Yes, but specialization has benefits. Economies of scale and such. You can pay for ALL of that on someone else's self-driven car and still pay significantly less than you do for your own car. This is because they can get a bulk rate on their insurance, or even self insure if they are big enough. They can have their own staff mechanics, get bulk pricing on parts fuel, and fluids, etc etc. That plus it is far more economical to have the car rolling 24/7 than to have it mouldering in driveways or parking lots for 20 hours a day.
Eh, not really. The trend is very clearly against religion. With the internet, everyone can look and see everything that is wrong with it on their own. From self-contradictions to huge tracts of it filled with ideology that is completely foreign to modern (superior) morality. No, we don't stone people to death for eating meat on Fridays, nor for being gay, nor for any number of other idiotic things.
No, most people will stop buying cars and just hire them as needed, as it will be cheaper than owning a car. Big companies that own fleets of such vehicles will either negotiate better rates or simple self insure.
And by exactly which magical mechanism does the energy get into the molecule, if not by IR absorption? Phlogiston?
Molecules absorb and hold energy in their bonds. You can tell which bonds hold how much energy from the spectrum (its the area under the curve, as I said). This is spectroscopy 101.
Yeah, and your dog could just go psycho for no reason and eat your children. Better put him down!
How do you think the kids will like that?
I don't think terrorists or even al-CIAda and associated ISISraelholes would be so whimsical as to buy their guys funny costumes before they murder innocent people to stir up resentment for heavily oppressed brown people.
Really all it is is telling people "DON'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, WE DON'T LIKE THAT". Fuck that.
Sorry, I'm not Snowden. He probably has something on the subject in the 99% of documents he has yet to release, though. All I have is anecdote.
But be fair. If you were in charge, wouldn't you block funding to these crazies? Why are you wasting taxpayer money on people who are so unscientific and, well, just downright evil?
Do you think the people who work at granting agencies are angels?
No, fuck you. Science is SACRED, even if it isn't a God. I'm not going to allow you, or anyone else to besmirch it. It's our only hope, and every time someone misuses it, it grows a little dimmer.
So, you're saying that nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 are the only components of the atmosphere? Sorry, I did the math. You are leaving out quite a bit, especially WATER.
Heat capacity IS spectral absorption. RAMAN+IR spectral absorption. If you disagree, then one of us doesn't know what he is talking about, and I have the degree in the subject.
No, it most certainly is not. You take a transparent vessel, put a heat lamp in front of it, and stand on the other side. Normal air? You can feel the heat through the vessel. Fill the vessel with CO2 gas, and you immediately notice a significant reduction in the heat felt. You can quantify the decrease using IR sensors/FLIR cameras and plate thermometers. Very straightforward.
[citation needed]
More gas, more absorption.
Yes, until 100% of the radiation is absorbed, which happens at a pretty low concentration, one that we already passed. IE there is no difference between an atmosphere where 100% of photons are absorbed within 20 meters, and one where it happens within 10. This is because it is SATURATED. More doesn't matter. That is what the word "saturation" means.
"so the CO2 does not stay where it is generated for very long"
Yale begs to disagree. http://e360.yale.edu/digest/co... CO2 domes are a well known phenomenon, and any organization that DENIES their existence should immediately lose credibility in this discussion. Luckily for NASA, that isn't at all what that web page is about.
Also, please stop making shit up because it sounds like it supports your argument. All you are doing is destroying your own credibility. Ideas are not soldiers. You are not obligated to support ideas that are on your side even if they are wrong or weak.
Really, just a duckduckgo search for "percentage of land that is irrigated" and "percentage of land that is paved". Its a lot. If you don't believe me, take the window seat next time you fly across country and MARVEL at the number of huge circles of irrigated farmland. Or just look out the window of your apartment and note how much of the area that you can see is or isn't paved.
