Here's an even simpler question to ask: Can someone in the IPCC name one test that can be used to falsify current AGW theory?
Because, last I checked, every scientific theory has to have a test that would falsify it. I can falsify all of evolution by finding a rabbit fossil in the stomach of a T-Rex. I can falsify the Theory of Relativity by finding one particle or wave traveling faster than light, or a mass that isn't equal to E=MC^2.
But in the AGW world, I have yet to hear one thing that can falsify AGW. If it gets warmer, it's AGW. Colder? AGW again. More storms? AGW. Less Storms? AGW. More ice? AGW. Less ice? AGW.
The only item I've ever heard as a test of AGW was that the stratosphere over the tropics should be cooling. Guess what? 30 years of satellite data says it isn't, but the very climate scientist who proposed that test is now saying that it simply proves AGW.
There is a term for a non-falsifiable belief, and it's "Dogma".
Roughly half of Americans are (by definition) above average intelligence. Your grammar (and your lack of understanding of the term *average*) show which half you're in.
From your comment, you show that you are in the AGW crowd.
Now, what does that say about your question and which half the "deniers" would be in?
Yes, the current layer of CO2 absorbs nearly 97% of the infra-red light in the bands it absorbs in, which should make you realize that even if we reached a level of say 7,000 ppm in the atmosphere, the CO2 could only, ever, absorb an additional 3% of the energy *in its band*.
Let's do something insane and suggest that the entire greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is due to CO2. According to any of a dozen easily googleable sources, the total greenhouse effect of the Atmosphere is roughly 34 degrees C.
If CO2 is 100% responsible for this, then adding another 3% of that (the result of raising CO2 to where it absorbs 100% of the incoming infrared band instead of 97%) would give you a massive increase of just over 1 degree C.
This is why the IPCC estimates of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (1995), or 1.7 degrees C (2000) or 1.4 degrees C (2005) is clearly a bunch of bunkum.
Added to that is the fact that more and more evidence is pointing to water being a *negative* feedback rather than positive as all models assume, and the whole AGW argument falls down.
Do you want to ride in a rocket whose thrust is varying over time? i.e. Bouncing like a pogo stick?
The 5-segment booster intended to be used on the now canceled Ares I rocket was showing a +/- 7G pogo oscillation. How'd you like to be slammed around at a 14G interval?
As opposed to the champions of the AGW crowd, Al Gore (Political Science degree and a Law degree) and the IPCC's Pachurri ( railroad engineer) who are clearly far more qualified in climate science...
According to their own paper as presented (someone linked it above), the overall process is about 11-17% efficient. Electrolysis on the other hand, is 50-85% efficient. There is no panacea here. In fact it's horribly inefficient. And a plant producing 120,000kg of hydrogen a day is a three quarter billion dollar investment and has no other purpose, consuming 600 + acres of the mojave desert -- an endangered habitat according to the EPA. And that's their optimistic estimates, not even considering the daily maintenance of two and half million square meters of heliostats in the desert.
United Church of Christ was very much a main-line protestant when I was growing up. It was one of about 4 churches in the town (of about 3000 people), and sat face-to-face with the Catholic Church across the street. It had it's 100th anniversary when I was 12, so It's not like this was a church in someone's basement or something.
Given that the church I grew up in now supports gay marriage, socialist redistribution (as opposed to charitable giving), and is currently brushing up against approving of bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy and pretty much every other moral failing that the Christian church has spent the last 2000 years condemning, I can understand where Santorum's comment about the Protestant churches is coming from.
Please note, I am not endorsing either the new or old church's position, as I left all organized churches nearly 25 years ago, but I am forced to listen to my mother's complaints about where the church has gone over the last two decades and thus know the current state of the church. (UCC)
Actually spraying a fine mist of water over the system is ideal -- the vacuum causes the water to boil away, absorbing 512Kj/Mol of heat away from the system, and the steam boils away into the vacuum. This water vaporization system is exactly how the Apollo astronauts kept cool on the moon.
