Comment Re:preying on stupid people (Score 1) 246
elaborate?
elaborate?
The causative factor requires a functioning model. There are too many variables to claim causation without a model.
My biochemistry is a completely different subject which gases build up heat when hit with the sun.
Again, it has been shown that even on Venus where the CO2 dramatically higher... the issue is not the CO2 at all but rather the density of the atmosphere itself. You could put that much oxygen on Venus and it be about the same temperature it is now.
The entire concept of greenhouse gases as relevant to global atmospheres is likely vastly over stated.
Venus is the extreme case. All the failed though still supported climate models for the earth were adapted from models of Venus. And they're wrong because they assume the chemistry of the atmosphere matters.
Do this... find the air pressure of Venus at the "surface". Note that temperature. Now compare that to Jupiter at the same air pressure. You'll go about a third into Jupiter's atmosphere I think. The temperature is somewhat similar. Its not exact but it is in the ball park.
Do the same thing with the earth only in reverse. Get the air pressure of earth... 1 atmosphere obviously. And then go to Venus and see what the temperature of that atmosphere is at 1 atmosphere. You'll find it to be within the range of earth's atmosphere.
Which means pressure is far more relevant then gas composition. After all, Jupiter, Venus, and Earth have completely different atmospheric chemistries.
That I've done these calculations and you have not should give you pause. I have actually looked at this issue. I know about the Japanese earth simulator and you didn't know. Consider just for the sake of argument that I could be in command of more facts.
As to nitrogen and oxygen not having a big impact on the global atmosphere, that is impossible. If I removed those gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be a great deal thinner. And it would therefore be a great deal colder. Forget what impact this would have on life. If we just concern ourselves with the temperature consequences, removing that nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere would radically reduce the temperature of earth. We'd be looking at a Martian climate.
As to heat reducing crop yields, you're not controlling for water in those statistics so it could all be water.
Look, I have a green house. I have thousands of plants.
Do you know which plants don't like being 95 degrees? Basically none of them. What kills them all is getting too much water and some of them have problems if it goes over 100. But up to 95 degrees they're all really happy. What is more that is very species specific. Certain species like it colder and some like it even hotter. You can take some species up to 120 and they're perfectly happy with it. I don't go that hot because I don't grow that many species like that and I find the temperature personally unpleasant so I don't let the green house get that hot.
Point is, if you want to have a scientific discussion then you're going to have to use good data. Using statistics from the USDA are not relevant to this discussion because they're not properly controlled for any one variable. They're really just yield statistics. It is like trying to use US Census statistics to judge the psychology of the nation. You can't do that. The data isn't taken in such a matter that it is clean enough to do that. Mostly what the census and yield stats give you is how many people we have and how much corn we have respectively. They can't really tell you what a long term climate change would have on global agriculture.
For one thing, they grow wheat in Canada. Think about that. They do that NOW. Now global warming will have the biggest impact on polar and sub polar climate zones and the least impact on the equatorial climate zones. The temperature rise under global warming is a global NORMALIZATION of climate. That means, that as the planet goes through AGW northern climates will become less harsh. That is the primary effect off this theory. Which means places like Canada and Russia could well turn into bread baskets. The population of these places could sky rocket either through population migration or simple breeding. And the ability of these zones to produce food will skyrocket at well.
I'm not sure you're aware of how your own theories work. They don't make everywhere 2 degrees warmer. They make some places 10 or 20 degrees warmer and some areas 5 or 10 degrees warmer. And over all you get a 2 degree warming if you average it out. But at the equator for example there shouldn't be any warming.
As to water, there is enormous amounts of water in the north west, north into canada, and of course huge amounts in the east.
As I said, this is an undertaking that could cost over 1 trillion dollars but that is less then our last war and really it could cause the middle of the country to bloom. So why not.
As to the drought conditions California is experiencing, that was what this whole thread was supposed to be about. And the scientists concluded it was a normal predicted climate pattern.
Last time this happened in the 1970s, California made plans to expand their water infrastructure mostly in storage so they could better weather a 2 to 4 year drought. They didn't build any of it and here we are with the same problem all over again. Had they built it, they wouldn't be in any trouble. Everyone with a clue knows this.
The Australians in Sydney have the same situation. They had a big bad drought decades back, planners said "dam these rivers, build up this many acre feet of water, etc"... and they didn't do it because they thought the river was pretty. Well... then they're in a serious drought condition later. Surprise surprise.
As a counter solution, are you aware of the Tasmanian aqueduct plan? Tasmania has an abundance of fresh clean water. It has literal rivers that flow into the sea all the time because they will never be able to use it all. The concept is to run a pipe from a large lake in Tasmania, under the sea like a garden hose, and then have it spit that water out on the mainland of Australia. The expense would be about a billion which is less then what Sydney is spending on a desalinization plant. The output would also be a great deal higher.
