Thermodynamics is not "classical mechanics", it's statistical mechanics. Also, conservation of energy and the entropy principle have been linked to much more fundamental laws, in that they can be derived from symmetry. That's definitely not "classical."
The thing is, other people tried to do the same kinds of things, way back in the day, and they discovered that classical mechanics breaks down at the tiny levels, in other words, it FAILS. DOESN'T WORK. DOES NOT COMPUTE. YOU NEED A NEW SCIENCE.
Climate is not operating at a tiny level.
And that is my point. We can predict well enough when the bridge will fail. We cannot predict when the climate will fail to any degree of tility.
Ok are you that retarded? I'm telling you we CANNOT predict exactly when the bridge will fail. We can predict it WOULD fail under some circumstances, and is unlikely to fail under some restricted circumstances, but we CAN NOT predict *when* the bridge will fail.
Guess what: if a bridge is about to fail, a few degrees of temperature can make the difference, since dilation can differ enormously between the various materials used. This is accounted for in the design, but if you're nearing the tipping point, then yes, a minor change in temp can break the whole thing.
And that should serve as a warning as far as climate is concerned.
Thermodynamics can pretty reliably predict the average velocity of a billion molecules, or a trillion, and lets you subdivide things into grids and times that you like, and can even tell you the accuracy at each scale.
That's got nothing to do with "aspects of individual molecules," because even when you've got the best information possible about the state and structure of a system, thermodynamics also known as statistical mechanics only operates on statistical properties of large number of molecules.
Just like demography will tell you that the average american family has 1.89 children, you won't find that one family with 1.89 children anywhere. And it doesn't fail for that -- that's simply an absurd request.
In any case, when you've got excellent information about the state and structure of a system, you can run very good simulations, as you rightly point out. A very good example would be weather prediction. It's limited by processing power and input data accuracy.
But as in any engineering discipline, even with lacking data you can draw conclusions. A civil engineer can't tell you at exactly at what load his bridge will collapse, but he can tell you a very good estimate on what is safe.
Same for climate science. We can calculate *very* easily that some CO2 loads would be a catastrophe. Let me pull am enormous number out of my ass - 5%. With 5% CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be a disaster, nobody can deny that. What about 2%? That too. 1%? Still yes. And below that the probability keeps decreasing. But how fast? Well it gets harder and harder to compute, just like when you try to compute the collapse limit for a bridge by 1 pound increments.
But that bridge engineer will tell you it's a pointless exercise, almost as pointless as finding that family with 1.89 children. We can never be sure at what exact CO2 levels the climate will in actuality go haywire, but we know there is such a level. And in civil engineering we try to be almost an order of magnitude below the limit. Seems sensible for me to do the same with our climate.
That's so funny, considering that those who oppose CO2 emission regulation control enormous amounts of wealth, and, until very recently, controlled all branches of the US government.
Thermodynamics does not even remotely "fail for some aspects of individual molecules." It's not in scope. Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and so is climate science. You lose. Go away.
Yeah, like any climate model can actually predict the formation and landfall of a particular hurricane.
And thermodynamic can't predict the behaviour of individual molecules therefore what it says about the general trends is wrong, right?... you are a moron. An ignorant, pompous, criminally stupid moron.
You're using a day as a time interval. It's not the same as saying, I came in at 10AM this morning, he came at 11AM so he was 10% later than I am; that's just meaningless. If you say, however, we were supposed to be here at 9AM, I cam in at 10, he came at 11 so he was twice as late -- that is right.
It's perfectly fine to compare a temperature interval by noting, for example, that warming liquid water at 1 atm by 1F takes that many BTU, and warming it by 10% more fahrenheits takes 10% more energy.
"Dirty" data shouldn't be used when 1/30th of a percentage is a Big Deal.
