mnealtx 0 #26 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote"A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups." Right. And once, say, the Green party gets into power, the question could become something like "which anthropogenic emissions cause global warming?" And if you answer "none" then a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. How would you be with that? Once it's proven...I'm fine with that. There's still that pesky problem with CO2 *lagging* temperature in the historical record - I guess Obama's "Green Czar" will have to fix that. Just because you say it's not proven doesn't mean it's not proven. And just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. Lemme know when you get that historical record straightened out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 June 22, 2009 Bill, are you really trying to say that the solution to a quadratic equation is open to as much debate as causation of global warming? 'Cause that kinda sounds like a bit of an exaggeration, to me.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #28 June 22, 2009 >Bill, are you really trying to say that the solution to a quadratic equation >is open to as much debate as causation of global warming? The physics of the greenhouse-gas effect is not really open to debate; it is demonstrable to anyone with a science background and access to a reasonable lab. Once you add some bias into the question, people will immediately disagree. I used that question because I knew someone like MNealTX would immediately post some sort of argument against it. How you ask the question can indeed lead to biases, and any sort of "poll test" is invariably going to include such biases, even if they include quadratic equations. That's why poll tests are a bad idea. They will be used to "deselect" voters, and thus via social evolution, the party most able to control the content of the questions will gain power and hold it. Let's say to try to get around this you require only math questions. You can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as this happens, there will be a ten million dollar study done by both sides to see whether republicans or democrats are better at calculus, algebra, differential equations and/or trigonometry. And once republicans (for example) determine that republicans are slightly better at algebra than democrats are*, but not as good as calculus, they will throw everything they have into making the test all algebra, and will spare no lawsuit in trying to stop any calculus questions. And that's not really democracy. (* - and in any diverse population there will always be some such bias.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 June 22, 2009 Quote>Once it's proven...I'm fine with that. OK. The Green Party will pass an Executive Order that says it's proven, and we're good to go. Well, it is starting to appear that may be the only way it will happen but, that is a good thing ...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote "A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups." Right. And once, say, the Green party gets into power, the question could become something like "which anthropogenic emissions cause global warming?" And if you answer "none" then a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. How would you be with that? Once it's proven...I'm fine with that. There's still that pesky problem with CO2 *lagging* temperature in the historical record - I guess Obama's "Green Czar" will have to fix that. Just because you say it's not proven doesn't mean it's not proven. And just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. Lemme know when you get that historical record straightened out. I started to reply to his post and then I said, to hell with it, a good laugh is enough for today!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 June 22, 2009 QuoteThe physics of the greenhouse-gas effect is not really open to debate; it is demonstrable to anyone with a science background and access to a reasonable lab. Once you add some bias into the question, people will immediately disagree. I used that question because I knew someone like MNealTX would immediately post some sort of argument against it. Like I said - let me know when you get that whole pesky historical record straightened out. QuoteAnd that's not really democracy. It's supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #32 June 22, 2009 QuoteYes...yes we have. He just doesn't know his fucking history. Bread and circuses was the cancer of the Imperial mother-fucking dictatorship, not the Senate and Assembly democracy which failed decades before Rome even had a permanent fucking circus building. I don't know how many times I'll have to point this out before you stop acting like that quote even means something.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #33 June 22, 2009 >let me know when you get that whole pesky historical record straightened out. No problems with the historical record. Despite what some deniers believe, dinosaurs did not drive SUV's. >It's supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy. Key word being "representative." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteYes...yes we have. He just doesn't know his fucking history. Bread and circuses was the cancer of the Imperial mother-fucking dictatorship, not the Senate and Assembly democracy which failed decades before Rome even had a permanent fucking circus building. Did I hit a nerve there, sport? I thought your name was Jakee, not Caesar. But, to get to the point - so fucking what? The principle behind the quote is still valid. QuoteI don't know how many times I'll have to point this out before you stop acting like that quote even means something. Remind me again once I care what your opinion is and I'll try to come up with a number for you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 June 22, 2009 Quote>let me know when you get that whole pesky historical record straightened out. No problems with the historical record. Despite what some deniers believe, dinosaurs did not drive SUV's. And despite what some cultists believe, CO2 didn't (and doesn't) lead temps. Did you have a point?