51 posts • joined 15 Feb 2011
Re: Questions for rocket scientists:
All these approximations are orbit to orbit.
that's the easy part.
Re: Just a quick double check, it's not April 1st...
Was suggested maybe 50 years ago that a tank of water heated by a ground based tight laser beam makes a good interplanetary engine.
Re: Obvious nonsense
The original research papers themselves don't make such extravagant claims. Their purpose is not to sell advertising space, as is the purpose of newspapers, tv, and the web. That is why all those are devoted to dividing every thing in the universe into things that kill you, and things that save your life. With many things apparently on both lists.
"I don't want to die and I really don't want to die of cancer! Isn't there something I can do? Some medicine I can take? Anything? I'm desperate! "
"No need to go to such lengths, just eat fruits and vegetables"
"Ummm, err, anything. . Is there anything? "
"Seriously, anything? "
Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!
Despite the fundamentalists' (again false) belief that they represent traditional religion, it is only the religion of the Dark Ages in Europe which they represent.
More often, traditionally, science and religion did not clash; to the scientists of the Enlightenment, Newton for example, scientific study and discoveries were another form of worship; unfortunately, I can't remember which one it was who said that nature provided another Testament, the language of which was mathematics.
And even before that, while Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world unequivocally tied science to the glory of God, and the foremost Jewish thinker of the post-Talmudic era, Maimonides, around 1100 used as a starting point the assumption that to use scripture to try to refute either the teachings of science, or common sense, was a grievous error.
The fundamentalists of today, no matter what particular religion they espouse, all share intellectual laziness or incompetence, the very opposite of what the great figures in religion historically represented.
Re: Breaking News!!
"Wasn't it recently established that you get better government by randomly picking names from a phone book than from ANY of the diluted flavours of democracy currently practiced?"
Yes, I think you could make the argument that running for office should be enough to label a person as unfit for office.
Re: Breaking News!!
"Compared to a country that chooses it's leaders from the same heriditory class that went to a couple of boys-only schools and then studied politics at one university. Where not a single minister has any technical background and who fire science advisors if they fail to agree with the Daily Mail."
And we still end up with smarter, better, more liked and more competent leaders than yours."
It's the money. There are huge profits to be made by manipulating the media in America.
Re: Breaking News!!
"It's not that Americans are any more stupid than any other race - it's that they are poorly informed."
"No, they really are stupid and not just stupid, but proud of it!"
I submit that they are extremely well informed, however the information they are being informed with is manufactured to sell a political opinion, as thoroughly and efficiently as the majority of the information they are informed with regarding any particular fast food outlet, for example, is manufactured to sell them burgers.
Re: Breaking News!!
" CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms."
* No, it is Earth warms -> CO2 rises."
Sure, if you ignore the known IR absorption of CO2, and the big dent in the earth's radiated EM energy, right where CO2 absorbs
and conservation of energy, and the earth's temperature being 33 degrees C warmer than it should be purely from the sun's radiation at this distance (take the moon for example), then sure, the earth wouldn't warm proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration. On the other hand, if you accept all these, and as the earth warms, CO2 rises (which seems to be true), then we are kind of entering a bad period. Much as the Australian colonists experienced, without having to debate whether the number of baby rabbits rose after the number of adults, or was it that the number of adult rabbits rose after the number of babies?
" Computer models used by warmers produce high correlation between the temperature and CO2. The CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years, while the temperature is almost flat."
Just like it was almost flat from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and Oct '02 to Dec '11 yet, that didn't seem to signal the end of the 42-year warming trend nearly linear from Jan '70 to Dec '11 (which you need, to explain your "Earth warms -> CO2 rises" and " CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years"). Denialists are like an ant climbing a staircase, who repeats "Whew, glad the climbing part is over" every time he gets to the flat part of a tread.
"The models do not model clouds and therefore the feedback mechanisms"
Well, yes they do, they always have. However, the IPCC has always stated that cloud feedbacks were the most uncertain of the modeled effects. Spencer et al used to rely on the hope that these effects would be negative. But that argument was valid 10 or even 5 years ago, not today.
