Isn't this the part where all the "free market" believers tell us that "companies never pay taxes, they just pass them on to their customers"?
So far, we've got Trump proposing a 35% tax on US companies that build products overseas and Slashdot fools telling us that raising taxes on companies will lead to greater employment.
Did something change with the Trump inauguration that's suddenly made believers in "economic liberty and small government" love taxes?
Having some people believing in the job protecting power of 35% tariffs and other people believing in the free market just isn't working out since clearly there can only be one opinion for a huge group of people whose only characteristic is that they frequent a website. The solution is obvious. Determine what your opinion is on the subject. That'll nail it down for everyone.
Ugh, I meant C_f/C_i where C_f and C_i are final and initial CO2 concentrations. And it's 1.2 C. So the formula is:
log(C_f/C_i)/log(2)*1.2 C = short term change in temperature from the change in concentration of CO2.
The formula is log(T_f/T_i)/log(2)*1.2. Going from 400 ppm to 560 ppm would result by your model in almost 0.6 C (while the corresponding temperature forcing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm would be just over 0.6 C, it's less, but doesn't seem like "much less" to me - YMMV).
As pastafazou noted, there is weather. That is the primary drawback of applying a two-dimensional static model to a three-dimensional dynamical model with among other things, ways that higher humidity can lead to relatively efficient heat pumps to space.
That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.
Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.
But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.
When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.
Then you can decide just how crazy I am.
And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.
MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.
Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.
To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.
According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
No. A doubling of CO2 by 400 ppm is expected to result in an increase of 1.5 to 2.0 C in short term heating plus some undetermined amount of long term heating (depends on how seriously you take the positive feedback claims). So for your example of a 100 ppm increase, it's going to be at least 0.5 C increase in temperature just from short term heating. That model incidentally is consistent with the temperature readings of the past century and a half.
Don't make the mistake of confusing capacity with ridership. This rail system may indeed be as capable as claimed for the claimed cost (both which remain to be seen), but it's ridership may well be amply covered by $68 billion in road and airport construction.
As to your post, it was a similarly remarkable waste of my time.
But going to nowhere? Not having a purpose? Nope, not the Gravina Island Bridge. It always had a purpose, and did have planning. You could argue it wasn't a prudent decision. Arguing it went nowhere just makes you sound like a bombastic blowhard. Which does describe many a person, but it isn't a good thing.
This is why you are an idiot. This is a variation of the Nirvana fallacy. My argument isn't wrong because the label doesn't perfectly describe the situation. That's not even relevant.
Given that this is the second time you've made a deeply flawed argument based on your interpretation of colloquial English (the first being your interpretation of "Happens all the time" as being equivalent to "Happens every time"), maybe you should stop doing that?
A "bridge to nowhere" serves such a small population (sometimes even none at all, if the bridge genuinely never connects to anything), that even before planning begins, it's quite clear that it's lifetime benefits will never come close to its costs. The Gravina Island Bridge is a classic example of that.
The key here is that there isn't a qualitative or quantitative difference between a costly bridge which is perfectly useless and a costly bridge which has a very small usefulness compared to its cost. Given that our societies make large-scale, poor decisions like that, it then is reasonable to consider whether they're doing it for the high speed rail proposal of the story.
Here, the story tells us that the US government currently thinks California will spend up to ten billion dollars on early stage construction for a segment that connects no major population centers. That is a demonstration of a remarkable lack of planning and relevance here consistent with what I noted earlier.
I'll note also that the project has fantasy ridership numbers in addition to its fantasy cost numbers. Elsewhere someone has noted that someone claims that one would need $160 billion in roads and airports to match the capacity of the rail system. $160 billion > $68 billion right? Even if we took the cost figure as accurate (hopefully, you understand my opinion on that), we still have the problem that ridership isn't capacity.
And it certainly will be the case that the ridership for the first phase of construction, which doesn't cover any significant population centers, isn't going to fill $10 billion of roads and airports. Past that, we'll just have to see. But it's likely IMHO that the actual ridership of the high speed rail would be comfortably covered by $68 billion in roads and airports.
YOu need to get out of the US. Throughout Europe they use trains.
