Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 361

In case my point wasn't clear, I'll spell it out explicitly:

I don't give a damn if Postma is rude... as long as his physics is sound.

Like me, he has had to deal with innumerable assaults by other rude people, who DON'T understand the physics. After a time, that does have an effect, and one gets to the point of having a short fuse. That's just human nature, when people are exposed to bullying and harassment for years on end.

If people are bothered by his rudeness, and wonder what caused it, many of them need only look in a mirror. I have little sympathy for them.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 361

Mr. Postma's derogatory phrases are why I've often been puzzled that Jane cites... Mr. Postma

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.

End of story.

I found it very interesting that his followup article, which I also discovered just today, mentioned the same problem with your version of the physics of Spencer's experiment that I mentioned to you in our prior discussion. To wit:

(a) Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice, and

(b) If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop.

All in all, I found his arguments to be mathematically and physically sound, and yours not. That is why I have stopped arguing the point with you. Repeating unsound physics over and over is not going to make it more true, no matter how much you might wish it would.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 361

What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position.

By the way -- and admittedly this is slightly, but only slightly, off-topic -- in regard to your Spencer's thought experiment, last year Astrophysicist Joe Postma wrote that your argument in regard to the physics was ... well, let's just say he used rather derogatory phrases. I was not aware of this article until today, but I thought you might find it of some interest.

So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 361

I have no intention -- or reason, for that matter -- to reply to you about something someone may have written on Twitter.

However, regarding what you asked above, I have a question of my own: are you unaware of the issues that have been raised about GRACE? That seems unlikely.

You seemed to suggest that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m. Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m, there's no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty.

I have already admitted I made an error.

But as for dishonesty, yes, you have given me ample and frequent reason to think you have been less than honest. So I won't apologize for suspecting you may be doing so at times when you may not actually be. "Fool me once..." as the saying goes. Here is an example:

Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m,

Nowhere did I write such a thing. So when you continually -- rather routinely, in my experience, as I have demonstrated on many occasions in the past -- suggest I have stated things that in fact I have not, I have to wonder what the reason is. Given the context and past experience, Occam's Razor would seem to indicate dishonesty. I know of no other reason that is anywhere even remotely as likely.

I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the globe isn't warming. Can we agree that even the bottom edge of the confidence interval is positive, indicating net warming from 2005 to 2013?

No, without looking into it further, I do not agree. I'm not claiming that it is false, either... I would have to look some things up, which I am not free to do at the moment.

One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 361

Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?

Engaging in your usual context-shifting, I see. But even more: how could I be "reflexively dismissing it" if my own statement, which you quoted, was "THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for"??? , That makes absolutely no sense. No great surprise there, I suppose.

Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites

Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been.

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Except I did not do that. You have had a very nasty habit of twisting what other people say. That's dishonest. I've pointed that out to you many times, over a period of years. You really need to start reading what people actually say rather than interpreting so heavily.

Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures.

Now, THAT is a fair point. I did in fact get surface temperatures mixed up with upper ocean temperatures. Mea culpa.

But I am just curious. Just a straightforward question: are you now claiming, as you seem to be, that the "missing heat" cause of the pause in surface warming is actually hiding in the UPPER ocean, rather than the lower?

Comment: Re:America's loss is Africa's gain (Score 0) 313

Most Americans will never comprehend this reality. This is the same mental block that prevents their parents from comprehending that Europeans have built superior internet and phone services. The same thing prevented their parents from realizing that the Japanese were making far superior cars.

You have a point but it is grossly over-stated. First, it is very clear why the U.S. telephone and internet infrastructure currently suck: incompetent (or in some cases corrupt) regulation. When ISPs and phone service providers are allowed to act as oligopolies, they just pocket their money and run, rather than properly investing in better infrastructure. Because they can.

However, there is another issue that is mostly unrelated: the U.S. is less densely populated than most "Western" countries, and the cost of infrastructure for providing comparable service is provably higher. That doesn't excuse the monopolists and incompetent bureaucrats, still it is true. And the U.S. government's attempt to fix the rural infrastructure problem was a comedy of errors, literally ridiculous cost overruns, and incompetence.

So you can lay the blame for a lot of this -- perhaps most of it -- directly at the feet of the U.S. government.

Back when we had a telephone system that was a properly regulated utility, it was demonstrably better than in the vast majority of Europe. Many European countries still had competing land-line services that were wholly incompatible with one another.

Also: in the beginning, the Japanese were not making cars that were "far superior" to those built in the U.S.. What they were making were cars that got better mileage and were inexpensive. The quality left a hell of a lot to be desired. So that statement is just plain wrong.

Over time, the quality got better and the U.S. manufacturers (also effectively an oligopoly, or so they thought) did not keep up. So much is undeniable.

Comment: Re:Why do we call remote quadrotors "drones"? (Score 1) 42

by Jane Q. Public (#48453817) Attached to: Ohio College Building Indoor Drone Pavilion
Originally, the meaning of "drone" in relation to vehicles meant it was autonomous, with no pilot at all. It had nothing at all to do with line of sight. But Now it is often used to mean remotely-operated craft, regardless of whether they have any autonomous capability, but that's very different indeed from the original.

The word "drone" essentially meant "no human pilot", even a remote one. And it's still that way in a lot of dictionaries.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 361

So it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming."

I know what it says; I'm the one who linked to the paper.

I would simply repeat my questions above, but based on past experience you would continue to not get it.

The Llovel paper contradicts other papers in regard to stored heat in the upper ocean. I linked to a summary of some of them earlier.

According to THEM, there has been no observed upward trend, so my position that there is no significant warming is quite defensible.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 361

No, that source concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."

Are you able to read? Did you see that my comment was about DEEP ocean? Did you see that the very title of the paper is:

Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade

??? The comment about temperatures at other depths is irrelevant to the point I made ABOUT THAT PAPER.

Do you know what the word "context" means?

As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct?

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 437

by Jane Q. Public (#48440887) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

I've learned how to handle questions by watching you. If you manage to directly answer my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is directly answer your question. If you continue to simply evade my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is evade every question you ask.

I answered your question in my last post.

Did you get my point about "escalating" not just beyond what is socially acceptable, but even further, beyond what is legally acceptable? Once again, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of breaking any laws, I was making a point. Harassment is odious behavior. It is far worse than simply calling people names.

As I stated before: you seem quick to judge others but at the same time appear blind to your own transgressions.

I don't owe you anything, despite what seems to be a feeling on your part that I do. So this is all you're going to get. If you aren't satisfied with the content of my answers, my best suggestion would be to just go away.

Comment: Re:Arguably not the GMO that caused harm here (Score 1) 361

In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.

However, we do not know what long-term unintended consequences there may be to this type of gene modification, because there has been no long term. While selective breeding of natural mutations -- even of a relatively "forced" variety -- has been around for millennia.

The point being that one method is time-tested and the other one not. We don't have any long-term examples of jellyfish genes crossed with plant genes. We do have evidence that bacterial and viral genes have invaded other organisms, but again those we have evidence of were very long ago and have had eons to weed out any bad variants or effects.

I do agree, however, that the regulatory system is faulty.

Comment: Re:Arguably not the GMO that caused harm here (Score 1) 361

I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything.

And I would disagree.

Societal / economic issue aside, when an altered genome that was controversial in the first place, and was promised not to be cross-fertile, proves otherwise and starts cross-pollinating other strains uncontrollably, we should take that as a strong warning.

Ever read Jurassic Park? The book, not the movie.

The difficult we do today; the impossible takes a little longer.

Working...