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 June 22, 2009 Quote>It's supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy. Key word being "representative." "Representative" can mean a lot of things. The founders created a system that was basically representative of free white men, although some of them argued that only landowners ought to be allowed to vote. Their argument was that only people who had a basic "stake" in society, and had the wherewithal to acquire land, ought to be represented. That's not so different from other types of voting requirements (like that quadratic equation). I'm still in favor of an unlimited franchise for a government of limited powers, though.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #37 June 22, 2009 QuoteDid I hit a nerve there, sport? I thought your name was Jakee, not Caesar. My name is neither. Doesn't stop me from knowing things that have actually happened, though. QuoteBut, to get to the point - so fucking what? The principle behind the quote is still valid. Really? Let me know when you've found an actual historical record for that rather than just a made up one will ya Bubba? QuoteRemind me again once I care what your opinion is and I'll try to come up with a number for you. It's not my 'opinion', it's a matter of absolute historical record - the Heinlein quote is wrong. But since we all know that very few of your arguments bear any relation to reality i can see why you're happy to ignore that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 June 22, 2009 QuoteIt's not my 'opinion', it's a matter of absolute historical record - the Heinlein quote is wrong. But since we all know that very few of your arguments bear any relation to reality i can see why you're happy to ignore that. It is an opinion. Heinlein is expressing his opinion about political systems. You've overlooked the fact that he's not talking about any specific (or historical) case--he's drawing a general hypothesis. He uses the terms from the Roman era ("plebes", "bread and circuses", etc) for rhetorical effect--not as an effort to discuss the actual facts of that (or any) particular historical case. If you read the entire work (To Sail Beyond the Sunset, I think, although it might have been from Time Enough for Love) Heinlein goes to great pains to establish an obviously fictional universe within which to set his narrator. He is very clearly not talking about any actual history, and going to great lengths to make that clear to the reader. There is no historical record to be argued there. Heinlein is stating his opinion. Opinions aren't "right" or "wrong." You're insistence that his opinion is "wrong" because it doesn't coincide with some set of historical facts is...well, I dunno...just weird?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 June 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteDid I hit a nerve there, sport? I thought your name was Jakee, not Caesar. My name is neither. Doesn't stop me from knowing things that have actually happened, though. Well, Gold Star for you - I'm sure your mother is impressed, but probably not so much with the temper tantrum. QuoteQuoteBut, to get to the point - so fucking what? The principle behind the quote is still valid. Really? Let me know when you've found an actual historical record for that rather than just a made up one will ya Bubba? Let me know when YOU understand the difference between history and a quote from a FICTIONAL character in a FICTION novel that is being used to draw a parallel to (reasonably) current events. QuoteQuoteRemind me again once I care what your opinion is and I'll try to come up with a number for you. It's not my 'opinion', it's a matter of absolute historical record - the Heinlein quote is wrong. The operative idea behind the quote was the appeasement of the masses via largesse from the government - something you apparently cannot understand. QuoteBut since we all know that very few of your arguments bear any relation to reality i can see why you're happy to ignore that. Truly funny, for someone that is whinging over a quote in a work of fiction - maybe you can show me where Heinlein said *WHO* provided the bread and circuses in his quote?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #40 June 23, 2009 >And despite what some cultists believe, CO2 didn't . . >lead temps. Did you have a point? You are correct. Did YOU have a point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 June 23, 2009 Well said, Tom. (And it's from Sunset - Jubal is speaking to Maureen about democracy)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #42 June 23, 2009 Jakee, Mneal, cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 June 23, 2009 Quote>And despite what some cultists believe, CO2 didn't . . >lead temps. Did you have a point? You are correct. Did YOU have a point? So you agree that CO2 levels are not driving temperatures - good! It's a start, anyway.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #44 June 23, 2009 >So you agree that CO2 levels are not driving temperatures . . . Nope, try again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #45 June 23, 2009 Quote>So you agree that CO2 levels are not driving temperatures . . . Nope, try again! Bill, what is driving temperatures?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 June 23, 2009 QuoteQuote>So you agree that CO2 levels are not driving temperatures . . . Nope, try again! Bill, what is driving temperatures? Must be dinosaurs driving SUV's.