Whether or not they are valid, blacklists suppress dissent. The Nazis did that too, as did every authoritarian regime in human history. Why don't you let people hear both sides of the flat Earth story, rather than forcing the eccentric genius biologist who believes in it into retirement? The people, especially the educated ones, whose opinions actually matter, will look at the evidence and make a decision for themselves. This is the best way to avoid a situation like that which Copernicus found himself in (isn't it OBVIOUS that the Sun goes around the Earth!? What are you, nuts?).
In the fianl analysis, flat Earth theory is dependent on a torturous mathematical model that makes Earth special for no apparent reason, which is highly unlikely, making their suppositions highly unlikely. AGW, on the other hand, has a number of major problems, some of which I have pointed out (ie they have picked the wrong horse in terms of GHGs, and they appear to have manipulated raw data to agree with their conclusion).
It largely isn't melting. For example, Antarctic sea ice is at historical highs, at least according to several sources (though they could all be in on or fooled by some conspiracy). But yes, glaciers advance and retreat. This is natural. I would posit it is more of an effect of humidity than cold, as I live in a semi-arid climate, and the ice in my ice cube trays keeps sublimating.
See, your problem is that you are working off of faulty (at least, according to me--check your own work) assumptions, namely that people who are directly supervised by and receive funding from politicians can be trusted not to have bias.
It may sound crazy, but loads of communists moved into the environmental movement after they realized that Communism was a non-starter among Americans, and have been working to undermine capitalism using an environmental justification ever since. This is why they chose CO2, which is an unavoidable product of the combustion of fossil fuels, and not easy to remedy (like the other one, water, would be). You can tell a true environmentalist from a communist plant by whether or not they support nuclear technology/power production. Note also that McCarthy was recently proven to be largely correct in his assertion that communists were infiltrating America.
Re:as a school administrator, i can explain.
on
Stormtrooper Arrested
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I saw an interesting commentary on that--there was supposition that the storm troopers actually let them get away on purpose in hopes that they would lead them to the Rebel base, which they did. Normally Storm Troopers are deadly accurate, as seen when they shot up the sand cruiser.
But of course, that is too intelligent an idea to credit George Lucas with, so it was probably just a coincidence.
"You're getting worked up over what you THINK people mean."
No, I get worked up over what people SUBCONSCIOUSLY mean, because it has a serious impact on behavior. People can use "science" as a mind killer. This is unacceptable to me. Politics needs to stay OUT of science, to the greatest extent possible.
Oops, sorry, left the "nature" groups out. Go to the high desert where there are no people (and thus less CO2), and you will find cold nights as well. Similarly, 95% humidity areas far from civilization have hot nights. It should become clear from this that humidity is the dominant cause for heat retention, not CO2. And we do, in fact, pump a LOT of water into the air. It's on the same order of magnitude as would be expected for the observed warming.
Except the blanket ISN'T transparent. You are adding GREY specs that are very slightly LIGHTER than the average of the rest of the material.
Yes, you can do that experiment, but you would need to compare it to regular atmosphere (with the average humidity taken across the entire planet). Do that, and you find that the difference is within the margin of error. Done with a more precise procedure, you find that the CO2 is slightly less than the regular atmosphere (including monatomic and diatomic gasses).
Let me ask you: do you think the Earth has 100% humidity in the atmosphere at all times? Yes, I have seen this question DOZENS of times before, and it is no more valid now than any other time anyone who hadn't thought about the problem for five minutes asked me.
Water vapor absolutely does NOT trap IR the same way as CO2. The water "peak" is broad and low, meaning the more water you have, the more absorption you get, ie it scales linearly. CO2 has a thin, sharp, very tall peak, meaning it becomes saturated at low concentrations, meaning the absorption levels off quickly, at concentrations below current.
Just pull up the two spectra and integrate the number under each peak. It should be clear to you, that even if CO2 weren't already saturated, that a fraction of a percent of a change in H2O would swamp the effect from even a ten-fold increase in CO2. This is also obvious just from basic human experience. Go to any large city in a desert area (which should have CO2 levels three times the average for Earth). It gets cold at night. Go to a similar city, but in an area with 95% humidity (assuming no clouds), and guess what? HOT NIGHTS.