Given that they use a polysaccharide secretion to bind various debris and their own fecal matter into their skin/shells/whatever --- I'm guessing they really can accurately be said to taste like sh*t....
Theater isn't as popular as movies because the cost is much higher -- for example, I paid $63 a ticket to see "Beauty and the Beast" on stage, but I could buy the DVD/Blu-Ray/"Special Platinum Diamond Plutonium Edition Never Before Released from the Vaults" version for about a third of that.
The second problem apart from cost is the experience. In the theater, I get one point of view, quite a distance from the stage (at least without paying almost three times the price) and there is no focus on particularly important bits of the action. From 32 rows back, I cannot see the tears on Belle's face when Beast is dead, and if I happen to miss LaFou's pratfall, because I happened to be looking at "Large Breasted Blonde Girl #2" during the "Gaston" song, I will *never* be able to see it.
With the DVD, I can rewind, watch it again, lather, rinse, repeat. I can do so in the comfort of my easy chair. I don't have to worry about the woman next to me wearing enough perfume to be a candidate for chemical warfare, or the 6 year old kicking the back of my chair.
When I go to the bathroom, I don't have to worry about the 30 other patrons tapping their feet impatiently behind me, or whether or not there will be any paper towel left to dry my hands.
Small Theater is dying (and has been for decades) because movies made it cheaper, better, and more comfortable not to mention more often, with 10 shows a day vs a maximum of 2 shows a day at a theater. On top of that, the movie performances are always, at least in theory, the very best the director could milk out of the actors, as opposed to the day the Lead actor shows up at the theater drunk, or depressed, or hung over, and flubs half of their lines.
Now the movies are in danger as well, because I can get nearly the same quality of viewing at home, with my big-screen hi-def TV. What am I missing? Nothing but overpriced candy, popcorn, and soda. Twenty years ago I was hitting a movie theater every weekend. Today, I see about 4 movies a year in the theater.
The ONLY place the theaters still have the advantage is with truly engulfing experiences (iMax) and 3D technology which is still too expensive an inconvenient for most home users. This display is the first step towards getting rid of that "inconvenient" barrier. True, projective 3D will be the death-knell for theaters, because there's no way this thing scales up to theater size. Your home experience will now be far superior to the theater for anything but iMax nature films.
The Dragon capsule they sent up and recovered is built man-rated. Had you been in the capsule they launched (and had they turned on an oxygen supply) you would have had, in the words of Elon Musk, "a really sweet ride."
Seeing that I looked into what it would take to launch a sub-orbital vehicle in 2000, I can tell you right now there were a lot of barriers to commercial space flight before the X-Prize drove the FAA to loosen regulations.
To launch a sub-orbital sounding rocket in 2000, I would have needed a government approved launch site, would have had to acquire something in the neighborhood of a million dollars of permits from the FAA, then paid to have multiple reentry studies done by "accredited research facilites" (read NASA and JPL) to determine the potential damage of a failed launch on down-field areas, at a cost of no less than $500,000 each. It was required under FAA regulations to carry at least one *billion* (yes, billion) dollars of insurance in case of launch failure, and the rocket would require a complete abort system capable of destroying the craft, which would have to be shown as reliable through no less than three successful static tests resulting in the full destruction of the vehicle.
That's just off the top of my head from what I remember. I went and actually got all the information I could find and it was a stack of requirements near two inches thick. And all I was trying to do was break the altitude record for a "model" rocket. But because I had the potential of breaking 100km of altitude, it was no longer considered a "model" and FAA rules applied to it.
So don't say there were no barriers in 1985 or 1992. That's just not true. No start-up could have afforded all the licensing and regulation overhead required to get their first rocket off the ground. The launch market was a locked-in old boys club between the existing military contractors like Lockheed and Boeing so they could continue to control the lucrative pricing structure. Unless you really think it cost Lockheed 10 times as much to build a rocket than it costs SpaceX?
You've got the broadcom decoder too? Only helps on certain things, unfortunately.
I'll probably leave it in, as I have a gigabit hard-wired network running in, so no need for a wireless card.
