differences in the volume of each atmosphere and the distance from the sun.
Then the temperature between venus and earth was the same to within .5 degrees C.
That to me seemed pretty remarkable but it could just be a coincidence or a matter of my not understanding all the variables properly.
In any case, I've looked at some analysis of this view on globlal warming and while they've said its wrong their reasons for it haven't been immediately obvious. They do talk a good deal about the albedo of venus. Basically saying that venus is so much more reflective that its nearness to the sun is actually canceled out. And then they say that absent global warming, venus would have an air temperature at surface level closer to 100 degrees F.
its all quite interesting.
I'm thinking that possibly the best place to do AGW models might be on venus itself rather then earth. I think if we understand venus properly we can grasp the AGW issue properly.
Whether AGW is or is not valid... we must admit that many of the AGW models have had problems. Especially with the "forcing" factors which seem to be the most controversial.
That is, even if most scientists agree that we have global warming, without forcing variables to trigger a runaway effect, the net consequences of a rather minor increase in CO2 won't cause enough of an effect to warrant concern.
As such the forcing variables appear to be a requirement for the justification of international resources.
All of it is interesting... I know how much I don't know. But I have to question or I have no right to pretend to understanding.
Except its on slashdot. Which means they did throw a temper tantrum because they went to the fucking media with it.
Why are people so fucking retarded? Can you not grasp the glaringly obvious fact that if we know about then someone flipped out and decided to air their dirty laundry in the public.
I don't mean to be rude to you, brother. But seriously... wake the fuck up. Obviously they had a hissy fit. Because we know about it.
And frankly, I have lots of experience in my own life of childish people pulling these sorts of stunts. They get upset about something and rather then deal with it in a reasonable, responsible, and mature fashion... they decide to make a giant dramatic production out of it. Its infantile.
And no where in here am I legitimizing what they were upset about or saying that management or pepsi or whomever was right and they were wrong. I am rather taking issue with the WAY these people protested the action.
Guess what doesn't make two rights?
A wrong. Taking this issue to social media or the media at all was wrong. Did the pepsi consultant screw up? Obviously... he pissed off some people for some reason. Legitimate or not that's always wrong. Ideally you shouldn't offend anyone even if you're not trying to offend anyone.
Just don't.
And on the flip side, if someone does something that offends you... Explain it to them in a calm and respectful manner then wait to see if their behavior changes.
If it does not... then either explain it to higher management to see if they'll get lower management to change, suck it up, or quit.
Those are the reasonable solutions. Going to the media is what you do when there is a threat to public safety that upper management refuses to deal with... I'm struggling to think of another justification for ever doing that.
Professionals do the job and get paid.
They did neither.
End of argument.
I'm afraid the economics become important when you asked for money and the politics became relevant when you asked for power.
You wouldn't get millions of people excited about the issue if you weren't asking anything from them.
Now... since are you asking for money... a lot of money... and power... a lot of power... We are going to have to carefully control the process to avoid bad elements exploiting the situation to extract money for their own personal use or extract power for their own use.
In the service of all you may have money and power... However, you must demonstrate that you are acting in the interest of all to get it. AND very importantly... you must subject yourself to increasingly invasive audits as the money and power increases. Small amounts of money and power and you'll basically just have to submit occasional reports. Lots of money and power... you will be under 24 hour observation with every action scrutinized.
That is simply the way of things. Think of what major politicians have to deal with on a daily basis. Everyone knows their name. Their every comment is captured, recorded, and then often played back for them for the rest of their lives.
Why? Because they got power.
You're asking for more power then most major politicians have and FAR more money. So yes... any AGW program will be audited and every major member of it will be monitored.
It goes along with taking the money and the power.
Just what "is". If you don't want to deal with that... then don't ask for either. Its non-negotiable.
No government regulations come from nothing... doesn't mean all laws are reasonable, ethical, or effective. I could cite the most barbaric horrific law in the history of the world and show that it was justified by something or there was some sort of intention behind it. So the fuck what? Good intentions does not automatically mean that whatever you're doing is good or desirable.