I forgot to tell you something else I learned in college. When you have a signal with lots of white noise... the noise diminishes with the number of samples. It's easy to understand for a constant value v you want to measure, that's polluted by a bounded noise value e where -E < e < +E
s1 = v + e1
s2 = v + e2...
sn = v + en
or
e1 = s1 - v
e2 = s2 - v...
en = sn - v
You can replace it with the inequality to get:
|s1 - v| < E
|s2 - v| < E
|sn - v| < E
Sum it up and divide by n:
| (s1+s2+...sn)/n - v | < E/n
Or in plain english, the difference between the average of all measures and the target value decreases linearly with the number of samples.
Now the maths get more complicated when you're measuring something that's not a constant, but the principle is the same. And we have billions of data points. So even if we happened to have thermometers with a resolution of 1 degree... with enough measurements we can easily get an accurancy 1/1000 of that. And the thing is, we've long had much, much better resolutions available.
So even 1/30th of ONE degree is a significant amount.
Well, umm, ok. But that makes my argument even stronger, since a 0.1 change from 295K is a miniscule 0.03%. Statisticians call that noise.
Go ahead and melt a kilogram of water at 273.15 K. Clearly, raising its temperature by.1K is minuscule. Hey, I'll even give you.01K. It's NOISE, I tell you!
Ummm, 12PM is 50% of the day. 6PM is 75% of the day.
Yup. And "@" is ~50% of US-ASCII, being code 64 out of 127. And that's completely pointless.
And a +85K change means a 127,500 m horizontal loss. OMG!! The sky is falling!!!
So you pick an absurdly large input value (20C+85K=105C, which is over the boiling temp of water!) and you get... an absurdly large output value.
They certainly won't pay scientists to do science. They can simply pay dubious scientists for "advice". It's even more efficient to buy media time and politicians.
I don't eat dorritos or any of that disgusting crap, my electricity comes 80% from state-owned, carbon neutral nuclear power and 0% from coal, and I sure would have preferred an Obama or a Pelosi to that Sarkozy son of a bitch.
Obviously, you don't. Grant money is used to pay rent, equipment, salaries, expenses and room cleaning, for fuck's sake, You can't pocket the damn money! Or well, yes, you could, and that would be called embezzlement and would land you in jail. So unless you can prove he's embezzled any of it, that figure just means that he's been managing a fucking budget. Guess what, I ordered 300k worth of servers for my employer, where's my Lamborghini?
You know why it's DEGREE celsius and DEGREE fahrenheit, and it's kelvin without the degree sign? Because the formers are *not* absolute scales while the latter is. Therefore it makes no sense *whatsoever* to talk of a percentage of a temperature in those scales any more than it make sense to speak of a percentage of the time of day.
It's amazing how much you deniers lack the most basic understanding of current scientific knowledge. I learned that shit in highschool. I learned something else, too. Temperature roughly decreases by 2 K every 300 m of altitude. This means that, on average, the altitude where you get to 0 celsius, the temperature at which water freezes rises by 75 m for that measly half Kelvin.
I learned yet another thing in college. I learned that water has a huge thermal inertia and that therefore temperatures vary more slowly near the sea than far from it. I also know that moutains are more often than not far from the sea. Which means that if the average global temperature rises by.5 K, it will be less near the sea and more in the mountain; but let's keep that.5 K for the mountains and acknowledge that it's an underestimate.
Look at a glacier. Let's say it's got a 10% slope, sounds like a good guesstimate but if you don't like it feel free to look that up if you want..5 K increase in temp means that it will melt 75 m higher, and that translates in a 750 m horizontal loss.
Madoff? The guy who stole billions of dollar? Versus a guy who might, at worst, have infringed on a Freedom of Information act? What else is fraud? The "Nature trick" thing? That's such bullshit it's ridiculous.
On one hand, we have dozens of national academies of science, tens of thousands of scientists, a handful of whom might or might not have embellished their results. And that is very bad indeed, although I could point out that Mendel among others is believed to have done the same thing about his peas, and we all know how wrong that turned out to be.
On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape when they're not too busy giving blowjobs to creationist gay-bashing whore-fucking war-mongering GOP congresscritters, and the conveniently stupid born again, young earther, racist ignorant nationalist fucktards that is their constituency.