That is where you are completely wrong. Granting institutions blacklist ANYONE who comes out against AGW, no matter the field. Whether or not AGW is real, or comes from the proposed mechanism is irrelevant. If you speak out against it, right or wrong, you lose everything. This is ten-fold the case with climate scientists. Other branches might be able to seek funding elsewhere, whether from unaligned industry sources or the extremely biased Koch Brothers, but climate scientists don't have even that meager fallback.
I am a scientist. I have applied for and received million dollar grants. There are key words that are often used increase the probability of funding. "Global Warming" is one of them.
As much as scientists like to poke holes in theories, they absolutely will not do it when their funding is at stake. Even the most brutal attack dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds. And if he does, well, you know what happens.
That is a sad and pathetic point of view. I, for one, want to believe that reality is what it is. I don't care how people feel about it (although if pushed, I would want them to feel good and not ostracized, because I'm not a sociopath, or someone taking on a role that requires one to act like one).
No, it isn't, but its all we have. It's the only path toward transcending our biases, but we have to actively work at that, and stay in practice, at least until we get cerebral augments that take care of those biases for us.
"I think you're quibbling too much over rhetoric though."
Absolutely not. People say "Science says this," or "Science says that," as if Science is some sort of God. That is EXTREMELY dangerous thinking, and it has sadly taken firm hold in the West. Like warmongering priests of old, they can simply cite "Science" as the ancients (and not so ancients) cited "God" as the cause for doing all sorts of terrible things, like causing Africa to starve because of decreased agricultural production in the US (which is the main source for food aid in the third world).
"here has been enough fraud discovered in those who purport to be skeptical towards academia for allegedly valid reasons"
They used to call them "heretics" and burn them at the stake. Doesn't make them right, of course. Doesn't matter which stupid god you believe in, they are all a fantasy, as is the "god" called Science.
Respect and use the method, don't worship those who claim to adhere to it.
The understanding is right, its just that there is a meme going around that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a vacuum means it is a GHG in our atmospere. Its heat capacity is actually lower than the weighted average of other atmospheric components. This is like trying to make a warmer blanket by adding metal shavings in with the fluff.
If the warming measurements are accurate, anthropic modification of the water cycle (ie irrigation, paving, combustion pushes ever more water into the atmospere) is a more likely source. Of course, you need a little knowledge of physical chemistry and spectroscopy, and a huge fucking ego to stand up and say that this is the case, and climate scientists are all biased and are merely protecting their funding sources. After all, it is almost impossible to get a human who is paid to believe something to realize it is a lie, and even impossiber to get him to stand up and proclaim the truth. Sad fact of human nature.
Nah. I'm a "denier" and I post as myself all the time. Excellent karma. Mainly I try not to be a jerk and post high level, thoughtful rebuttals. Of course, commentors will scream me down for slaughtering their idea soldiers (never agree with a bad argument just because it is on your side--they aren't soldiers, and it isn't treason to put them down for being weak), but then they can't mod that thread.
Thats like telling an atheist to get his rebuttal of religion published in the Bible. The holders of those keys are systemically biased because they are funded by a single source which is controlled by people whose job it is to be biased and to enforce their bias at gunpoint if need be (ie politicians).
Put apolitical figures in charge of granting institutions will go a long way toward remedying this pressing concern.
Science is a method, not a result, nor a being. "Science" doesn't say anything. With highly politicised topics like this, it is not the data that tells the tale, but rather those flawed humans who may or may not appropriately report the data that tells the tale.
There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but specialization has benefits. Economies of scale and such. You can pay for ALL of that on someone else's self-driven car and still pay significantly less than you do for your own car. This is because they can get a bulk rate on their insurance, or even self insure if they are big enough. They can have their own staff mechanics, get bulk pricing on parts fuel, and fluids, etc etc. That plus it is far more economical to have the car rolling 24/7 than to have it mouldering in driveways or parking lots for 20 hours a day.