Aqueducts. We have lots of water. It is just in the wrong places. The Romans once wanted to build a city on a hill top. The problem was that there was no water up there. So they looked around and found another hill top some 40 miles away that had lots of water just bubbling out of the ground. The Romans built a pipe from that hill top to the next. The water flowed down the pipe, built up pressure, went up the next hill and into their city with no added power. Just gravity to move water from one hill, across a valley, and into their new town.
That was at least 1800 years ago. We move water hundreds of miles. But there is no reason why we can't move water thousands of miles. All we have to do is keep the input higher then the output... and the water will flow.
As to CO2 and ice ages, what you really did was disqualify the subject entirely. And that's fine. If I can't cite it then you're not going to do it either. You can either accept that the CO2 was higher during some the old ice ages or I don't want to hear about CO2 and ice ages from you.
You're conflating house wiring with street wiring.
Lets take a city like New York City or if you prefer London. Are you telling me that the wires are run naked in the concrete? That seems unlikely. More likely is that the wires are in some sort of pipe. I can't speak to the width of the pipe but I am quite sure the ISP has the ability to change the wire without changing the pipe or even digging up the street.
Why would you do it in such a way that you'd have to do that? You're not going to save any money. It is just a dumb way to do things. While I acknowledge that it might be done that way in some places, I rather doubt it is standard given that there is no reason to do it that way.
Now your counter argument might be that the pipe is not wide enough to accept additional wires. That might be true. Though all you're saying there is that the existing conduit system is too narrow... not that one does not exist.
Regardless, lets just for the sake of argument say that everything you presume is accurate. That still leaves the poles. If the suburbs start getting fiber and the urban areas are denied it because of this stupidity then it won't be long before they are digging up the streets. Nothing pisses the cities off faster then getting poorer services then what is found in the suburbs. Even though that is frequently the case.
Better schools, better water, better police... I suppose an inferior ballet... but you can't have everything.
Cuba has an opportunity to leap into the 21st century.
The only obstacle is their batshit crazy government. No one wants to invest anything in Cuba because it will just get stolen by the government. And the government is too poor to actually buy anything.
So there you go.
The lights become inefficient if you do that. You have to appreciate what they're replacing. Traffic guards. Literally a man would stand in the middle of the road and direct traffic.
You could either have a stop sign or a traffic guard. That was how it used to work.
When they introduced traffic lights, they were basically blind traffic guards. They are inherently less efficient then actual traffic guards though of course much less expensive.
At this point, I'd suggest we go to round-a-bouts or possibly traffic lights that are aware of local traffic conditions in real time and respond to them by changing light durations.
THAT would be a real safety innovation. The city councils won't touch it because it doesn't make money and that is all they care about these days.
But consider cameras used not to give tickets but to adjust light timings in real time.
So for example, late at night where there is only one person at the intersection... they get a green light instantly.
During periods of the day where there is light traffic the system could slip into an egalitarian mode where it lets everyone have their turn much like a stop light.
Then during periods of high traffic it could prioritize given lanes to prevent traffic jams and make the intersections more efficient.
In regards to yellow lights... Again, model the AI on the traffic guard. What is he going to do? He's not going to tell a lane it can go until the lane is clear from the last transit. That means, the light will NOT go green until people are done going through even if he told them it wasn't their turn anymore.
Think about it. An aware intersection. Not a blind traffic guard that just works on clock work timing. But rather, an active system that knows what is going on.
We could build one right now and it probably wouldn't be expensive... oh after the graft and corruption gets at it who knows what it would cost. But the actual cost of the mechanism shouldn't be a big deal.
As to my stupid backward country... that would be the United States. And the sophistication of my country is unrivaled. We are a hegemonic power for a reason, monkey boy.
As to your suggestion that one should never complain about politicians being stupid or corrupt... that is such an idiotic statement that I don't know where to go from here. Do you not know how democracy works, twit? Complaining is part of the political process. I thought everyone knew that. I've talked to people living in dictatorships that knew more about democracy then you.
As to your dubious credentials, I think we've established rather soundly that you're a clown. Not a lot more needs to be said on the subject.
Shuffle off and stop pretending to be an expert, shit for brains.
Get real, my friend. Stuxnet was designed to prevent psychotic religious fanatics from developing nuclear bombs. There is no real question as to whether the Iranians would use any nuclear bomb under their control to murder 100,000s of Jews in Israel. They have said that they will do it in so many words over and over again in their internal religious sermons. To the foreigners they're a little more diplomatic.
The American-Ashkanzim alliance is the most productive alliance between peoples in all of history. We, as Americans, will never just sit back and watch fascist demented assholes like the Iranian mullahs murder thousands of Jewish people as we did in the early 1940s.
There is no comparison between using hacking to destroy nuclear proliferation and using hacking to suppress an embarrassing Hollywood comedy movie. Anyone who thinks that the two are equal is a fool.
You're a smart person if you're on Slashdot. Don't be a fool.
I'm an old Castro and Che fan from the 1960s. . After having met and talked with many Cuban exiles of my own age who have arrived in my city over the years, I now realize that the entire Cuban revolution was bullshit Things suck there. They are always getting worse. I call bullshit on Cuban government's proposal to 'allow' internet access to its citizens. That country is run by fascist assholes. They will never all access to the internet to ordinary citizens. Only Cuban 'stasi' goon-squad assholes and their trusted weasels will be allowed to view Huff Post or Slashdot.