Thing is, a bogus corkscrew patent is infinitely more likely to be either rejected outright or not hold up in court, whereas metric shittons of maddeningly ridiculous software patents have not only been granted, they've also resulted in hundreds of millions of damages. If you don't believe me, ask RIM or Microsoft.
3W, and now 5W per LED. Low power LEDs suck for lighting, even when you have 100s of them, I've found.
Also the semiconductor in the LED is encased in plastic, which is in turn in a metal+plastic casing. You really have to work hard to expose it. Even in a landfill most will never leak. The mass of dangerous material is tiny, anyway.
OTOH it's easy to break a CFL. The amount of mercury is ridiculously small, though.
I just got a killowatt sort of thing, and I tested it on a CFL and on a LED (3W Luxeon); CFL has close to.5 power factor vs 1.0 for the LED. I was astonished how bad it was on the CFL. Sure it does not use much power but it wastes shittons of power in the transmission line as a result -- I'm just not billed for it. Thing is, it shouldn't be too hard to improve the PFC, should it?
When you develop a drug or a new car engine, you have to invest hundred of millions of dollars. Spending a few millions on patent lawyering is nothing.
I can spend a few weeks developing a program in my spare time for an investment of zero (0) dollars, and be infringing on some stupid patent without knowing it. I don't have a few millions laying around to pay some scumbag in a suit.
And that's just one of many arguments against software patents. But that's the main one from a social contract point of view. You can't make laws that people can infringe without knowing it. Lawyers might love them for all the business it brings them, but it's just fundamentally wrong.
1. An act of prostitution ? 2. An athletic combo with a skateboard? 3. A cunning and unusual way to accomplish something? 4. An act of deception? 5. A misdirection for the purpose of entertainment, usually with playing cards or coins?
Slashdot Mirror
Thermodynamics is not "classical mechanics", it's statistical mechanics. Also, conservation of energy and the entropy principle have been linked to much more fundamental laws, in that they can be derived from symmetry. That's definitely not "classical."
The thing is, other people tried to do the same kinds of things, way back in the day, and they discovered that classical mechanics breaks down at the tiny levels, in other words, it FAILS. DOESN'T WORK. DOES NOT COMPUTE. YOU NEED A NEW SCIENCE.
Climate is not operating at a tiny level.
And that is my point. We can predict well enough when the bridge will fail. We cannot predict when the climate will fail to any degree of tility.
Ok are you that retarded? I'm telling you we CANNOT predict exactly when the bridge will fail. We can predict it WOULD fail under some circumstances, and is unlikely to fail under some restricted circumstances, but we CAN NOT predict *when* the bridge will fail.
Guess what: if a bridge is about to fail, a few degrees of temperature can make the difference, since dilation can differ enormously between the various materials used. This is accounted for in the design, but if you're nearing the tipping point, then yes, a minor change in temp can break the whole thing.
And that should serve as a warning as far as climate is concerned.
Thermodynamics can pretty reliably predict the average velocity of a billion molecules, or a trillion, and lets you subdivide things into grids and times that you like, and can even tell you the accuracy at each scale.
That's got nothing to do with "aspects of individual molecules," because even when you've got the best information possible about the state and structure of a system, thermodynamics also known as statistical mechanics only operates on statistical properties of large number of molecules.
Just like demography will tell you that the average american family has 1.89 children, you won't find that one family with 1.89 children anywhere. And it doesn't fail for that -- that's simply an absurd request.
In any case, when you've got excellent information about the state and structure of a system, you can run very good simulations, as you rightly point out. A very good example would be weather prediction. It's limited by processing power and input data accuracy.
But as in any engineering discipline, even with lacking data you can draw conclusions. A civil engineer can't tell you at exactly at what load his bridge will collapse, but he can tell you a very good estimate on what is safe.
Same for climate science. We can calculate *very* easily that some CO2 loads would be a catastrophe. Let me pull am enormous number out of my ass - 5%. With 5% CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be a disaster, nobody can deny that. What about 2%? That too. 1%? Still yes. And below that the probability keeps decreasing. But how fast? Well it gets harder and harder to compute, just like when you try to compute the collapse limit for a bridge by 1 pound increments.