Eh, not really. The trend is very clearly against religion. With the internet, everyone can look and see everything that is wrong with it on their own. From self-contradictions to huge tracts of it filled with ideology that is completely foreign to modern (superior) morality. No, we don't stone people to death for eating meat on Fridays, nor for being gay, nor for any number of other idiotic things.
No, most people will stop buying cars and just hire them as needed, as it will be cheaper than owning a car. Big companies that own fleets of such vehicles will either negotiate better rates or simple self insure.
And by exactly which magical mechanism does the energy get into the molecule, if not by IR absorption? Phlogiston?
Molecules absorb and hold energy in their bonds. You can tell which bonds hold how much energy from the spectrum (its the area under the curve, as I said). This is spectroscopy 101.
Sorry--should have said heat capacity is proportional to the area under the curve (ie the integral) of the IR absorption spectrum.
Sorry, not really a Star Wars aficionado. Do you know where it was said? I'd like to waste some time looking at nerdy things before bed tonight.
Yeah, and your dog could just go psycho for no reason and eat your children. Better put him down!
How do you think the kids will like that?
I don't think terrorists or even al-CIAda and associated ISISraelholes would be so whimsical as to buy their guys funny costumes before they murder innocent people to stir up resentment for heavily oppressed brown people.
Really all it is is telling people "DON'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, WE DON'T LIKE THAT". Fuck that.
Sorry, I'm not Snowden. He probably has something on the subject in the 99% of documents he has yet to release, though. All I have is anecdote.
But be fair. If you were in charge, wouldn't you block funding to these crazies? Why are you wasting taxpayer money on people who are so unscientific and, well, just downright evil?
Do you think the people who work at granting agencies are angels?
No, fuck you. Science is SACRED, even if it isn't a God. I'm not going to allow you, or anyone else to besmirch it. It's our only hope, and every time someone misuses it, it grows a little dimmer.
So, you're saying that nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 are the only components of the atmosphere? Sorry, I did the math. You are leaving out quite a bit, especially WATER.
Heat capacity IS spectral absorption. RAMAN+IR spectral absorption. If you disagree, then one of us doesn't know what he is talking about, and I have the degree in the subject.
No, it most certainly is not. You take a transparent vessel, put a heat lamp in front of it, and stand on the other side. Normal air? You can feel the heat through the vessel. Fill the vessel with CO2 gas, and you immediately notice a significant reduction in the heat felt. You can quantify the decrease using IR sensors/FLIR cameras and plate thermometers. Very straightforward.
[citation needed]
More gas, more absorption.
Yes, until 100% of the radiation is absorbed, which happens at a pretty low concentration, one that we already passed. IE there is no difference between an atmosphere where 100% of photons are absorbed within 20 meters, and one where it happens within 10. This is because it is SATURATED. More doesn't matter. That is what the word "saturation" means.
"so the CO2 does not stay where it is generated for very long"
Yale begs to disagree. http://e360.yale.edu/digest/co... CO2 domes are a well known phenomenon, and any organization that DENIES their existence should immediately lose credibility in this discussion. Luckily for NASA, that isn't at all what that web page is about.
Also, please stop making shit up because it sounds like it supports your argument. All you are doing is destroying your own credibility. Ideas are not soldiers. You are not obligated to support ideas that are on your side even if they are wrong or weak.
"[citation needed]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://news.nationalgeographic...
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/v...
Really, just a duckduckgo search for "percentage of land that is irrigated" and "percentage of land that is paved". Its a lot. If you don't believe me, take the window seat next time you fly across country and MARVEL at the number of huge circles of irrigated farmland. Or just look out the window of your apartment and note how much of the area that you can see is or isn't paved.