You're assuming the warming will continue which means you assume you have a predictive model of the climate... which you do not. You are over stating your knowledge.
As to whether it was warmer then... they were growing wine and oranges in England. So.
As to agriculture, most plants both prefer more warmth and more CO2. So rejoice, if you're right then we'll be able to feed more people.
As to 20 feet, that is absurd. But even if it did raise 20 feet, and there's no evidence of that, then that still leaves a great deal of the earth. We have vast tracts of land that we do nothing with at all. Ever been to the American south west? Nothing for mile upon mile. Why? Because it is dry. OH NOES you say. But we're living in the 21st century and you're complaining about a problem the Romans 2000 years ago could have solved. Build an aqueduct that can carry whatever water you need from point "A" to point "B". Some infrastructure there but not really a big deal. Greening the whole south west would cost less then our last war.
As to that ancient climate record... You can't cite that unless you also accept that we had high levels of CO2 during an ice age. You completely rejected that data point so I see no reason to permit you to cite the record at all back then given that you're cherry picking data.
To the contrary, you're searching for any way to blame CO2 for it.
You have two correlating values and you're refusing to show causation which would be the model.
You are aware that we have lots of climate record data showing CO2 and the global temperature going in opposite directions right?
As to reference material, I'd prefer text because I read a great deal faster then these people speak.
CO2 makes up a relatively tiny portion of the earth's atmosphere. Most of the climate models used to justify CO2 as a forcing variable were modified from models developed for Venus. Never mind that Venus has a completely different atmosphere. CO2 is I believe the most common gas on the planet where as on earth, it is nitrogen, followed by oxygen.
CO2 is literally a trace gas. And while you're going to say that it is disproportionally relevant, the fact remains that your climate models were developed for a world where CO2 was the dominant component.
And worse, even the relevance of CO2 on Venus's atmosphere is controversial because the biggest difference between Venus and the earth is actually the density of that atmosphere. Temperature increases with pressure. If the earth had the same density of atmosphere as Venus... irrelevant to the actual gas used... it would be a great deal hotter.
Not only is the use of an adapted climate model designed for Venus dubious but the validity of that model for Venus itself is dubious.
I don't see why it is especially a problem over such a short time?
Wasn't the world warmer during the Medieval warming period and during the Roman warming period?
From what the histories say, that was generally a good thing.
What is more, human beings are a tropical species. We like heat.
I've never understood why people think a warmer world would be so disastrous for us. We like the heat. Where do our old go to spend their final days? Warm places. What are considered the most pleasant environments for us? Places like Hawaii. We like the tropics.
Think about it... where else can you walk around naked and be comfortable?
Could we be looking at some sea level rises of about a foot or so? Sure. That shouldn't threaten most coastal communities. A few marginal sand bar islands in the Caribbean and south pacific are screwed but they were doomed eventually anyway.
That doesn't mean you know why there is an imbalance. Minor shifts in cloud cover or ice albedo could explain that. I believe they found that one of the major glaciers was melting because dust was getting deposited on it... that was making it darker and the increased darkness was causing it to absorb more sunlight which was what was causing the glacier to melt.
As I remember, the dust was the result of deforestation around the glacier. I think this one is in africa.
Anyway, lots of reasons for things to happen.
You're saying one thing "the earth is warming" and then trying to connect that to "because the CO2"...
You can't do that without a working model.
Note... WORKING. Not just any model some climate scientist pulled out of his ass. It has to actually survive testing.
The reason this hasn't happened is because it is fucking illegal.
Open your eyes on slashdot. We have stories popping up on a regular basis of the big ISPs shutting smaller ISPs out of the market.
Century link which is backed by Qwest recently complained that comcast is doing everything in its power to block Century link from providing service in areas. They've gone so far as to pressure local city councils to forbid century link to operate in the area.
Google with their Google Fiber have been saying the same thing for years.
So no. Frankly I am just offended that you cited experience before as justification for your argument when you're so ignorant of what is going on.
How fucking dare you.
Without runaway global warming, you are going to have a hard time justifying the massive multi trillion dollar tax and regulatory framework that ultimately people are rebelling against.
But moving on. As to research in the 1700s... last time I tell you... no one disputes that. You're citing a red herring. Cite something in the last 20 to 30 years please that includes a model that has been tested under falsifiable conditions and succeeded.
As to models not being science, the conclusions of science are models. All the theories and hypotheses are models. You're saying "this is how I think the universe works".
As to the lower level you seem to want... the climate is a great deal more complex then you are allowing for in your argument. It is not so simple as "CO2 opaques certain spectrums of light ergo if you increase CO2 the earth warms up."
Regardless, if you're not arguing for runaway global warming, then what are you doomsaying?
Government never takes responsibility unless they want to take responsibility.
Most liability laws exempt the government.
Hackers of the world, unite!