Kindly demonstrate a fundamental grasp of logic or people can safety assume you lack one.
Can you break the math out a bit more?
How are you getting this number: "432 K"
As to "97%" absorption... that's interesting... I heard some other people in the thread saying that Venus reflects most of the light because its cloud layers are reflective to most of the light. The argument they made was that Venus would be about 100 degree F without the green house effect because it reflects so much of the light. Now you're saying it absorbs 97 percent which would argue the closer distance to the sun would cause it to heat up more indifferent to global warming.
I'm not trying to catch you in a mistake here. I'm seriously just trying to understand what is going on here.
Riiiiight, where as YOUR idea that we give all power and control to a cabal of environmental scientist Clergy and government politician Nobility is far more modern.
Kill yourself. You are officially an oxygen thief.
No. I am saying that if you have a problem, you can express it like a rational civilized educated adult.
aka... Calm down. Collect your thoughts. Then go to the relevant authority in this case which is not the pepsi consultant, and inform them of your problem.
In the event that you can't get them to change, you can try various other things.
1. Suck it up. Lots of people have work environments that are occasionally uncomfortable. Yet people do the job every day. Its part of being an adult is occasionally dealing with unpleasant things and not whining like a baby when things get rough.
2. Quit. Quitting is always an option if you don't like your job. Quitting doesn't mean flipping your desk over and screaming at people or starting a social media campaign against your boss. Even if your boss is a prick, you part on good terms because its in everyone's interest that you do that. Its in their interest because they don't need a scene or bad moral in the office. And you need it because leaving a company with a pissed off boss is bad for your resume. Doubtless you find this unjust... tough shit... its reality. Anyone that really can't accept this needs to grow the fuck up.
3. You could always try taking the guy out for a cup of coffee and talk to him person to person. Express your position as respectfully as possible and there's a good chance he'll moderate his behavior.
Look... you have a lot of options sort of what these people did. What happened here is that Pepsi was made to look like assholes when they didn't do anything. They had a consultant that likely did things they wouldn't have approved of and took licenses with his authority. So be it. Does that mean you have a massive freak out every time that happens?
No... I shouldn't be seeing this on Slashdot. This should have been peacefully and mutually resolved at the scene with no hurt feelings. That was entirely possible and if not, then the people refusing to be reasonable need to go.
I have ZERO regard for adults that believe they have a license to act like children when they get upset. I can accept this sort of behavior from people under 20. Over 25... I would give them the cold dead fish eye.
I don't see any reason to give people a license to behave like children.
You're either an adult or you're not.
As to behaving like an asshole, that doesn't mean you have to respect or work with people.
If someone shows you a lack of respect or you simply don't like them. Then you don't have to work with them. There are many ways mature adults can express their dissatisfaction or frustration with another human being short of a hissy fit.
Simply excuse yourself from the interview, contact someone higher up the chain of command, and tell them that unfortunately you can't work with that individual due to personality problems.
That's entirely reasonable. If they prompt you for clarification, you can say that he appears to have a tendency to denigrate your gender which makes your environment uncomfortable.
Done.
Nothing more need be said. That gives everyone all the information they need to deal with the problem. Isolate that guy from the women or simply remove him the project, or maybe management just pulls him aside and explains that he needs to be more careful.
That's all that needed to happen. This media campaign on the issue that is destroying the project for everyone is a massive waste.
They killed everything over a minor issue that management likely would have been very happy to fix. Do you think Pepsi hates women? Do you think they want to be known as the company that hates women? Obviously not.
Pepsi only did this because they thought it would make them look good. And instead of that, the whole thing blew up in their faces because one of their marketing guys rubbed some people the wrong way.
Well, guess what pepsi is going to do going forward? What do all companies do when they get their finger bitten off by issues like this? They go into siege mode. They close everything down and only make safe decisions.