"They are almost always wrong on the warmer side
So, you and Roy Spencer, as shown by his graph you linked to, admit that it IS warming, about 2-3 degrees C per decade, but not 6 degrees per decade? Well, that's a start. However, it's clear from the graph that he has displaced the "actual" temperatures to make them appear lower, by picking an alignment point to just this effect, i.e. a peak in the actual temps to a valley in the model, rather than aligning them to maximize closeness, as would be the logical and/or honest basis.
" Climategate emails showed how any dissent is supressed"
Not according to every investigation. You don't seem to have had problems finding such dissent. Or did you get Spencer's web page via some underground telegraph?
Re: IMG Breaking News!!
"There is no doubt that the more religious an American is the more likely he is to be a climate change denier.
There are literaly dozens of surveys which prove this."
Kind of funny; the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator screwed up on making the climate, but luckily by burning all the fossil fuel we can, a byproduct is that we will improve the climate.
Re: Breaking News!!
it's all a hoax! just like forest fires! there were forest fires long before there were humans, so obviously the argument that humans cause forest fires is nonsense! Just a hoax by Smokey the Bear, to keep up his lucrative government grants.
Re: Breaking News!!
("Mostly because of Man Made trapped gasses...")
Yeah, that's not exactly what they, or the theory, says.
Lend Lease, please
We only got to see like two seasons of it in the US. That is so frustrating.
nice of them, and probably very handy for wikipedia vandals, but generating large quantities of text on a virtual keyboard (or a real keyboard on a mobile, for that matter) is only slightly less odious than filming a major Hollywood movie on one.
"I'm sure I've read something about this kind of things before.."
The Great Baker House Snow Hack?
Something tells me this story has about as much reality behind it. Or maybe somebody could explain how taking hot dry air, running it through water so that it become cool (relatively) wet air, then mixing it with more hot dry air will result in condensation? Getting perilously close to perpetual motion there.
I suppose somebody will end up tying this to ":and therefore we see that climate change may not be manmade":
Re: That line.
I use that all the time for computer questions:
"The data warehouse shows all the customers with the same phone number"
"Hmm.... have you tried turning your computer off and turning it on again?'
Re: scientific ideas that lead from accepting it
Yes, Urban Heat Influence would certainly explain why the temperature is rising most rapidly in the Arctic and Antarctic, Siberia, etc. All those giant metropolises there.
"The truth is that we probably will not know for sure before climate historians debate the issue a thousand years from now. By then, they will have a thousand years of data (I'm assuming that the data will not have been fudged by "interested parties" and will be pristine, recorded data only - I may be wrong) and a wee bit of hindsight with which to refine their models."
Fascinating; you manage to argue that the evidence can only be judged long after the fact, and to pre-deny the results of that evidence should it not go the way you want, all at the same time. A denialist tour-de-force.
Well, that's certainly a new theory. You bucking for a job with a rightwing think tank? You're on the right path, they don't require any sort of aptitude for science, or logic in general.
Re: A quick correction
Even on a 5-year-average plot, which is abysmally noisy, you can see the JMA current estimate is above that from 1990 (I should probably point out that that is your "22 years", given the math skills discernible from the context), and that the slope is positive, both by linear fit and by eye. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
If you bother to go even further, and read the site in addition to bothering to look at the graphed data, you see that the JMA DOES NOT COVER THE POLES, which are warming faster than the rest of the Earth. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html
The text on that page further describes their procedure for generating an overall global estimate from a time sequence of gridded point data, or as your quaint phrase puts it, "fiddling the figures"; so you can see that "Not fiddling the figures" doesn't enter into it. It's not in Japanese, it's in English, if you can read that language.
The JMA kindly sprinkles other clues around their website, should you wish to avail yourself of them. For instance,
"The seasonal mean temperature for the summer from June to August 2010 over Japan was the highest among the historical records held by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) stretching back 113 years to 1898. ... The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2010 (i.e., the average of
the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was 0.34°C above normal (i.e., the
1971 – 2000 average), second only to that of 1998 since 1891."
Why do you guys always parrot what you read by people who make a living out of telling you things you wish to believe, and never bother to go look at the primary source? You always, ALWAYS end up looking like idiots and suckers.