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #47 June 23, 2009 >Bill, what is driving temperatures? The heat balance of the planet. The sun is the primary input. There are other potential inputs (our waste heat, volcanism) but they all are so minuscule compared to the 170 petawatts of energy coming from the sun that you can disregard them. The primary output is radiative. Again, there are some very small other factors (dissociation of water and subsequent loss of hydrogen) that can be disregarded. If we want the planet's temperature to stay constant, then we have to radiate the same amount we absorb. So what modulates these inputs and outputs? The sun's output remains pretty constant. It varies a small amount every 11 years via the sunspot cycle. Its normal output is around 1366 watts per square meter (at our distance from the sun) and this varies by about 1 watt every 11 years. Attached is a graph of the last 3 cycles. Note that the last cycle is a bit low, and the current cycle (not shown) is significantly lower; it's one of the quietest suns on record. So we have a very small (<.5 W/sqm) decrease in average irradiation over the past 15 years or so. Since there is no significant "space weather" to block the sun's output, that's what determines how much energy gets to the earth. The next question is - how much energy radiates away? The earth radiates energy as any blackbody does. The amount of energy radiated is determined primarily by the temperature; as temperature goes up, energy radiated goes up as well. This is a good thing, since otherwise any imbalance would rapidly lead to a runaway leading to either absolute zero or incredibly high temperatures. This effect is modulated by what's in the way. Clouds are a good example. During the day, clouds increase the planet's albedo (= reflect more sunlight) and thus result in more energy being radiated. This has a cooling effect. During nighttime, clouds block re-radiation of blackbody radiation from the surface of the planet, and thus keep the planet warmer. That's why you don't get dew/frost on cloudy nights. It is also modulated by the composition of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases block re-radiation of blackbody radiation, and thus keep the planet warmer. Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas; it makes up about 40-70% of the total greenhouse effect depending on where you live (less in desert areas, of course.) Carbon dioxide is the second strongest gas, and contributes 10-25% depending on other gases in the air (mainly water vapor.) Methane, nitrous oxide and ozone are the other gases that provide most of the rest of the greenhouse effect. Increasing water vapor will increase the greenhouse effect. This happens all the time; water vapor is easily added to the atmosphere (and is rapidly removed by weather.) Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. We've increased CO2 concentrations by about 50% over the past 200 years or so. This decreases the amount of energy we are radiating by about 1.5 watts/sq m for a given temperature. This is a longer term effect since it takes decades for CO2 to cycle into and out of the atmosphere. Increasing methane will also increase the greenhouse effect. Methane has a half life of about five years (it is broken down by sunlight) so it's not as long term as CO2. If you increase CO2 and do nothing else within the system, the planet will warm up until the new, higher temperature increases blackbody radiation to match incoming radiation. That's the primary driver. The more interesting question is - what else happens? As MnealTX has helpfully pointed out, when we've had warming in the past, increased CO2 production has started shortly afterwards and greatly accelerated the warming. We think this is due to positive feedback effects - melting tundra, destabilized clathrates etc. If this is the case, then the final temperature will be higher than what we would predict based on CO2 alone. If, on the other hand, we see negative feedback effects within the system, then the final temperature increase will be lower than we expect. An example would be an as-yet undiscovered mechanism that causes daytime cloudiness but not nighttime cloudiness. That would increase the overall albedo of the planet and radiate more energy away, thus balancing the equation at a lower temperature. Of course, all this depends on the sun. We may luck out and have the sun continue to decline its output, thus exactly balancing the forcing we are seeing. It may return to normal, in which case we'd expect to see the warming continue. It may even increase its output, in which case we're going to see a lot more warming than we are predicting now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 June 23, 2009 Quote Attached is a graph of the last 3 cycles. Note that the last cycle is a bit low, and the current cycle (not shown) is significantly lower; it's one of the quietest suns on record. So we have a very small (<.5 w decrease in average irradiation over the past years or so.> So, it *IS* CO2 from the Mars Rover that's caused the temperature increase - I *KNEW* it!!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #49 June 23, 2009 >So, it *IS* CO2 from the Mars Rover that's caused the >temperature increase - I *KNEW* it! Ah yes. Another guy who thinks the "science isn't settled" on Earth's climate, but is 100% sure that he understands Mars climate. One wonders why NASA even bothers exploring Mars when they could just ask you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 June 23, 2009 Quote>So, it *IS* CO2 from the Mars Rover that's caused the >temperature increase - I *KNEW* it! Ah yes. Another guy who thinks the "science isn't settled" on Earth's climate, That is correct. Quotebut is 100% sure that he understands Mars climate. That is incorrect. QuoteOne wonders why NASA even bothers exploring Mars when they could just ask you! It was NASA that discovered the warming trend on Mars. Amazingly enough, it seems to match the current warming on Earth pretty closely (0.6C increase over approximately the last 30 years). I'm sure it's just an AMAZING coincidence, though - unless, maybe there's a single bristlecone pine on Olympus Mons that NASA can make a primary proxy from to explain things?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