Haven't seen a price, but I've heard "October" for a release date. No reason it shouldn't hit soon, as they have all the packaging and drivers done for it when I checked their web site. Personally I'm hoping for that $49.99 price point...
Right now I have an HTPC sitting at home, based on an Atom chip that worked great (and still does) for pushing SDTV. When the HDTV went in, it was woefully inadequate, what with the embedded Intel graphics that can't push better than about 10fps at 720p.
It's got a single PCI slot for upgrading....
This card is *exactly* what I need to make this thing rock again as a Hi-def HTPC. With HDMI out, I can pump 7.1 surround to the stereo, and this thing should handle up to 1080p video playback without blinking.
This is so going to the top of my buy list as soon as it's actually released. Grumble...
You do realize "The New Colossus" wasn't added to the Statue of Liberty until 1903, right? And that the Statue itself wasn't put there until 1886? That's 110 years *after* the beginning of the country.
You also realize that there's no legal meaning to the poem as well, right? And that every immigrant who sailed beneath Lady Liberty on the way to Ellis Island (including all of my forbears) had to be sponsored to enter the country. In other words, they couldn't come here unless they had a person already in the country who was going to put them up in housing, ensure they had food, basic supplies, and a work position available?
Yes, the poem, which in excerpt, says:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Which, more correctly, is interpreted as an admonishment to other, older nations, who saw their poor as a burden. In contrast, this new nation would take them and set them free to allow them to become all that they could, rather than continue to suppress them with their ingrained class systems and the wasteful pomp of the nobility. America was founded on the idea that the individual, given the opportunity to succeed when given responsibility for themselves, would do so to great levels as a whole. No individual was guaranteed any outcome, merely the opportunity for any outcome. This allowed the outstanding individuals to shine - to rise as far as their ability would carry them. The poem says she lifts her lamp, "beside the golden door!" It's up to the individual to open the door. It's not going to opened for you. At least, that was the real intent of the founding of the nation.
But the important part is self-responsibility. You were welcomed with open arms, so long as you were willing to play by the rules. That has always been the American way. Those who live within the law are guaranteed freedom to do what they will.
You cannot, therefore, embrace the American Ideal if your first act in the country is to enter it illegally. "The New Colossus" does not say, "Give me your sneaky bastards who cut the fence at midnight to get in and ignore the laws."
Dang it, I was going to bring this up too. I remember that (might even still have the magazine deep in the basement box archives) and that I coded it on a IBM clone back in the mid eighties and it was reasonably effective. The program just timed the gaps between keypresses and looked for a match within a few percentage points. It was surprisingly effective at locking out different people, with only a few false negatives when I would type the correct version.
The original story was printed in the July 1984 issue of LIFE magazine.
Or do you think Fukushima *caused* the earthquake and tsunami that was 10 times the size it was designed to withstand? Can we please stop ripping on the reactor that is surviving rather well compared to the design. If you tell me you can lift 100# and I give you a 1000# weight and then complain about how quickly your back snapped, is that fair?
And we don't need to "unleash the evil" of smallpox. There's a good chance that, somewhere out in a jungle somewhere, is an animal carrying a variant of the smallpox virus (like cowpox) that will have a sudden mutation that allows it to pass to humans. If we don't keep these viruses so we can study them, then when that pandemic hits, you can add a x20 multiplier to the number of people who will die before a vaccine or cure can be developed.
You're missing the point of the comment. Elon Musk was a guy in the right place at the right time. Could there have been others who did something similar? Sure. He just found the formula that worked. My point is that none of them would have gone on to found SpaceX and thus rewrite the future of NASA and Space Exploration. Thus, were it not for him, history would have been different. I was being facetious with the Ebay comment, but the rest of it stands.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an even simpler question to ask: Can someone in the IPCC name one test that can be used to falsify current AGW theory?
Because, last I checked, every scientific theory has to have a test that would falsify it. I can falsify all of evolution by finding a rabbit fossil in the stomach of a T-Rex. I can falsify the Theory of Relativity by finding one particle or wave traveling faster than light, or a mass that isn't equal to E=MC^2.
