I actually wavered for a minute thinking maybe I was wrong.
But after finally establishing a certain crowd think convection and conduction are part of the greenhouse effect I'm at least now more comfortable that I'm less wrong than them.
Yes, same thing. The atmosphere is incredibly dense and as such conducts and retains the heat fairly efficiency from those lava flows throughout the lower atmosphere.
That's nothing todo with the optical properties of CO2 and everything to do with the thermal conductivity properties of high pressure CO2 gas.
"Venus CO2 runaway" was some western political bullshit taught to kids in the 70s and 80s during the various oil strife and has no basis in real science.
But the temperature at the surface of venus has nothing todo with the optical properties of CO2, and everything todo with the lava flows that cover the planet.
Unless you are saying Volcanoes are caused by the greenhouse effect you are competely wrong.
->The infrared absorption of carbon dioxide is measured
its absorbtion and radiation but more CO2 definately doesn't mean a hotter atmosphere. Because you don't just trap more heat - you also prevent more sunlight entering in the first place.
Venus isn't hot because of the greenhouse effect, it's hot because of the enormous pressures caused by an incredibly dense atmosphere.
If this "runaway" could happen here and was even fractionally likely I see no reason it wouldn't of already of happened sometime in the Earths billions of years history.
Getting the right answer by the wrong working does not mean you got the answer right.
___ I agree. That is, however, no reason to dismiss the science.
Science is repeatability and reproducibility, climate models are nothing more than reading tealeafs atm imho, since there is no way to reproduce or repeat a hundred billion year experiment.
____ And "science" also needs to accurately report it's error terms, there is no way you will get me to believe any honest climate model could measure a +0.7'C increase in average temperature when that is less than the error term we have in actual measurements (on the global scale, where that "average" is a - damn complex - model already), especially when most of the stations being used to take the measurements have been distorted by urbanisation - the ones that are left that is, there something like 70% less temperature stations in the readings now than there was 50 years ago.
1) easy, CO2 is a pretty shitty greenhouse gas water is much more important. 2) we've been coming out of an ice age for 10,000 years, that this remains unexplained leaves any "blame the humans" nonsense as laughable. 3) no, you dont, see one and 2
like the sea rising... panicing about a few mm when in many places it changes on a meter scale every day.
NO COURT OF ANY LAND HAS ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE INTERNET WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN ANYTHING BUT THE MANIFESTATION OF AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF BITS AND BYTES AS ELECTRONS.
THE CONCEPT OF MAKING NUMBERS ILLEGAL IS MORALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ETHICALLY CORRUPT.
Therefore, any court that thinks it has the right to make numbers illegal is morally, socially and ethically corupt, and should not have the support of the people of the world.
The internet is not land, you cannot regulate it like land, go fuck yourselfs.
I think that's about the size of it. Last redesign swapped me from visiting several times daily to visiting maybe once or twice a month. This time round I don't think I'll be back, the whole thing seams to be little more than playpen for some new employee, I see no evidence to strengthen the "community" aspect of/. an over emphasis on whitespace and no tools to make the bland text comments more interesting. first post on slashdot beta, possibly among the last on slashdot. Can I just say thanks to everyone it was fun while it lasted, you hung in there while all the others fell.
"New information" being this isn't 25 of 1,000 nodes. its 25 of some unknown number of nodes, of which 1,000 are active at any one time.
And as I tried to point out last tiime (and am greatful for the opportunity to reiterate) exit nodes only account for 100Mbps of tors 3Gbps average traffic (most of the traffic being to hidden services which never go near an exit node)
So if anything this is testament to the security of tor.network.
I guess much of the fear comes from the silkroad take down, but that was foiled by the good old postal service and human error, not the technology itself.
Yes I'm sure. Reading the data out of an exit node tells you nothing about the requester of that data, and nothing about traffic destined for hidden services.
And given they are sat watching the data coming out of every non tor service anyway, you can assume every tor exit node is already being passively monitered by the NSA...
Oh wait, no you can't, because only a tiny fraction all of those exit nodes are actually in the US.
My arse of course, where else can you get figures like that from? But it was a rough guess based on most tor usage being to access hidden services (such as bitorrent clients) rather than using tor as a simple proxy to access the internet.
But guard/entry/exit node layout and number tells you nothing about the traffic flowing through the network, or the source/desitnation of that traffic - that's the whole point of tor.
That was my first thought to. On further reflection it's not actually that bad.
Most tor traffic doesn't exit to the internet (it's being routed to.onion sites), and 1,000 - 25 nasty, unfiltered, uncensored exits is actually quite good e.g. there's only a few cables leaveing the UK, not sure exactly how many, but I'd guess it's a few hundred at most. However the number of "unfiltered, uncensored" exits leaving the UK is precisely zero.
Slashdot Mirror
I do hope you own a prius.
What it does is explain why the surface temperature is so hot.
regularily compressed gas to very high pressures passing over lava.
Not a thing to do with the optical properties of co2 or the sun.
Exactly.
But on venus the atmospheric gad is so dense it does reach those temperatures.
Thanks for proving my point.
Temperature = Constant * Pressure
so as the pressure increases so does the temperature.
It's really not that hard, but hey, I'm willing to listen to these calculations, do show, I've never seen.
Basic physics,
http://littleshop.physics.colo...
the pressure is important because it enables the Co2 to reach those temperatures.
If it was a lower pressure the hot gases would not be able to hold the same amount of energy.
lovin the reasoned argument backed up by facts.
I actually wavered for a minute thinking maybe I was wrong.