Which means this project is dead and projects like it are less likely.
So who wins here? No one.
This reaction by these women was IDIOTIC. They hurt themselves and they hurt their peers... male and female.
The smart move... the adult move... would be to find a reasonable solution to a minor issue in a way that inconvenienced the smallest number of people and kept the machine going.
They destroyed it for nothing. That's dumb.
The first rule of big business and big government is KEEP THE MACHINE GOING. Everything else is secondary. That is how upper management at any big company thinks. The primary thing they hear is the heart beat of that machine in their ears. Beat. Beat. Beat. If you're the sort that likes to jam up the works then that machine doesn't want you anywhere near it. And the money it was going to pump into your organization... Gone.
Just deeply foolish.
This is not an actual answer to my question. From this, I would not be able to distinguish evidence you would accept from evidence you would not.
Please define what constitutes acceptable evidence in your mind.
As to papers being posted on the internet... obviously there are a lot of them out there. But given that they're often not validated by the science journals they're often not taken seriously by... well people like you that dismiss evidence on what appears to be arbitrary grounds.
Now maybe I'm being unfair with you, but I do need a criteria for what constitutes acceptable evidence.
I am not going to waste my time getting links for you when all you have to do is refuse to accept it for no apparent reason. I need to have something from you that says you'll accept evidence if it meets certain standards. Then I know if I meet those standards you will be forced to accept it. Anything less then that and I have no reason to waste my time gathering evidence.
I looked at the recorded temperature for that specific sensor on that day and they didn't match.
So... I'm assuming they do some sort of data homogenizing scheme where they blend lots of data sources together to get a more even result. Which is fine... but I'd actually prefer to start with raw data and work from there so I can examine the whole process line by line.
They don't really provide that. Which means I have to go through and do it all myself. And then the methodology isn't specifically spelled out such that you can do it yourself. They tend to summerize it.
I saw you were listing something with source code for models or maybe someone else did that. Which might be the answer to my question. But it isn't really useful to me. It doesn't need to be useful to me but I personally would need everything spelled out in such a way that I could do it myself. Maybe that is unreasonable. But absent that I have no way to verify anything. I just have to take it all on faith.
And honestly... that's where 99.999 percent of the human population is with this thing... and I find that problematic given the sacrifices these people are asking us ALL to make. I think at least 20% of the population should be able to follow along with this issue. Little cartoon suns with squiggly line heat rays are not really helpful. We need the math so we can do the calculations ourselves. By all means, do the research so you know which equations work... but don't tell me I can't even do them myself if provided them. I can calculate just fine.
As to the models, the ones they have are all have too many calculations for me to reasonably audit. Not their fault... just my personal limitation.
I'd need a simplified model that would APPROXIMATE the results in a number of steps I could reasonably go through one at a time.
That is not a requirement for science... that is a requirement for this one person to be able to actually feel with confidence that he understands the system enough to have an opinion.
As to my link... Oh well, I figured it would have problems.
I won't pretend to know why it didn't work but it is something to know someone attempted to answer this one at some point.
I'd like to know more about it but I can't reasonably impose upon you to provide that information unless you actually want to do it.
What seems somewhat problematic here is that what seems to make global warming required for the temperature in Venus is its high reflectivity. Assuming for the sake of argument that it didn't do that and global warming didn't exist... it would seem the temperature would be about the same. That is the, global warming is compensating for the reflectivity. That seems pretty convenient mathematically. Such coincidences do happen and it proves nothing one way or the other. But it is sort of interesting how these very different processes are canceling each other out.
I remember seeing a spectrum for H2O and CO2... as I remember, most of the the CO2 spectrum overlapped with the H2O. Which might mean the impact of CO2 would be less as H2O will absorb a lot of energy indifferent to the CO2 and once converted from light into heat it can't be double counted.
Look, I'm just doing my best to stay in the game. I know how rudimentary my thinking is on the whole thing. I just feel my only right to have any more opinion then an utter savage comes from making these sorts of attempts.