But that bridge engineer will tell you it's a pointless exercise, almost as pointless as finding that family with 1.89 children. We can never be sure at what exact CO2 levels the climate will in actuality go haywire, but we know there is such a level. And in civil engineering we try to be almost an order of magnitude below the limit. Seems sensible for me to do the same with our climate.
No but it means you're an idiot because I was responding to the claim that anti global warming activism served only to keep the powerful in power.
That's so funny, considering that those who oppose CO2 emission regulation control enormous amounts of wealth, and, until very recently, controlled all branches of the US government.
Thermodynamics does not even remotely "fail for some aspects of individual molecules." It's not in scope. Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and so is climate science. You lose. Go away.
Yeah, like any climate model can actually predict the formation and landfall of a particular hurricane.
And thermodynamic can't predict the behaviour of individual molecules therefore what it says about the general trends is wrong, right? ... you are a moron. An ignorant, pompous, criminally stupid moron.
You're using a day as a time interval. It's not the same as saying, I came in at 10AM this morning, he came at 11AM so he was 10% later than I am; that's just meaningless. If you say, however, we were supposed to be here at 9AM, I cam in at 10, he came at 11 so he was twice as late -- that is right.
It's perfectly fine to compare a temperature interval by noting, for example, that warming liquid water at 1 atm by 1F takes that many BTU, and warming it by 10% more fahrenheits takes 10% more energy.
"Dirty" data shouldn't be used when 1/30th of a percentage is a Big Deal.
I forgot to tell you something else I learned in college. When you have a signal with lots of white noise ... the noise diminishes with the number of samples. It's easy to understand for a constant value v you want to measure, that's polluted by a bounded noise value e where -E < e < +E
s1 = v + e1 ...
s2 = v + e2
sn = v + en
or
e1 = s1 - v ...
e2 = s2 - v
en = sn - v
You can replace it with the inequality to get:
|s1 - v| < E
|s2 - v| < E
|sn - v| < E
Sum it up and divide by n:
| (s1+s2+...sn)/n - v | < E/n
Or in plain english, the difference between the average of all measures and the target value decreases linearly with the number of samples.
Now the maths get more complicated when you're measuring something that's not a constant, but the principle is the same. And we have billions of data points. So even if we happened to have thermometers with a resolution of 1 degree ... with enough measurements we can easily get an accurancy 1/1000 of that. And the thing is, we've long had much, much better resolutions available.
So even 1/30th of ONE degree is a significant amount.
What was the drop in the standard of living after Katrina?
Oh that's right, because if one climate scientist lied, clearly they all do and Exxon-Mobil-NewsCorp-GOP Inc. was right all along.
Well, umm, ok. But that makes my argument even stronger, since a 0.1 change from 295K is a miniscule 0.03%. Statisticians call that noise.
Go ahead and melt a kilogram of water at 273.15 K. Clearly, raising its temperature by .1K is minuscule. Hey, I'll even give you .01K. It's NOISE, I tell you!
Ummm, 12PM is 50% of the day. 6PM is 75% of the day.
Yup. And "@" is ~50% of US-ASCII, being code 64 out of 127. And that's completely pointless.
And a +85K change means a 127,500 m horizontal loss. OMG!! The sky is falling!!!
So you pick an absurdly large input value (20C+85K=105C, which is over the boiling temp of water!) and you get ... an absurdly large output value.
Great job at sarcasm. Yeah, that's sarcasm.
They certainly won't pay scientists to do science. They can simply pay dubious scientists for "advice". It's even more efficient to buy media time and politicians.
I don't eat dorritos or any of that disgusting crap, my electricity comes 80% from state-owned, carbon neutral nuclear power and 0% from coal, and I sure would have preferred an Obama or a Pelosi to that Sarkozy son of a bitch.
Obviously, you don't. Grant money is used to pay rent, equipment, salaries, expenses and room cleaning, for fuck's sake, You can't pocket the damn money! Or well, yes, you could, and that would be called embezzlement and would land you in jail. So unless you can prove he's embezzled any of it, that figure just means that he's been managing a fucking budget. Guess what, I ordered 300k worth of servers for my employer, where's my Lamborghini?
