Have you actually read any papers in climatology? The field is rife with "we used a computer model and some plausible physical laws, came up with some hypotheses, and used the model to experimentally verify".
You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly. Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps? Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?
Something you may be interested in, though water vapor makes the calculation much more complex so this is for Venus.
Derivation: The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z). The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT). Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
= T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))
That's a nice experiment that I assume proves that CO2 absorbs IR better than air (and, like a greenhouse, heats up because of stopping convection, unlike the atmosphere).
It also completely ignores the dynamics of a CO2 based atmosphere like, say, Venus. From just the adiabatic lapse rate and barometric equation, you can easily see that Venus is hot because of 92 atmospheres of pressure, and a pure CO2 atmosphere would be slightly cooler than N2/O2 because of its lower specific heat capacity.
Unfortunately, The Union Of Concerned Scientists article is too busy with political arguments like consensus and conspiracy theories about Exxon's lobbying power to provide much info on how to get paid for regurgitating my undergrad thermodynamics text.
Except that Venus' temperature is caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.
Derivation: The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z). The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT). Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
= T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))
So the only things that cause the Greenhouse Effect (on Venus, water makes the calculation more complex for Earth) are specific heat capacity, and pressure. By the time CO2 reaches levels enough to affect the climate, we'd be dead from poisoning.
Yeah, I searched a bit more, and The Algonquin Wits would be from the Algonquin round table, which was from 1919-1929, so the Mussolini book is probably correct. This is going to bug me enough that since there's no clear answer on the internet I'll head to the library.
TO ANYONE COMING FROM A SEARCH ENGINE: my quote is probably incorrect, and I don't have a copy of The Algonquin Wits to look up the correct answer. Also, why are you looking up information on the internet, which was clearly created to spread vicious rumors and slander, half-truths, parroting stuff someone else said as verbatim, misattributes, and all other manner of general dishonesty.
A better example would be a book on calculus from the 19th century, since most of the mathematical notation was standardized then. Newton may have been first with calculus, but god he should loose all credit for such crappily communicating it, even by the standards of the day (thank you Leibniz).
You're right that the GP's use of sunk cost was incorrect, however, it seems you both agree that the issue is whether we're throwing good money after bad.
I don't think your calculations work unless the Chinese are made of nanotubes.
Wait, are the Chinese made of nanotubes, and their pwning the gold medals is just the beginning...
Well, I for one welcome our new Chinese nanotube overlords.
Anything past episode 20 or so, including the movies, makes a lot more sense if you smoke a bunch of DMT. Well, at least more sense than any ideas you'll be having.
C2H2 would be acetylene, but that's two carbons and has a triple bond. CH2 only exists in the middle of most hydrocarbons, otherwise it'd be extremely reactive because of wanting two hydrogens of equivalents.
If I'm eating bratwurst, I get sub rolls, which come in packs of 6, and are of much higher quality bread than hot dog buns. Now the problem reduces to finding suitable sizes of sauerkraut and brown mustard.
The thing I find annoying about psychology is best illustrated by an example from the Chicago Tribune Magazine. There was some woman working in advertising using psychology, who claimed to know what men want, then bemoaned her inability finding one. All I'm asking for is say, at least the level of understanding that spam emails selling ebooks about being "cocky and funny" for success picking up women have.
The problem as I see it, is that most people *actually want* a nanny state, they just disagree on what needs to be controlled first. This is the reason libertarian is pretty much doomed to be a minority, unless you make up some "fascist-libertarianism" that gives most people the big brother they seem to *need* (only fascist in the sense that "crimes against libertarianism" are the worst possible).
Regarding your sig, is there an IL law like that? Cause I wouldn't put it past Daley and his batshit insane power grabs like the Grant Park Children's Museum Tomb.
The first numbers are blackbody calculations, the second numbers are from probes or weather stations
The point was that while the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead, that's more from having a much thicker atmosphere than from CO2 causing a greenhouse effect.
Why would 1C be bad? Given that doomsday scenarios are predicted with doubling CO2, which clearly isn't true as shown by Venus calculations, and that predictions are being made for 2100, why exactly should I trust climatology over basic thermodynamics and empirical data?
Yes, I am confident this will have no effect on climate.
I point you to Venus.
At 1 Earth atm on Venus, it's only ~14C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (69C vs 55C), while Earth (at 1 Earth atm) is only ~9C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (15C vs 6C).
I do agree that fossil fuels need to be managed better, but I think $5 gal gas is the best incentive.
At 1 Earth atm on Venus, it's only ~14C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (69C vs 55C), while Earth (at 1 Earth atm) is only ~9C hotter than blackbody calcuations predict (15C vs 6C).
Pretty much every step in: Humans cause increased CO2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Global Temperature Goes UP, etc has such a trivial major cause for being skeptical, though I still want to know what is the radiative balance of the Earth (Satellites have been using it is calculate temperature since 78, but I can't find any data on it)
Slashdot Mirror
Have you actually read any papers in climatology? The field is rife with "we used a computer model and some plausible physical laws, came up with some hypotheses, and used the model to experimentally verify".
As for even being reproducible:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. - Phil Jones
That's not science, and in that environment peer review is just groupthink.
You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly. Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps? Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?
Something you may be interested in, though water vapor makes the calculation much more complex so this is for Venus.
Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
= T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))
That's a nice experiment that I assume proves that CO2 absorbs IR better than air (and, like a greenhouse, heats up because of stopping convection, unlike the atmosphere).
It also completely ignores the dynamics of a CO2 based atmosphere like, say, Venus. From just the adiabatic lapse rate and barometric equation, you can easily see that Venus is hot because of 92 atmospheres of pressure, and a pure CO2 atmosphere would be slightly cooler than N2/O2 because of its lower specific heat capacity.
T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) Derivation here
Unfortunately, The Union Of Concerned Scientists article is too busy with political arguments like consensus and conspiracy theories about Exxon's lobbying power to provide much info on how to get paid for regurgitating my undergrad thermodynamics text.
Do you have any ideas who I should contact to get funding to expand Venus' temperature caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure into a more detailed paper?
Except that Venus' temperature is caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.
Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
= T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))
So the only things that cause the Greenhouse Effect (on Venus, water makes the calculation more complex for Earth) are specific heat capacity, and pressure. By the time CO2 reaches levels enough to affect the climate, we'd be dead from poisoning.
Yeah, I searched a bit more, and The Algonquin Wits would be from the Algonquin round table, which was from 1919-1929, so the Mussolini book is probably correct. This is going to bug me enough that since there's no clear answer on the internet I'll head to the library.
TO ANYONE COMING FROM A SEARCH ENGINE: my quote is probably incorrect, and I don't have a copy of The Algonquin Wits to look up the correct answer. Also, why are you looking up information on the internet, which was clearly created to spread vicious rumors and slander, half-truths, parroting stuff someone else said as verbatim, misattributes, and all other manner of general dishonesty.
There, I've served my penance.
Tuna nicoise = best food ever.
Which reminds me: California Nicoise Salad
Because nothing tastes better than food with a French name, especially when it translates to "California as made in Nice salad".
A better example would be a book on calculus from the 19th century, since most of the mathematical notation was standardized then. Newton may have been first with calculus, but god he should loose all credit for such crappily communicating it, even by the standards of the day (thank you Leibniz).
This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
Quoted in The Algonquin Wits (1968) ed. by Robert E. Drennan. The novel was Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
You forgot lithium.
(Which apparently a large percentage of the posters on this topic forget to take.)
>If speculation was so lucrative ...
>Then why isn't Delta cutting the middleman and engaging in its own speculation?
Because then they'd be Southwest and actually be successful? (If you count hedging as speculation)
You're right that the GP's use of sunk cost was incorrect, however, it seems you both agree that the issue is whether we're throwing good money after bad.
I don't think your calculations work unless the Chinese are made of nanotubes. Wait, are the Chinese made of nanotubes, and their pwning the gold medals is just the beginning... Well, I for one welcome our new Chinese nanotube overlords.
Anything past episode 20 or so, including the movies, makes a lot more sense if you smoke a bunch of DMT. Well, at least more sense than any ideas you'll be having.
C2H2 would be acetylene, but that's two carbons and has a triple bond. CH2 only exists in the middle of most hydrocarbons, otherwise it'd be extremely reactive because of wanting two hydrogens of equivalents.
If I'm eating bratwurst, I get sub rolls, which come in packs of 6, and are of much higher quality bread than hot dog buns. Now the problem reduces to finding suitable sizes of sauerkraut and brown mustard.
The thing I find annoying about psychology is best illustrated by an example from the Chicago Tribune Magazine. There was some woman working in advertising using psychology, who claimed to know what men want, then bemoaned her inability finding one. All I'm asking for is say, at least the level of understanding that spam emails selling ebooks about being "cocky and funny" for success picking up women have.
The problem as I see it, is that most people *actually want* a nanny state, they just disagree on what needs to be controlled first. This is the reason libertarian is pretty much doomed to be a minority, unless you make up some "fascist-libertarianism" that gives most people the big brother they seem to *need* (only fascist in the sense that "crimes against libertarianism" are the worst possible).
Regarding your sig, is there an IL law like that? Cause I wouldn't put it past Daley and his batshit insane power grabs like the Grant Park Children's Museum Tomb.
The first numbers are blackbody calculations, the second numbers are from probes or weather stations The point was that while the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead, that's more from having a much thicker atmosphere than from CO2 causing a greenhouse effect.
Why would 1C be bad? Given that doomsday scenarios are predicted with doubling CO2, which clearly isn't true as shown by Venus calculations, and that predictions are being made for 2100, why exactly should I trust climatology over basic thermodynamics and empirical data?
Yes, I am confident this will have no effect on climate.
I point you to Venus.
At 1 Earth atm on Venus, it's only ~14C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (69C vs 55C), while Earth (at 1 Earth atm) is only ~9C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (15C vs 6C).
I do agree that fossil fuels need to be managed better, but I think $5 gal gas is the best incentive.
At 1 Earth atm on Venus, it's only ~14C hotter than blackbody calculations predict (69C vs 55C), while Earth (at 1 Earth atm) is only ~9C hotter than blackbody calcuations predict (15C vs 6C).
Pretty much every step in: Humans cause increased CO2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Global Temperature Goes UP, etc has such a trivial major cause for being skeptical, though I still want to know what is the radiative balance of the Earth (Satellites have been using it is calculate temperature since 78, but I can't find any data on it)
You are my hero, far too many people will want to "help" your son "fit in", especially if he's smarter than average and confident about it.