That sounds like a great idea. Let's build those European trains with European tax money! It's always interesting how people so easily forget that shiny trains have a price tag.
In their eyes, if Elon Musk or Google were doing it, it'd be the best thing ever.
Depends. But such a mass transit scheme that's has a decent chance of being profitable without requiring tens of billions of dollars of California taxpayer money as input is probably worthy of your respect as well.
Nope. If it happened all the time, then no trains, highways, or airplanes would be used at all.
My sentence doesn't mean what you think it means.
Reality, of course, is that while people can be wrong, they are fallible human beings after all, they aren't always, and they do think about what they're doing.
Except, of course, when they're not thinking about what they're doing.
On the other hand, which were constructed with thought and consideration. I'd add more, but my sentence was getting awkward.
Consider the fallacy you're committing here. Just because some transportation infrastructure isn't total shit doesn't mean that California's high speed rail will achieve that threshold.
You seem to not realize that you are arguing against a priority in transportation based on nothing more than offering a handy catchphrase, when in reality, the bridge which you so blithely dismiss, did go somewhere, and did have a purpose.
Except, of course, when it didn't.
At least give them the courtesy of some effort towards thoughtful consideration, rather than whatever popular slogan grabs your attention. Reserve that for after school television programs. Let's get the next ten words. Ante up, poindexter.
Or you could stop being an idiot. The damning thing about this project is that it started with a high cost which will only get higher, a poor use scenario, and fantasy numbers for ridership. I also note that no advocate is prepared to deal with the inevitable TSA interference which currently is the only reason it compares well to air passenger service.
But it is being built by contractors not the government.
Who let us note are much better than government agencies at scoring contracts. You have to realize here that businesses will take the fast route to profit. If I give a business a million cars, I don't expect them to become good at driving and making their profit that way. I expect them to become good at selling cars because that's the more profitable way.
And what's this bit about a "free market"? Where's the other competing high speed rails?
That would be found in the multitude of existing trains, whose operations can be scrutinized, and compared to the existing highways, airplanes, and even boats that exist.
You do know that they don't just decide to build trains, highways, or airplanes, without any idea what's going on, right?
Happens all the time. I think the current story is such an example. We also have the "bridges to nowhere", many which were constructed by precisely the lack of competence and judgment you seem to think doesn't exist.
By that token the government should pay for my education because when I graduate I will help move the country forward, generate more tax revenue, reduce the unemployment rate, and create more jobs.
Unless, of course, you don't. Maybe they should bill you the full amount of your education when you turn out to be a waste of oxygen?
And mostly fail if you look at the launch record..
Take a gander at Falcon 9's launch statistics. 30 launch attempts with 4 failures (including one while test burning the engines). "Most" would be 16 or more, not 4.
Even if we try to inflate the number of failures by including Falcon 1 (3 failures of 5 launch attempts) and all 6 Falcon 9 first stage landing failures (even though not a one of those counts as a launch failure since NASA didn't pay for even one of those), we still end up with 13 out of 35 launches. 18 is "most".
Certainly, few people drove on the first five miles of controlled-access highway --- but the fully built-out Interstate system is used by many millions. To describe the entire project as only the Central Valley segment is foolish at best and malevolent at worst.
The obvious point here is that they are building a rather useless stretch first rather than incrementally building a line that is useful from the start. Even most urban transportation gets that part right.
My view is that this a bait and switch based on the sunk cost fallacy. They'll build this nearly useless stretch and then discover, as usual, that the useful portions of the train's routes will be more costly than expected.
Rather than acknowledge that there are circumstances under which spending money on trains actually saves overall because it reduces problems with the road
What evidence exists for that position? Let us keep in mind that we don't actually know how much the trains will cost either, but it's likely more than even this cost overrun estimate. Then that alleged $10 in savings becomes something far smaller or even negative in sign.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this the part where all the "free market" believers tell us that "companies never pay taxes, they just pass them on to their customers"?
So far, we've got Trump proposing a 35% tax on US companies that build products overseas and Slashdot fools telling us that raising taxes on companies will lead to greater employment.
Did something change with the Trump inauguration that's suddenly made believers in "economic liberty and small government" love taxes?