Whether or not they are valid, blacklists suppress dissent. The Nazis did that too, as did every authoritarian regime in human history. Why don't you let people hear both sides of the flat Earth story, rather than forcing the eccentric genius biologist who believes in it into retirement? The people, especially the educated ones, whose opinions actually matter, will look at the evidence and make a decision for themselves. This is the best way to avoid a situation like that which Copernicus found himself in (isn't it OBVIOUS that the Sun goes around the Earth!? What are you, nuts?).
In the fianl analysis, flat Earth theory is dependent on a torturous mathematical model that makes Earth special for no apparent reason, which is highly unlikely, making their suppositions highly unlikely. AGW, on the other hand, has a number of major problems, some of which I have pointed out (ie they have picked the wrong horse in terms of GHGs, and they appear to have manipulated raw data to agree with their conclusion).
It largely isn't melting. For example, Antarctic sea ice is at historical highs, at least according to several sources (though they could all be in on or fooled by some conspiracy). But yes, glaciers advance and retreat. This is natural. I would posit it is more of an effect of humidity than cold, as I live in a semi-arid climate, and the ice in my ice cube trays keeps sublimating.
See, your problem is that you are working off of faulty (at least, according to me--check your own work) assumptions, namely that people who are directly supervised by and receive funding from politicians can be trusted not to have bias.
It may sound crazy, but loads of communists moved into the environmental movement after they realized that Communism was a non-starter among Americans, and have been working to undermine capitalism using an environmental justification ever since. This is why they chose CO2, which is an unavoidable product of the combustion of fossil fuels, and not easy to remedy (like the other one, water, would be). You can tell a true environmentalist from a communist plant by whether or not they support nuclear technology/power production. Note also that McCarthy was recently proven to be largely correct in his assertion that communists were infiltrating America.
I saw an interesting commentary on that--there was supposition that the storm troopers actually let them get away on purpose in hopes that they would lead them to the Rebel base, which they did. Normally Storm Troopers are deadly accurate, as seen when they shot up the sand cruiser.
But of course, that is too intelligent an idea to credit George Lucas with, so it was probably just a coincidence.
Sounds a lot like screwing around to me, wasting everyone's time over absolutely nothing.
I don't know if you noticed or not, but most of our presidents since Woodrow Wilson tend to use that particular document to wipe their asses with.
"You're getting worked up over what you THINK people mean."
No, I get worked up over what people SUBCONSCIOUSLY mean, because it has a serious impact on behavior. People can use "science" as a mind killer. This is unacceptable to me. Politics needs to stay OUT of science, to the greatest extent possible.
Oops, sorry, left the "nature" groups out. Go to the high desert where there are no people (and thus less CO2), and you will find cold nights as well. Similarly, 95% humidity areas far from civilization have hot nights. It should become clear from this that humidity is the dominant cause for heat retention, not CO2. And we do, in fact, pump a LOT of water into the air. It's on the same order of magnitude as would be expected for the observed warming.
Except the blanket ISN'T transparent. You are adding GREY specs that are very slightly LIGHTER than the average of the rest of the material.
Yes, you can do that experiment, but you would need to compare it to regular atmosphere (with the average humidity taken across the entire planet). Do that, and you find that the difference is within the margin of error. Done with a more precise procedure, you find that the CO2 is slightly less than the regular atmosphere (including monatomic and diatomic gasses).
Let me ask you: do you think the Earth has 100% humidity in the atmosphere at all times? Yes, I have seen this question DOZENS of times before, and it is no more valid now than any other time anyone who hadn't thought about the problem for five minutes asked me.
Water vapor absolutely does NOT trap IR the same way as CO2. The water "peak" is broad and low, meaning the more water you have, the more absorption you get, ie it scales linearly. CO2 has a thin, sharp, very tall peak, meaning it becomes saturated at low concentrations, meaning the absorption levels off quickly, at concentrations below current.