But after finally establishing a certain crowd think convection and conduction are part of the greenhouse effect I'm at least now more comfortable that I'm less wrong than them.
no, it's because the heat from the massive number of lava flows conducts and convects through the dense gas.
Absolutely nothing todo with the amount of sunlight absorbed or reemitted (the greenhouse effect)
Nope.
That's not "greenhouse effect".
Do you understand that and why thicker glass in your garden greenhouse would make the greenhouse colder. (repeatable experiment - actual science).
Do you have even the slightest idea about thermodynamics at all? or are you really just repeating the drivel you read on the internet and MSM.
Yes, same thing.
The atmosphere is incredibly dense and as such conducts and retains the heat fairly efficiency from those lava flows throughout the lower atmosphere.
That's nothing todo with the optical properties of CO2 and everything to do with the thermal conductivity properties of high pressure CO2 gas.
"Venus CO2 runaway" was some western political bullshit taught to kids in the 70s and 80s during the various oil strife and has no basis in real science.
I understand the greenhouse effect just fine,
But the temperature at the surface of venus has nothing todo with the optical properties of CO2, and everything todo with the lava flows that cover the planet.
Unless you are saying Volcanoes are caused by the greenhouse effect you are competely wrong.
You really think the temperature of venus is from the greenhouse effect?
That's funny.
->The infrared absorption of carbon dioxide is measured
its absorbtion and radiation
but more CO2 definately doesn't mean a hotter atmosphere.
Because you don't just trap more heat - you also prevent more sunlight entering in the first place.
Venus isn't hot because of the greenhouse effect, it's hot because of the enormous pressures caused by an incredibly dense atmosphere.
If this "runaway" could happen here and was even fractionally likely I see no reason it wouldn't of already of happened sometime in the Earths billions of years history.
Getting the right answer by the wrong working does not mean you got the answer right.
___
I agree. That is, however, no reason to dismiss the science.
Science is repeatability and reproducibility, climate models are nothing more than reading tealeafs atm imho, since there is no way to reproduce or repeat a hundred billion year experiment.
____
And "science" also needs to accurately report it's error terms, there is no way you will get me to believe any honest climate model could measure a +0.7'C increase in average temperature when that is less than the error term we have in actual measurements (on the global scale, where that "average" is a - damn complex - model already), especially when most of the stations being used to take the measurements have been distorted by urbanisation - the ones that are left that is, there something like 70% less temperature stations in the readings now than there was 50 years ago.
1) easy, CO2 is a pretty shitty greenhouse gas water is much more important.
2) we've been coming out of an ice age for 10,000 years, that this remains unexplained leaves any "blame the humans" nonsense as laughable.
3) no, you dont, see one and 2
like the sea rising... panicing about a few mm when in many places it changes on a meter scale every day.
4) Warming is much better than cooling.
NO COURT OF ANY LAND HAS ANY JURISDICTION OVER THE INTERNET WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN ANYTHING BUT THE MANIFESTATION OF AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF BITS AND BYTES AS ELECTRONS.
THE CONCEPT OF MAKING NUMBERS ILLEGAL IS MORALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ETHICALLY CORRUPT.
Therefore, any court that thinks it has the right to make numbers illegal is morally, socially and ethically corupt, and should not have the support of the people of the world.
The internet is not land, you cannot regulate it like land, go fuck yourselfs.
And the result is the best search engine for porn.
I don't see how that can be remotely so?
Does ford not already run its own dealerships in ohio?
If not why not?
I think that's about the size of it. /. an over emphasis on whitespace and no tools to make the bland text comments more interesting.
Last redesign swapped me from visiting several times daily to visiting maybe once or twice a month.
This time round I don't think I'll be back, the whole thing seams to be little more than playpen for some new employee, I see no evidence to strengthen the "community" aspect of
first post on slashdot beta, possibly among the last on slashdot. Can I just say thanks to everyone it was fun while it lasted, you hung in there while all the others fell.
"New information" being this isn't 25 of 1,000 nodes.
its 25 of some unknown number of nodes, of which 1,000 are active at any one time.
And as I tried to point out last tiime (and am greatful for the opportunity to reiterate)
exit nodes only account for 100Mbps of tors 3Gbps average traffic (most of the traffic being to hidden services which never go near an exit node)
So if anything this is testament to the security of tor.network.
I guess much of the fear comes from the silkroad take down, but that was foiled by the good old postal service and human error, not the technology itself.
and from that link
Traffic history 3Gbps
exit traffic 100Mbps
Yes I'm sure.
Reading the data out of an exit node tells you nothing about the requester of that data, and nothing about traffic destined for hidden services.
And given they are sat watching the data coming out of every non tor service anyway, you can assume every tor exit node is already being passively monitered by the NSA...
Oh wait, no you can't, because only a tiny fraction all of those exit nodes are actually in the US.
My arse of course, where else can you get figures like that from? But it was a rough guess based on most tor usage being to access hidden services (such as bitorrent clients) rather than using tor as a simple proxy to access the internet.
But guard/entry/exit node layout and number tells you nothing about the traffic flowing through the network, or the source/desitnation of that traffic - that's the whole point of tor.
how does it have any impact on the 99% of tor traffic which never touches an exit node?
That was my first thought to. On further reflection it's not actually that bad.
Most tor traffic doesn't exit to the internet (it's being routed to .onion sites), and 1,000 - 25 nasty, unfiltered, uncensored exits is actually quite good e.g. there's only a few cables leaveing the UK, not sure exactly how many, but I'd guess it's a few hundred at most. However the number of "unfiltered, uncensored" exits leaving the UK is precisely zero.
With any luck they'll block the BBC soon.