But in the AGW world, I have yet to hear one thing that can falsify AGW. If it gets warmer, it's AGW. Colder? AGW again. More storms? AGW. Less Storms? AGW. More ice? AGW. Less ice? AGW.
The only item I've ever heard as a test of AGW was that the stratosphere over the tropics should be cooling. Guess what? 30 years of satellite data says it isn't, but the very climate scientist who proposed that test is now saying that it simply proves AGW.
There is a term for a non-falsifiable belief, and it's "Dogma".
Roughly half of Americans are (by definition) above average intelligence. Your grammar (and your lack of understanding of the term *average*) show which half you're in.
From your comment, you show that you are in the AGW crowd.
Now, what does that say about your question and which half the "deniers" would be in?
quod erat demonstrandum
Yes, the current layer of CO2 absorbs nearly 97% of the infra-red light in the bands it absorbs in, which should make you realize that even if we reached a level of say 7,000 ppm in the atmosphere, the CO2 could only, ever, absorb an additional 3% of the energy *in its band*.
Let's do something insane and suggest that the entire greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is due to CO2. According to any of a dozen easily googleable sources, the total greenhouse effect of the Atmosphere is roughly 34 degrees C.
If CO2 is 100% responsible for this, then adding another 3% of that (the result of raising CO2 to where it absorbs 100% of the incoming infrared band instead of 97%) would give you a massive increase of just over 1 degree C.
This is why the IPCC estimates of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (1995), or 1.7 degrees C (2000) or 1.4 degrees C (2005) is clearly a bunch of bunkum.
Added to that is the fact that more and more evidence is pointing to water being a *negative* feedback rather than positive as all models assume, and the whole AGW argument falls down.
Do you want to ride in a rocket whose thrust is varying over time? i.e. Bouncing like a pogo stick?
The 5-segment booster intended to be used on the now canceled Ares I rocket was showing a +/- 7G pogo oscillation. How'd you like to be slammed around at a 14G interval?
As opposed to the champions of the AGW crowd, Al Gore (Political Science degree and a Law degree) and the IPCC's Pachurri ( railroad engineer) who are clearly far more qualified in climate science...
They raised that to $1,000,000 after three days.
According to their own paper as presented (someone linked it above), the overall process is about 11-17% efficient. Electrolysis on the other hand, is 50-85% efficient. There is no panacea here. In fact it's horribly inefficient. And a plant producing 120,000kg of hydrogen a day is a three quarter billion dollar investment and has no other purpose, consuming 600 + acres of the mojave desert -- an endangered habitat according to the EPA. And that's their optimistic estimates, not even considering the daily maintenance of two and half million square meters of heliostats in the desert.
United Church of Christ was very much a main-line protestant when I was growing up. It was one of about 4 churches in the town (of about 3000 people), and sat face-to-face with the Catholic Church across the street. It had it's 100th anniversary when I was 12, so It's not like this was a church in someone's basement or something.
Given that the church I grew up in now supports gay marriage, socialist redistribution (as opposed to charitable giving), and is currently brushing up against approving of bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy and pretty much every other moral failing that the Christian church has spent the last 2000 years condemning, I can understand where Santorum's comment about the Protestant churches is coming from.
Please note, I am not endorsing either the new or old church's position, as I left all organized churches nearly 25 years ago, but I am forced to listen to my mother's complaints about where the church has gone over the last two decades and thus know the current state of the church. (UCC)
Actually spraying a fine mist of water over the system is ideal -- the vacuum causes the water to boil away, absorbing 512Kj/Mol of heat away from the system, and the steam boils away into the vacuum. This water vaporization system is exactly how the Apollo astronauts kept cool on the moon.
Given that they use a polysaccharide secretion to bind various debris and their own fecal matter into their skin/shells/whatever --- I'm guessing they really can accurately be said to taste like sh*t....
Theater isn't as popular as movies because the cost is much higher -- for example, I paid $63 a ticket to see "Beauty and the Beast" on stage, but I could buy the DVD/Blu-Ray/"Special Platinum Diamond Plutonium Edition Never Before Released from the Vaults" version for about a third of that.