Having some people believing in the job protecting power of 35% tariffs and other people believing in the free market just isn't working out since clearly there can only be one opinion for a huge group of people whose only characteristic is that they frequent a website. The solution is obvious. Determine what your opinion is on the subject. That'll nail it down for everyone.
because to claim we're intelligent flies in the face of a large body of evidence to the contrary
If you're trying to present that as a serious argument, then go away.
Ugh, I meant C_f/C_i where C_f and C_i are final and initial CO2 concentrations. And it's 1.2 C. So the formula is: log(C_f/C_i)/log(2)*1.2 C = short term change in temperature from the change in concentration of CO2.
The formula is log(T_f/T_i)/log(2)*1.2. Going from 400 ppm to 560 ppm would result by your model in almost 0.6 C (while the corresponding temperature forcing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm would be just over 0.6 C, it's less, but doesn't seem like "much less" to me - YMMV).
As pastafazou noted, there is weather. That is the primary drawback of applying a two-dimensional static model to a three-dimensional dynamical model with among other things, ways that higher humidity can lead to relatively efficient heat pumps to space.
That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.
Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.
But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.
When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.
Then you can decide just how crazy I am.
And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.
MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.
is supposed to generate 1.2C
Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.
To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.
I'm sure they have a color wheel these days for sexuality. You'll no doubt get get that sorted out.
His mom lets him handle the food bowl. So at least 30.
If anything the models have been too conservative.
Unless, of course, they're not too conservative. That's always the problem with assertions not backed by evidence. They can be just as wrong as right.
According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
No. A doubling of CO2 by 400 ppm is expected to result in an increase of 1.5 to 2.0 C in short term heating plus some undetermined amount of long term heating (depends on how seriously you take the positive feedback claims). So for your example of a 100 ppm increase, it's going to be at least 0.5 C increase in temperature just from short term heating. That model incidentally is consistent with the temperature readings of the past century and a half.
How do you expect trains to compete with heavily subsidized roads and airports?
With heavy subsidies, of course. Amtrak, of course, has those. Not seeing the point of the argument.
Don't make the mistake of confusing capacity with ridership. This rail system may indeed be as capable as claimed for the claimed cost (both which remain to be seen), but it's ridership may well be amply covered by $68 billion in road and airport construction.
More expensive? Then why has an airliner never built an airport while railroad companies have built railroads?
Why are there many passenger airline companies but only one, heavily subsidized passenger train company?
But going to nowhere? Not having a purpose? Nope, not the Gravina Island Bridge. It always had a purpose, and did have planning. You could argue it wasn't a prudent decision. Arguing it went nowhere just makes you sound like a bombastic blowhard. Which does describe many a person, but it isn't a good thing.
This is why you are an idiot. This is a variation of the Nirvana fallacy. My argument isn't wrong because the label doesn't perfectly describe the situation. That's not even relevant.
Given that this is the second time you've made a deeply flawed argument based on your interpretation of colloquial English (the first being your interpretation of "Happens all the time" as being equivalent to "Happens every time"), maybe you should stop doing that?
A "bridge to nowhere" serves such a small population (sometimes even none at all, if the bridge genuinely never connects to anything), that even before planning begins, it's quite clear that it's lifetime benefits will never come close to its costs. The Gravina Island Bridge is a classic example of that.
The key here is that there isn't a qualitative or quantitative difference between a costly bridge which is perfectly useless and a costly bridge which has a very small usefulness compared to its cost. Given that our societies make large-scale, poor decisions like that, it then is reasonable to consider whether they're doing it for the high speed rail proposal of the story.
Here, the story tells us that the US government currently thinks California will spend up to ten billion dollars on early stage construction for a segment that connects no major population centers. That is a demonstration of a remarkable lack of planning and relevance here consistent with what I noted earlier.
I'll note also that the project has fantasy ridership numbers in addition to its fantasy cost numbers. Elsewhere someone has noted that someone claims that one would need $160 billion in roads and airports to match the capacity of the rail system. $160 billion > $68 billion right? Even if we took the cost figure as accurate (hopefully, you understand my opinion on that), we still have the problem that ridership isn't capacity.
And it certainly will be the case that the ridership for the first phase of construction, which doesn't cover any significant population centers, isn't going to fill $10 billion of roads and airports. Past that, we'll just have to see. But it's likely IMHO that the actual ridership of the high speed rail would be comfortably covered by $68 billion in roads and airports.