Just pull up the two spectra and integrate the number under each peak. It should be clear to you, that even if CO2 weren't already saturated, that a fraction of a percent of a change in H2O would swamp the effect from even a ten-fold increase in CO2. This is also obvious just from basic human experience. Go to any large city in a desert area (which should have CO2 levels three times the average for Earth). It gets cold at night. Go to a similar city, but in an area with 95% humidity (assuming no clouds), and guess what? HOT NIGHTS.
"Scientists aren't paid to believe anything"
That is where you are completely wrong. Granting institutions blacklist ANYONE who comes out against AGW, no matter the field. Whether or not AGW is real, or comes from the proposed mechanism is irrelevant. If you speak out against it, right or wrong, you lose everything. This is ten-fold the case with climate scientists. Other branches might be able to seek funding elsewhere, whether from unaligned industry sources or the extremely biased Koch Brothers, but climate scientists don't have even that meager fallback.
I am a scientist. I have applied for and received million dollar grants. There are key words that are often used increase the probability of funding. "Global Warming" is one of them.
As much as scientists like to poke holes in theories, they absolutely will not do it when their funding is at stake. Even the most brutal attack dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds. And if he does, well, you know what happens.
That is a sad and pathetic point of view. I, for one, want to believe that reality is what it is. I don't care how people feel about it (although if pushed, I would want them to feel good and not ostracized, because I'm not a sociopath, or someone taking on a role that requires one to act like one).
"Seems not to be much of a method then."
No, it isn't, but its all we have. It's the only path toward transcending our biases, but we have to actively work at that, and stay in practice, at least until we get cerebral augments that take care of those biases for us.
"I think you're quibbling too much over rhetoric though."
Absolutely not. People say "Science says this," or "Science says that," as if Science is some sort of God. That is EXTREMELY dangerous thinking, and it has sadly taken firm hold in the West. Like warmongering priests of old, they can simply cite "Science" as the ancients (and not so ancients) cited "God" as the cause for doing all sorts of terrible things, like causing Africa to starve because of decreased agricultural production in the US (which is the main source for food aid in the third world).
"here has been enough fraud discovered in those who purport to be skeptical towards academia for allegedly valid reasons"
They used to call them "heretics" and burn them at the stake. Doesn't make them right, of course. Doesn't matter which stupid god you believe in, they are all a fantasy, as is the "god" called Science.
Respect and use the method, don't worship those who claim to adhere to it.
The understanding is right, its just that there is a meme going around that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a vacuum means it is a GHG in our atmospere. Its heat capacity is actually lower than the weighted average of other atmospheric components. This is like trying to make a warmer blanket by adding metal shavings in with the fluff. If the warming measurements are accurate, anthropic modification of the water cycle (ie irrigation, paving, combustion pushes ever more water into the atmospere) is a more likely source. Of course, you need a little knowledge of physical chemistry and spectroscopy, and a huge fucking ego to stand up and say that this is the case, and climate scientists are all biased and are merely protecting their funding sources. After all, it is almost impossible to get a human who is paid to believe something to realize it is a lie, and even impossiber to get him to stand up and proclaim the truth. Sad fact of human nature.
Nah. I'm a "denier" and I post as myself all the time. Excellent karma. Mainly I try not to be a jerk and post high level, thoughtful rebuttals. Of course, commentors will scream me down for slaughtering their idea soldiers (never agree with a bad argument just because it is on your side--they aren't soldiers, and it isn't treason to put them down for being weak), but then they can't mod that thread.
Thats like telling an atheist to get his rebuttal of religion published in the Bible. The holders of those keys are systemically biased because they are funded by a single source which is controlled by people whose job it is to be biased and to enforce their bias at gunpoint if need be (ie politicians). Put apolitical figures in charge of granting institutions will go a long way toward remedying this pressing concern.
Science is a method, not a result, nor a being. "Science" doesn't say anything. With highly politicised topics like this, it is not the data that tells the tale, but rather those flawed humans who may or may not appropriately report the data that tells the tale. There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value.