The second problem apart from cost is the experience. In the theater, I get one point of view, quite a distance from the stage (at least without paying almost three times the price) and there is no focus on particularly important bits of the action. From 32 rows back, I cannot see the tears on Belle's face when Beast is dead, and if I happen to miss LaFou's pratfall, because I happened to be looking at "Large Breasted Blonde Girl #2" during the "Gaston" song, I will *never* be able to see it.
With the DVD, I can rewind, watch it again, lather, rinse, repeat. I can do so in the comfort of my easy chair. I don't have to worry about the woman next to me wearing enough perfume to be a candidate for chemical warfare, or the 6 year old kicking the back of my chair.
When I go to the bathroom, I don't have to worry about the 30 other patrons tapping their feet impatiently behind me, or whether or not there will be any paper towel left to dry my hands.
Small Theater is dying (and has been for decades) because movies made it cheaper, better, and more comfortable not to mention more often, with 10 shows a day vs a maximum of 2 shows a day at a theater. On top of that, the movie performances are always, at least in theory, the very best the director could milk out of the actors, as opposed to the day the Lead actor shows up at the theater drunk, or depressed, or hung over, and flubs half of their lines.
Now the movies are in danger as well, because I can get nearly the same quality of viewing at home, with my big-screen hi-def TV. What am I missing? Nothing but overpriced candy, popcorn, and soda. Twenty years ago I was hitting a movie theater every weekend. Today, I see about 4 movies a year in the theater.
The ONLY place the theaters still have the advantage is with truly engulfing experiences (iMax) and 3D technology which is still too expensive an inconvenient for most home users. This display is the first step towards getting rid of that "inconvenient" barrier. True, projective 3D will be the death-knell for theaters, because there's no way this thing scales up to theater size. Your home experience will now be far superior to the theater for anything but iMax nature films.
Everyone at The Onion admits their product is 100% fictional.
Fixed that for you.
Do you know what the paperwork on shipping nearly 1000 pounds of rocket fuel out of the country is like? Not to mention a 31 foot long rocket body.
The Dragon capsule they sent up and recovered is built man-rated. Had you been in the capsule they launched (and had they turned on an oxygen supply) you would have had, in the words of Elon Musk, "a really sweet ride."
Seeing that I looked into what it would take to launch a sub-orbital vehicle in 2000, I can tell you right now there were a lot of barriers to commercial space flight before the X-Prize drove the FAA to loosen regulations.
To launch a sub-orbital sounding rocket in 2000, I would have needed a government approved launch site, would have had to acquire something in the neighborhood of a million dollars of permits from the FAA, then paid to have multiple reentry studies done by "accredited research facilites" (read NASA and JPL) to determine the potential damage of a failed launch on down-field areas, at a cost of no less than $500,000 each. It was required under FAA regulations to carry at least one *billion* (yes, billion) dollars of insurance in case of launch failure, and the rocket would require a complete abort system capable of destroying the craft, which would have to be shown as reliable through no less than three successful static tests resulting in the full destruction of the vehicle.
That's just off the top of my head from what I remember. I went and actually got all the information I could find and it was a stack of requirements near two inches thick. And all I was trying to do was break the altitude record for a "model" rocket. But because I had the potential of breaking 100km of altitude, it was no longer considered a "model" and FAA rules applied to it.
So don't say there were no barriers in 1985 or 1992. That's just not true. No start-up could have afforded all the licensing and regulation overhead required to get their first rocket off the ground. The launch market was a locked-in old boys club between the existing military contractors like Lockheed and Boeing so they could continue to control the lucrative pricing structure. Unless you really think it cost Lockheed 10 times as much to build a rocket than it costs SpaceX?
You've got the broadcom decoder too? Only helps on certain things, unfortunately.
I'll probably leave it in, as I have a gigabit hard-wired network running in, so no need for a wireless card.