You're right. I was eyeballing the graph and counted one of the pips as two.
YOu need to get out of the US. Throughout Europe they use trains.
That sounds like a great idea. Let's build those European trains with European tax money! It's always interesting how people so easily forget that shiny trains have a price tag.
In their eyes, if Elon Musk or Google were doing it, it'd be the best thing ever.
Depends. But such a mass transit scheme that's has a decent chance of being profitable without requiring tens of billions of dollars of California taxpayer money as input is probably worthy of your respect as well.
Happens all the time.
Nope. If it happened all the time, then no trains, highways, or airplanes would be used at all.
My sentence doesn't mean what you think it means.
Reality, of course, is that while people can be wrong, they are fallible human beings after all, they aren't always, and they do think about what they're doing.
Except, of course, when they're not thinking about what they're doing.
On the other hand, which were constructed with thought and consideration. I'd add more, but my sentence was getting awkward.
Consider the fallacy you're committing here. Just because some transportation infrastructure isn't total shit doesn't mean that California's high speed rail will achieve that threshold.
You seem to not realize that you are arguing against a priority in transportation based on nothing more than offering a handy catchphrase, when in reality, the bridge which you so blithely dismiss, did go somewhere, and did have a purpose. Except, of course, when it didn't.
At least give them the courtesy of some effort towards thoughtful consideration, rather than whatever popular slogan grabs your attention. Reserve that for after school television programs. Let's get the next ten words. Ante up, poindexter.
Or you could stop being an idiot. The damning thing about this project is that it started with a high cost which will only get higher, a poor use scenario, and fantasy numbers for ridership. I also note that no advocate is prepared to deal with the inevitable TSA interference which currently is the only reason it compares well to air passenger service.
But it is being built by contractors not the government.
Who let us note are much better than government agencies at scoring contracts. You have to realize here that businesses will take the fast route to profit. If I give a business a million cars, I don't expect them to become good at driving and making their profit that way. I expect them to become good at selling cars because that's the more profitable way.
And what's this bit about a "free market"? Where's the other competing high speed rails?
That would be found in the multitude of existing trains, whose operations can be scrutinized, and compared to the existing highways, airplanes, and even boats that exist.
You do know that they don't just decide to build trains, highways, or airplanes, without any idea what's going on, right?
Happens all the time. I think the current story is such an example. We also have the "bridges to nowhere", many which were constructed by precisely the lack of competence and judgment you seem to think doesn't exist.
By that token the government should pay for my education because when I graduate I will help move the country forward, generate more tax revenue, reduce the unemployment rate, and create more jobs.
Unless, of course, you don't. Maybe they should bill you the full amount of your education when you turn out to be a waste of oxygen?
And mostly fail if you look at the launch record..
Take a gander at Falcon 9's launch statistics. 30 launch attempts with 4 failures (including one while test burning the engines). "Most" would be 16 or more, not 4.
Even if we try to inflate the number of failures by including Falcon 1 (3 failures of 5 launch attempts) and all 6 Falcon 9 first stage landing failures (even though not a one of those counts as a launch failure since NASA didn't pay for even one of those), we still end up with 13 out of 35 launches. 18 is "most".
That's brazenly wrong.
You sir, have the credibility of CNN.
Look who's projecting.
Certainly, few people drove on the first five miles of controlled-access highway --- but the fully built-out Interstate system is used by many millions. To describe the entire project as only the Central Valley segment is foolish at best and malevolent at worst.
The obvious point here is that they are building a rather useless stretch first rather than incrementally building a line that is useful from the start. Even most urban transportation gets that part right.
My view is that this a bait and switch based on the sunk cost fallacy. They'll build this nearly useless stretch and then discover, as usual, that the useful portions of the train's routes will be more costly than expected.
Rather than acknowledge that there are circumstances under which spending money on trains actually saves overall because it reduces problems with the road
What evidence exists for that position? Let us keep in mind that we don't actually know how much the trains will cost either, but it's likely more than even this cost overrun estimate. Then that alleged $10 in savings becomes something far smaller or even negative in sign.