Someone in this thread sent me this link:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
What do you think about that line of reasoning? Your scientific opinion please... not a political opinion such as "I don't know this guy" or "he has no support from his peers". Is there a flaw in this logic and if so what is it?
Truly asking... Its elegant enough that I could actually process it completely. The climate models thrown around are generally unauditable because they're too complicated for someone like me to go through line by line and often rely on undisclosed datasets that I simply don't have access to in the first place.
The problem is that "denier" is a political tool. Its not scientific. That label has no scientific utility in a scientific discussion.
It is a political campaign word.
So long as you understand that your argument is political... and not scientific... carry on.
Were you aware of that? Or did you think you were being a scientist by pointing at people and screaming "denier!"?
Just curious.
What does being done have to do with responding? I'm not dead.
Someone sent me a link in this thread that I found interesting. I was wondering if you wouldn't look at it and give me your SCIENTIFIC opinion:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
Its not a venerable source trusted by one and all... but that doesn't make it right or wrong. That's just a reflection of this person's social status in our society... not the particular accuracy of anything he might have to say from one moment to the next.
Please look it over and tell me what your scientific opinion of it is... not your political opinion.
I agree that the discussion should be mostly between the experts. However, you can't cherry pick what expert means to exclude anyone that disagrees with you.
There are quite a few people with the requisite education that are being blacklisted in this discussion. That is not acceptable.
When you define expert as "anyone that agrees with us on everything" you've created a circular logic loop where everyone that's an expert agrees because only those that agree are experts.
Its fallacious.
You're going to have to tolerate alternative views to retrain the credibility of the discussion. Exclude them and you invalidate the process.
There is nothing I have more contempt for in our culture then this belief that grown adults are permitted and sometimes even encouraged to behave emotionally in matters of business, politics, philosophy, and sometimes even science.
By all means... have your feelings. But don't get so out of control that you stop talking or can't make a rational argument anymore. Be mad... but make your case clearly and rationally. Wait your turn as others have their say. Then let the chips fall where they may. Ultimately, if you decide to walk out on a project do it because of the logic... not because you're having a temper tantrum.
Was the marketing guy annoying people with his nonsense? Yes... not allowing coffee on set is obnoxious amongst his other little requirements. But honestly, who cares. You could just get a coffee thermos and put a mountain dew sticker on it. What he cared about was that the camera didn't see coffee. Easily done.
As to the gender nonsense... that's actually a real question that people outside the industry would want to know. Answer the question. if you just hate the question that much then say so... and yes... be mad about it.... but don't throw a hissy fit.
In regards to evidence, what evidence would you accept?
I've had similar discussions with people on different topics... one says something the other doesn't like... the One provides evidence then the other dismisses the evidence...
YOU cannot have a rational discussion unless you have a criteria for accepting evidence. What evidence would YOU accept?
I've actually looked over most of that information and it isn't really auditable. Most of the raw data isn't actually raw for one thing. I've compared specific land site temperature data with their sources and they don't match perfectly. Which means the data has been filtered and modified to some extent. I have no information on how that was done and can't reproduce the filtration system.
Second, the methodology itself isn't fully stated to the extent that I can't take data, input into a system, and get the same output they're showing.
So... Thank you for your citation but I don't know if you've actually tried to click on any of those links or use them or verify any of them. What you have there is a giant list that looks impressive but I don't think its very useful in this discussion.
Understand, I'm not saying they're wrong because of that. Its just that the list isn't useful.
On a side note, what do you think of this:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I just want as many eyes on it as possible.
Please give me your scientific opinion. Not your political one. Saying "I don't know this guy" or "this person has low social status in the scientific community" is a political evaluation. Its also ad hominem. Lets avoid classic logical fallacies. Do you have a scientific reason for dismissing the argument?
I find the argument to be interesting. I don't know if its valid. It guess that its probably not... but its very elegant nonetheless.