Haven't seen a price, but I've heard "October" for a release date. No reason it shouldn't hit soon, as they have all the packaging and drivers done for it when I checked their web site. Personally I'm hoping for that $49.99 price point...
Right now I have an HTPC sitting at home, based on an Atom chip that worked great (and still does) for pushing SDTV. When the HDTV went in, it was woefully inadequate, what with the embedded Intel graphics that can't push better than about 10fps at 720p.
It's got a single PCI slot for upgrading....
This card is *exactly* what I need to make this thing rock again as a Hi-def HTPC. With HDMI out, I can pump 7.1 surround to the stereo, and this thing should handle up to 1080p video playback without blinking.
This is so going to the top of my buy list as soon as it's actually released. Grumble...
But consider this, if there's less heat being generated, less likely that some of the snow melts and runs off and freezes into your gutters.
Right up until the snow load exceeds the structural rating and your house collapses.
You do realize "The New Colossus" wasn't added to the Statue of Liberty until 1903, right? And that the Statue itself wasn't put there until 1886? That's 110 years *after* the beginning of the country.
You also realize that there's no legal meaning to the poem as well, right? And that every immigrant who sailed beneath Lady Liberty on the way to Ellis Island (including all of my forbears) had to be sponsored to enter the country. In other words, they couldn't come here unless they had a person already in the country who was going to put them up in housing, ensure they had food, basic supplies, and a work position available?
Yes, the poem, which in excerpt, says:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Which, more correctly, is interpreted as an admonishment to other, older nations, who saw their poor as a burden. In contrast, this new nation would take them and set them free to allow them to become all that they could, rather than continue to suppress them with their ingrained class systems and the wasteful pomp of the nobility. America was founded on the idea that the individual, given the opportunity to succeed when given responsibility for themselves, would do so to great levels as a whole. No individual was guaranteed any outcome, merely the opportunity for any outcome. This allowed the outstanding individuals to shine - to rise as far as their ability would carry them. The poem says she lifts her lamp, "beside the golden door!" It's up to the individual to open the door. It's not going to opened for you. At least, that was the real intent of the founding of the nation.
But the important part is self-responsibility. You were welcomed with open arms, so long as you were willing to play by the rules. That has always been the American way. Those who live within the law are guaranteed freedom to do what they will.
You cannot, therefore, embrace the American Ideal if your first act in the country is to enter it illegally. "The New Colossus" does not say, "Give me your sneaky bastards who cut the fence at midnight to get in and ignore the laws."
Arrgh! You have a hanging GOSUB in line 30. Line 1030 does a "GOTO 10" instead of a RETURN. You're going to overflow the stack!
Dang it, I was going to bring this up too. I remember that (might even still have the magazine deep in the basement box archives) and that I coded it on a IBM clone back in the mid eighties and it was reasonably effective. The program just timed the gaps between keypresses and looked for a match within a few percentage points. It was surprisingly effective at locking out different people, with only a few false negatives when I would type the correct version.
The original story was printed in the July 1984 issue of LIFE magazine.
or 10-100 fukushimas
So 100 times zero deaths?
Or do you think Fukushima *caused* the earthquake and tsunami that was 10 times the size it was designed to withstand? Can we please stop ripping on the reactor that is surviving rather well compared to the design. If you tell me you can lift 100# and I give you a 1000# weight and then complain about how quickly your back snapped, is that fair?
And we don't need to "unleash the evil" of smallpox. There's a good chance that, somewhere out in a jungle somewhere, is an animal carrying a variant of the smallpox virus (like cowpox) that will have a sudden mutation that allows it to pass to humans. If we don't keep these viruses so we can study them, then when that pandemic hits, you can add a x20 multiplier to the number of people who will die before a vaccine or cure can be developed.
The same as for almost every airplane crash -- gravity.
You're missing the point of the comment. Elon Musk was a guy in the right place at the right time. Could there have been others who did something similar? Sure. He just found the formula that worked. My point is that none of them would have gone on to found SpaceX and thus rewrite the future of NASA and Space Exploration. Thus, were it not for him, history would have been different. I was being facetious with the Ebay comment, but the rest of it stands.