Except for the part where the temperature has been rising. Even despite so much CO2 dissolving into the ocean that the pH is changing.
"Sapart feels the results mean climate scientists need to rethink what is a "normal" state for Earth's climate."
Uh, that would be hot, humid, and full of CO2, just as it was for the great majority of Earth's history, for billions of years before the current short time since photosynthesis sidetracked a lot of that CO2 out of the atmosphere and it got buried underground, resulting in an anomalous cool, dry, and less stormy epoch.
Of course, this deviation from the "normal" state is only metastable, and the potential energy stored in that fossil carbon means that it will eventually be returned to the atmospheric CO2 pool again and the climate will return to its normal hot, humid, and stormy state, like it was before there was any life on land. Wonder how/when that will happen?
Re: Coolness check-list
uhoh... Lucas electrics....
Mr. Son of Reagan:
You are apparently unfamiliar with the relatively recent ruling which establishes that corporations are persons in the eyes of the law and therefore are permitted to spend their money supporting whichever candidates they feel would be best for themselves, the country, and/or the world.
"Possessing a conservative bumper sticker is a good way to get your car keyed."
Possessing an Obama bumper sticker in some parts of the US is a good way to get your ass kicked. Your point is? Oh, right, liberals are not as wonderful as conservatives. Got it.
Re: 3 simple points
That graph seems to be evidence FOR sudden rapid warming in the past century or so.
Re: Solar Activity @ ac @ Posted Tuesday 10th July 2012 13:38 GMT
So you're going to stick to that story, eh?
"The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, " - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions
Re: Culture and Temperature
That sure explains why the Congolese Empire conquered Belgium.
Well, gee, nothing spells doom to a theory that hypothesizes that global average temperature has entered a new phase over the past century or less and has abruptly begun rising half a degree per decade or so, than a graph of "summer temperatures" which claims "the climate was often hotter than today", with no units on the temperature scale, on which the aforementioned last 100 years covers less than 7 mm and shows a distinct upwards streak, and on which the peak temperature a few years ago is seen to be higher than anything on the graph all the way back to a couple hundred BC, medieval warm period included.
I'll look up the original study later, but if this graph is the best argument you can provide, the you apparently don't understand the issues under discussion, no matter what the study says.
Re: Why on earth
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that converting to a hybrid is more advantageous for a large heavy vehicle which gets low city economy than a small light one which already gets good economy; and at the same time, less of a disadvantage for a large heavy vehicle which already weighs a lot than a small light vehicle which would be affected by the extra weight (and size of the hybrid stuff). Yet, the market for tiny hybrids continues to outstrip the market for big hybrid trucks and SUVs. Until you get to locomotives, of course.
Re: Why on earth
maybe Toyota can make them cheaper.
Re: "If you are driving too fast in the rain towards a brick wall and you MIGHT hit the brick wall"
what part of "not screwing with the climate randomly as a byproduct of the need to oxidize as much fossil fuel as possible as quickly as possible" reminds you of "swerving into another lane"?
Re: During the meanwhile ...
Well, don't stop there; tell us what "facts" would be relevant to the existence of tipping points in the global warming process? Other than "oops, we should have done something earlier, we're screwed now". which of course will be denied by all the usual suspects even after the fact, but I won't prejudge you on that.
My point, Ken Hagan, is "learn to file properly". → #
Actually, there's two types of filing (or storing of objects, for that matter). One is the good old "a place for every thing and every thing in its place" system which results in pegboards with outlines of tools drawn on them, etc. the other is the good old "heap" where stuff is located by search when needed, with or without indexing depending on size/need. each system has pros and cons.
However, it still only indexes (or searches in) files that it thinks that you should look in.
indeed. the old trick of finding the origin of random error junk by searching the program files to find which one contained the mystery text is long gone, for instance.
Dangerous space junk? Or valuable building material for orbital habitats, systematically launched over several decades prior to when it will be needed?
cooler heads fail
"There is nothing truly chaotic in the weather, it's just fundamental physics in operation, it is simply that we are unable to calculate the impact of all the variables to allow us to make truly exact predictions"
Umm... that's the basic definition of chaotic processes...
" Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
it's a conspiracy i tell you
The vastly wealthy and all-powerful climatologist cartel, scheming to retain their vastly wealthy grants.
The self-proclaimed geniuses here telling us that it's too complex to predict, would probably resist any suggestion that July in the northern hemisphere tends to be more warm than January, on the average. It's too chaotic to predict that!
Occam's slashing your wrists
The denialists need first to agree among themselves whether it never was warming, it was warming but it stopped, or it's still warming; then they need not only to explain what's causing/caused/didn't cause the warming (hint: "It's cyclical" isn't an explanation, it's an observation); they also need to explain WHY EXACTLY BURNING CARBON DOESN'T CAUSE A RISE IN CARBON DIOXIDE, AND WHY A RISE IN CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN'T CAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE TO RETAIN MORE INFRARED ENERGY as very basic physical theory predicts, and as the fact that the surface of the earth is warmer than the surface of the moon, for example, tends to confirm. I'm really tired of having to explain to people who are world-class scientists in their own minds that "The earth is not warming, and the warming is because of the sun" is not a scientific hypothesis.
I take it you read all the climatology journals, Physical Review Letters, etc. and find the publications wanting? Please be so kind as to enlighten us as to their faults, more specifically. We await your pearls of wisdom.
Whoever said that the Earth's existence depended on the existence of humanity?
"Again please correct me where my statements are incorrect"
Ah, well I believe you are in error where you assume that the scientific community is going to come to your house and sit you down and discuss their findings with you, so that you never have to go searching for the evidence yourself. However, I have ten minutes to spare, so I will attempt to lead you to water. Ten seconds of Googling and we find http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
First, check out the remarkable success of the now ancient and primitive original Hansen model from 23 years ago (Hansen's 2006 Graph Confirming 1988 Predictions)
as well as
" The following is a list of successful predictions made by the models:
Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere. For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed;
Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models.
Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed.
Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content.
Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and as you can see from figures 2 & 3, they have had a very good track record."
Of course, if you refuse to do your homework and follow up on these assertions, you can still sit there and complain that the scientific community hasn't proved it to you. That's not what they're paid to do, though.
Meanwhile, exactly what prediction/model has ever come from the What Me Warming? crowd that has ever come in any way close to being validated? And on a related note, anyone who's still thinking the infamous "lack of warming since 1998" predicts the end of the warming trend, can easily estimate the validity of that prediction, by simply counting the similar downward trends of temps over a few years over the background of unambiguously increasing temperatures over the past century, or 30 years, or whatever period you'd like to pick.
" as far as we know,"
What do you mean "we", o benighted one? Include me out of your society of deliberate know nothings.
predicting a new ice age
I guess it escaped your notice (or maybe you didn't bother to check....?) that the climatologists who were named as predicting a new ice age in the 70s are the same one predicting no AGW now? What's the thinking here, that they're bound to get it right sooner or later?
there was the time at the science fair when i absent mindedly grabbed the leads to the aluminum foil and glass capacitor the guy built for his Tesla coil.....
not to mention the time
that i discovered the hard way that a previous tenant of my apartment had for some ungodly reason wired the metal chassis of the over-the-kitchen-sink light fixture to the hot wire, after disconnecting the shield of the bx cable from the clamp.
Messages from the future!
Of course! That explains Lady Gaga!
sounds funny but
this kid is a psychopath larva. They start out on animals, then work their way up to humans. Normal kids have, in fact, more empathy for pets than for humans, as people who write kids' movies know. You can show the parents getting killed, but if the dog gets killed, the movie is also dead.
in fact, in the frame of reference of the earth's surface, yes the sun rotates around the earth. that's why everybody thought/thinks that; because they are right.
similarly, in the frame of reference of a guy swinging a bowling ball around there DOES exist a centrifugal force.
the "catch" is that neither of these frames of reference are newtonian, because both are rotating whereas newtonian frames are not allowed to be accelerating, which thus rules out rotation. thus, such "illusions" and "imaginary forces" occur as real phenomena; which is why the physics seemingly well studied by so many posters here restricts itself to newtonian frames, apparently without even bothering to note for the students the obvious truth that those are a subset of all possible frames of reference, where newtons laws are not valid without converting to a newtonian frame.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...