You know why it's DEGREE celsius and DEGREE fahrenheit, and it's kelvin without the degree sign? Because the formers are *not* absolute scales while the latter is. Therefore it makes no sense *whatsoever* to talk of a percentage of a temperature in those scales any more than it make sense to speak of a percentage of the time of day.
It's amazing how much you deniers lack the most basic understanding of current scientific knowledge. I learned that shit in highschool. I learned something else, too. Temperature roughly decreases by 2 K every 300 m of altitude. This means that, on average, the altitude where you get to 0 celsius, the temperature at which water freezes rises by 75 m for that measly half Kelvin.
I learned yet another thing in college. I learned that water has a huge thermal inertia and that therefore temperatures vary more slowly near the sea than far from it. I also know that moutains are more often than not far from the sea. Which means that if the average global temperature rises by .5 K, it will be less near the sea and more in the mountain; but let's keep that .5 K for the mountains and acknowledge that it's an underestimate.
Look at a glacier. Let's say it's got a 10% slope, sounds like a good guesstimate but if you don't like it feel free to look that up if you want. .5 K increase in temp means that it will melt 75 m higher, and that translates in a 750 m horizontal loss.
Yeah, that's so *nothing*. Hardly noticeable!
Yeah cause I sure claimed to be objective by posting my *opinion*.
Madoff? The guy who stole billions of dollar? Versus a guy who might, at worst, have infringed on a Freedom of Information act? What else is fraud? The "Nature trick" thing? That's such bullshit it's ridiculous.
On one hand, we have dozens of national academies of science, tens of thousands of scientists, a handful of whom might or might not have embellished their results. And that is very bad indeed, although I could point out that Mendel among others is believed to have done the same thing about his peas, and we all know how wrong that turned out to be.
On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape when they're not too busy giving blowjobs to creationist gay-bashing whore-fucking war-mongering GOP congresscritters, and the conveniently stupid born again, young earther, racist ignorant nationalist fucktards that is their constituency.
Yeah, who am I going to fucking trust.
After all Exxon is so broke...
Thing is, a bogus corkscrew patent is infinitely more likely to be either rejected outright or not hold up in court, whereas metric shittons of maddeningly ridiculous software patents have not only been granted, they've also resulted in hundreds of millions of damages. If you don't believe me, ask RIM or Microsoft.
.. with an entertaining animated film made with construction paper (virtual construction paper, actually).
3W, and now 5W per LED. Low power LEDs suck for lighting, even when you have 100s of them, I've found.
Also the semiconductor in the LED is encased in plastic, which is in turn in a metal+plastic casing. You really have to work hard to expose it. Even in a landfill most will never leak. The mass of dangerous material is tiny, anyway.
OTOH it's easy to break a CFL. The amount of mercury is ridiculously small, though.
I just got a killowatt sort of thing, and I tested it on a CFL and on a LED (3W Luxeon); CFL has close to .5 power factor vs 1.0 for the LED. I was astonished how bad it was on the CFL. Sure it does not use much power but it wastes shittons of power in the transmission line as a result -- I'm just not billed for it. Thing is, it shouldn't be too hard to improve the PFC, should it?
In practice, there is a world of difference.
When you develop a drug or a new car engine, you have to invest hundred of millions of dollars. Spending a few millions on patent lawyering is nothing.
I can spend a few weeks developing a program in my spare time for an investment of zero (0) dollars, and be infringing on some stupid patent without knowing it. I don't have a few millions laying around to pay some scumbag in a suit.
And that's just one of many arguments against software patents. But that's the main one from a social contract point of view. You can't make laws that people can infringe without knowing it. Lawyers might love them for all the business it brings them, but it's just fundamentally wrong.
1. An act of prostitution ?
2. An athletic combo with a skateboard?
3. A cunning and unusual way to accomplish something?
4. An act of deception?
5. A misdirection for the purpose of entertainment, usually with playing cards or coins?
... just personal attacks and outright lies.
I don't believe Germany extradites its own citizens anyway.