Well, it turned out to be as bad as it was predicted. Only we managed to stop it just in time.
"Show me the actual charts (the link you posted had broken pictures), and if the temperature takes off as CO2 concentration ramps up, I'll concede that you may be right."
"If the Earth started warming, and the CO2 rose centuries later in response, and both kept rising thereafter"
Temperature growth usually exhibits a 'hockey stick' shape. A slow initial warming (due to various reasons, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ) and then rapid warming. The best explanation for rapid warming is rise of CO2 concentration.
Do you _really_ think that climate scientists are stupid?
"Not to mention that we are making judgements about 100000 year temperature (and composition) cycles based on 200 years of data, completely ignoring the other ~4.55 billion years. These judgments fly in the face of paleological evidence showing the earth has been much hotter than now in the past, in a repeating cycle, long before man existed."
Another 'armchair climatologist'...
First, we know quite a lot about earlier climate. For example half a billion years ago, Earth was much warmer than now even with noticeably cooler Sun. Guess why?
"To be clear: there probably is some anthropogenic warming. Its extent is subject to some debate."
OK. Let me clarify: almost all climate scientists think that we need major economic measures _yesterday_. With some minority thinking that we need some form of global engineering. And another small minority thinks it's already too late and we should just sit back and enjoy the ride.
"Basically he says that there is no historical correlation, but that because the current CO2 is produced by humans, there suddenly is some sort of correlation."
Let me clarify: geologic history shows that CO2 rarely was the _trigger_ for global warming. However, geologic history shows quite well the effects of CO2 _once_ _it's_ _in_ _the_ _atmosphere_.
The whole situation is pretty complex, but climate scientists are well aware of that.
"Also he questions the strength of the data, which when you question it from the other way you are called a "denier"."
Because you are. You cherry-pick favorable data to support your position.
"Why would the Earth get warm when people produce CO2, but not when it rises naturally?"
It can, of course. But we can't explain current warming using other sources. On the other hand, model of AGW fits data quite nicely.
"You don't have to yell. I'm not suggesting it can be done on this mission, or even with this shuttle. It would be interesting to test, and possibly use on future craft as a contingency method for reentry."
It will never be used as a 'contingency'. If we ever learn how to build vehicles capable of powered descent, then it will be used as the primary method of landing (because it's so much nicer than aerobraking).
"The shuttle is made to glide in with a nose up attitude until it encountered enough atmosphere to fly normally."
No. The Shuttle is made to move nose up to dissipate most of its energy on heatshield. It's more like 'continuously slamming against a wall' than flying.
And the main failure mode is not stalling, but heatshield failure.
"What I was suggesting was a flat drop until it reached enough air to fly in, then going to a nose down attitude to build up some forward air speed so the control surfaces could work."
Let me repeat one more time: YOU CAN'T MAKE SHUTTLE 'FALL' UNLESS YOU EXPEND TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ROCKET FUEL. You _HAVE_ to dissipate orbital energy _somehow_ - by air friction or by firing a rocket.
"Take a nice fast space shuttle, and bring it to 0 ground speed."
One more time. To slow down the Shuttle to zero speed need to expend at least EXACTLY the same amount of fuel that you use now to lift up the Shuttle.
This mode is called 'powered descent' we used it on the Moon. But it's impossible to do it to land chemical-rocket based ship on the Earth. It might be possible with nuclear rockets, though.
"As it falls and the air thickens, it'll slow down. The shuttle wasn't exactly made for it, which is why I said the other parts."
The Shuttle was made EXACTLY for this mode. It uses air friction to dissipate orbital energy.
"I don't know that there's enough fuel on the shuttle to bring it down to a geosynchronous orbit. They have oms thrusters, good for changing altitude on a mission and maintaining their orbit, but not dropping so much speed."
WTF?????
Geosynchronous orbit is about 36000 kilometers, while Shuttle's orbit is about 300 kilomterers, AFAIR.
In any case, going UP won't help you a bit (you'll still be in an inertial orbit). You need to _reduce_ your speed essentially to zero.
That means you have to expend _the_ _same_ _amount_ of fuel that was required to lift the Shuttle in the first place.
And that's completely impossible with chemical fuels.
Why do you need to know anything about me? And more importantly, how would it help you? (BTW, I own several codesigning certificates - you can even try to contact me using details in these certificates).
"Hardly an option. I have neither the skills nor time to properly audit your code."
Signing authority does not evaluate code _in_ _any_ _way_.
"Uh uh. First you need some software worth $500 (or, say, 500x$1)."
Why should I? You tried to use the broken window fallacy first.
"Of course, they all have their own different "control" issues instead."
What issues, exactly? Mac OS X does not tell you what you can do with your legally bought computer. Same goes for XP and Linux.
"You can do whatever you want. It is a mystery to me why someone so clearly opposed to pretty much every aspect of Windows software development - from the relative lack of platform customisability to the costs involved - would continue to practice it, however."
I like several Windows applications and I also try to help other users.
I do not object to paying for software (I have MSDN subscription). But I absolutely detest to pay (_and_ to agree to restrictive conditions) to be able to use my computer and let my users use it too.
"Same reason you would use signed code anywhere else."
My driver is signed. By my key, with my fingerprint on several keyservers. Also, you can download the sources and compile them yourself.
However, Windows requires the code to be signed by Microsoft (technically, your certificate must be cross-signed with a key of a trusted party of Microsoft).
"So did your computer. Or are you banging rocks together to write your code ?"
Pay me $500. Yes, it costs money. So did your computer. Or are you banging rocks together to write your code?
"No more so than anyone else in their position."
Linux? Windows XP? Even Mac OS X doesn't require signed drivers, for FSM's sake!
"Given that Windows is obviously an incredibly poor fit for pretty much every aspect of your software development process, from philosophy to budget, the real question here is: why the hell are you writing Windows software ?"
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Slashdot Mirror
How about freons? Do you remember that scare?
Well, it turned out to be as bad as it was predicted. Only we managed to stop it just in time.
"Show me the actual charts (the link you posted had broken pictures), and if the temperature takes off as CO2 concentration ramps up, I'll concede that you may be right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Satisfied?
"If the Earth started warming, and the CO2 rose centuries later in response, and both kept rising thereafter"
Temperature growth usually exhibits a 'hockey stick' shape. A slow initial warming (due to various reasons, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ) and then rapid warming. The best explanation for rapid warming is rise of CO2 concentration.
Do you _really_ think that climate scientists are stupid?
Sure, climatologists are not experts in the economy.
However, stating that we need major CO2 emissions reduction is well within their competence. So they're stating that.
How we're gonna tackle it is a task for economists, engineers and other scientists.
Number of votes is irrelevant. Do you want to abolish CDC and FEMA because virologists have only one vote too?
"Not to mention that we are making judgements about 100000 year temperature (and composition) cycles based on 200 years of data, completely ignoring the other ~4.55 billion years. These judgments fly in the face of paleological evidence showing the earth has been much hotter than now in the past, in a repeating cycle, long before man existed."
Another 'armchair climatologist'...
First, we know quite a lot about earlier climate. For example half a billion years ago, Earth was much warmer than now even with noticeably cooler Sun. Guess why?
"To be clear: there probably is some anthropogenic warming. Its extent is subject to some debate."
OK. Let me clarify: almost all climate scientists think that we need major economic measures _yesterday_. With some minority thinking that we need some form of global engineering. And another small minority thinks it's already too late and we should just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Nope.
It's more like http://www.talkorigins.org/ where whole lists of stock creationists' claims are gathered with stock refutations.
PS: I'd be curious to see such list for ID supporters.
"Basically he says that there is no historical correlation, but that because the current CO2 is produced by humans, there suddenly is some sort of correlation."
Let me clarify: geologic history shows that CO2 rarely was the _trigger_ for global warming. However, geologic history shows quite well the effects of CO2 _once_ _it's_ _in_ _the_ _atmosphere_.
The whole situation is pretty complex, but climate scientists are well aware of that.
"Also he questions the strength of the data, which when you question it from the other way you are called a "denier"."
Because you are. You cherry-pick favorable data to support your position.
"Why would the Earth get warm when people produce CO2, but not when it rises naturally?"
It can, of course. But we can't explain current warming using other sources. On the other hand, model of AGW fits data quite nicely.
Where does he say that data disproves him?
Author just points out that the _current_ warming period is unprecedented, because it's caused primarily by greenhouse gases emission.
Also: "Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2. "
Wrong!
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
Temperature _trend_ is still "up", even though we have fairly large year-to-year fluctuations.
Maybe you could try to actually _read_ these links?
"However, they are also much more careful about their certainty of the future."
Nope. Almost all bona-fide climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming. Mostly they argue the details now.
You're citing stock climate change deniers' arguments. They were refuted looooooong time ago. Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?
Specifically:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php
From the long list of:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
The "fact"?
It's impossible to cool _and_ contain helium (which is superfluid at that temperature) within the limits of a small spacecraft.
"You don't have to yell. I'm not suggesting it can be done on this mission, or even with this shuttle. It would be interesting to test, and possibly use on future craft as a contingency method for reentry."
It will never be used as a 'contingency'. If we ever learn how to build vehicles capable of powered descent, then it will be used as the primary method of landing (because it's so much nicer than aerobraking).
"The shuttle is made to glide in with a nose up attitude until it encountered enough atmosphere to fly normally."
No. The Shuttle is made to move nose up to dissipate most of its energy on heatshield. It's more like 'continuously slamming against a wall' than flying.
And the main failure mode is not stalling, but heatshield failure.
"What I was suggesting was a flat drop until it reached enough air to fly in, then going to a nose down attitude to build up some forward air speed so the control surfaces could work."
Let me repeat one more time: YOU CAN'T MAKE SHUTTLE 'FALL' UNLESS YOU EXPEND TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ROCKET FUEL. You _HAVE_ to dissipate orbital energy _somehow_ - by air friction or by firing a rocket.
What exactly is not clear to you?
WTF#2 ????
"Take a nice fast space shuttle, and bring it to 0 ground speed."
One more time. To slow down the Shuttle to zero speed need to expend at least EXACTLY the same amount of fuel that you use now to lift up the Shuttle.
This mode is called 'powered descent' we used it on the Moon. But it's impossible to do it to land chemical-rocket based ship on the Earth. It might be possible with nuclear rockets, though.
"As it falls and the air thickens, it'll slow down. The shuttle wasn't exactly made for it, which is why I said the other parts."
The Shuttle was made EXACTLY for this mode. It uses air friction to dissipate orbital energy.
"I don't know that there's enough fuel on the shuttle to bring it down to a geosynchronous orbit. They have oms thrusters, good for changing altitude on a mission and maintaining their orbit, but not dropping so much speed."
WTF?????
Geosynchronous orbit is about 36000 kilometers, while Shuttle's orbit is about 300 kilomterers, AFAIR.
In any case, going UP won't help you a bit (you'll still be in an inertial orbit). You need to _reduce_ your speed essentially to zero.
That means you have to expend _the_ _same_ _amount_ of fuel that was required to lift the Shuttle in the first place.
And that's completely impossible with chemical fuels.
"How do I know anything about you ?"
Why do you need to know anything about me? And more importantly, how would it help you? (BTW, I own several codesigning certificates - you can even try to contact me using details in these certificates).
"Hardly an option. I have neither the skills nor time to properly audit your code."
Signing authority does not evaluate code _in_ _any_ _way_.
"Uh uh. First you need some software worth $500 (or, say, 500x$1)."
Why should I? You tried to use the broken window fallacy first.
"Of course, they all have their own different "control" issues instead."
What issues, exactly? Mac OS X does not tell you what you can do with your legally bought computer. Same goes for XP and Linux.
"You can do whatever you want. It is a mystery to me why someone so clearly opposed to pretty much every aspect of Windows software development - from the relative lack of platform customisability to the costs involved - would continue to practice it, however."
I like several Windows applications and I also try to help other users.
I do not object to paying for software (I have MSDN subscription). But I absolutely detest to pay (_and_ to agree to restrictive conditions) to be able to use my computer and let my users use it too.
Remember Palm.
"Same reason you would use signed code anywhere else."
My driver is signed. By my key, with my fingerprint on several keyservers. Also, you can download the sources and compile them yourself.
However, Windows requires the code to be signed by Microsoft (technically, your certificate must be cross-signed with a key of a trusted party of Microsoft).
"So did your computer. Or are you banging rocks together to write your code ?"
Pay me $500. Yes, it costs money. So did your computer. Or are you banging rocks together to write your code?
"No more so than anyone else in their position."
Linux? Windows XP? Even Mac OS X doesn't require signed drivers, for FSM's sake!
"Given that Windows is obviously an incredibly poor fit for pretty much every aspect of your software development process, from philosophy to budget, the real question here is: why the hell are you writing Windows software ?"
Why not? Am I not allowed to do it?
"No, you should get your driver signed. "
Why? And what for? Also, it costs money.
"Yes. That's because you're not supposed to turn it off."
So, you do admit that Microsoft controls what users should and should not do?
So, should I ask all my users to press F8 on _every_ _fucking_ boot? Or maybe to enable a test certificate which defaces the desktop?
There's no way for users to turn off driver validation. All existing methods are so convoluted, they resemble that passage.
Yeah, sure. Let me quote a relevant passage:
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
"Pray tell, what are you restricted from installing on your Windows by Microsoft, exactly?"
Unsigned drivers on x64 Windows (including OpenSource drivers which I help to develop).
"Last I checked, neither Samba nor WINE nor ntfs-3g were sued by Microsoft."
TomTom.