Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

[Diogenes]

So let's talk about Hypocracy.

Maybe after you can spell it.

I told you he was a spelling Nazi. (Probably the original sort as well.)

[mvanwink5]

At first, I thought Mr. S was a troll, then it looked like he was off his medication, now I think he is just bored and is here to shine you guys on for jollies (yes, the theory is back to 100% troll).

[Diogenes]

I think the Wards need to keep better control of their patients out their in Kookifornia.

[MSimon]

Actually I'm unclear on how AR5 is "not holding up well."

That is OK. As temps continue to decline (negative PDO, low sunspot count) it will become obvious even to you over time. No rush.

Please do keep on spouting. The 'net is forever.

What amazes me is you think the solar cycle will never go up again.

I'm with you. The solar/ocean cycles are causing most of the heating. The contribution of CO2 is minimal.

[MSimon]

Actually I'm unclear on how AR5 is "not holding up well."

You are aware of course that the models used to predict catastrophe assume water vapor adds to the CO2 "heating" to give high values of CO2 contribution. Actual measurements show water vapor is a net negative contribution (clouds - which are not well modeled - they can't be - the scales used in the simulations [10s of km] are too coarse. So a factor is arbitrarily assigned - as it is to all factors too fine to model). Of course I'm no scientist. I'm an engineer. And we like measurements to confirm or deny a given hypothesis.

Now in a relatively stable system you would expect that the total feedback would be negative due to stability criteria. We do know that the current system has two strange attractors. "Ice age" being one of them - we are now in the other. On the average our current climate lasts about 10K years with ice ages lasting about 100K years. If CO2 is keeping us from an ice age we should be burning more coal.

But OK from your view we have a problem. Except CO2 output from the US has been relatively steady and is currently declining due to economic conditions and the switch to natural gas due to fracking. What do you intend to do about China which is doubling its CO2 output every 10 years and now produces more CO2 than the US? By 2020 their output will be 2X the US output. And then there is India.

If you are not willing to go to war with them to keep them from wrecking the planet you are not serious. So far all I have seen from the CO2 hysterics is "we must gain control of the US economy so we can humble the rich and help the poor - and prevent CO2 output". Well - humbling the rich to help the poor has been tried on a State wide scale in a couple of places. It didn't work. Now us engineers (as opposed to the exalted scientists) prefer that economies as well as the things we design, work. And work well.

I'm reminded of the "digital divide" hysteria of a decade or two back. We were going to be a two tier society because computers were so expensive. In that 20 year time frame computer costs have declined by a factor of 10X at least. Capitalist competition (and more than a few engineers) at work. No government control of industry/people required.

[hanelyp]

So let's talk about Hypocracy.

From http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =hypocracy I see several definitions. Based on word parts I'd figure hypo-cracy => small government, fitting definition 3. But government by liars (def. 1) or hypocrites (def. 2) would seem to fit the context of the original post better.

[ladajo]

We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Between the tag-line and the topic at hand (Schneidley) , that is what I was thinking.

A democracy governed by hypocrites.

a political environment characterized by reduced and limited scope of state control of personal behavior

But, I now think it was lost on our temporary guest. Oh well.

[paperburn1]

OK first I want it on record that I do believe there is climate change. But think what we are experiencing is well within the normal range for earth. I feel in the past 500 years we a have had a good spell and are so used to it we do not understand how variable our climate can be. . Now I also understand there are other greenhouse factors but it looks like we have a big enough heat sink to absorb a lot of this excess heat so maybe we should start looking for the real problem

About 321,000,000 cubic miles of water on Earth (approximate).
147,197,952,000 cubic ft per mile. or 1,101,187,878,912
7.481 gallons per cubic ft x 147,197,952,000 cubic ft per mile = 1,101,187,878,912 gallons per cubic mile.
321,000,000 cubic miles of water x 1,101,187,878,912 gallons per cubic mile =
353,481,309,130,752,000,000 gallons of water on earth (approximately). times this by 8.6 pounds
Earth has 3,039,939,258,524,467,200,000 pounds of water
Now earth has in the year 2000 has put about 98 quadrillion (15 zeros) BTU into the environment lets make that an even 100 quadrillion just to keep the math simple.
So to raise the ocean temperature 1 degree at the year 2000 rate
3,039,939,258,524,467,200,000
100,000,000,000,000,000
So just a bootstrap mind and no real science but It should take 3000 Plus years to raise the oceans temperature one degree by adding heat at the 2000 year rate. So even if the climate guys are right about the change I do not think it is as great as they say about being caused by man. I feel it is some other source.

[mvanwink5]

I have worked with models before, but never with the ones that walk down the runways. The ones I worked with were complicated, based on first principles and proven relationships. The models were impressive. What we had to do to use the models was do actual real world tests on our process, you know, change the conditions, take measurements, then use the model fudge factors to "tune" the model to get it to converge to match what we measured on the various tests. It was a lot of work. Unfortunately, if we made a process change, we would need to redo the tests, repeat, rinse. This was, compared to the earth, an incredibly simple system, yet the models were unable to be used if even one change was made, not without retesting. But you can't do those variable tests with the earth, you have to watch and wait, decades, centuries, millennia?

Now, I can tell you that anyone who has any experience with computer models of physical systems will agree that the climate models are nice and sound like they should be able to be used to project the future, but they won't unless by accident. The last 15 to 20 years not matching any of the computer climate models is no surprise to anyone with model experience. So, when someone talks about the science being settled, then leaps to the conclusion that models can be made and used to make predictions, I know that they must be thinking about the models that walk down the runways. (not that I am envious).

[Schneibster]

So everyone is aware, Joe has threatened to kick me off if I don't lie and say I think the deniers are correct.

I refuse to do this categorically. My honor is worth considerably more than my interest in posting on a site infested with liars who whine to management when their lies are denied by reality.

I have attempted to contact M. Simon through Blogger and he is unresponsive. At this point I am on the cusp of leaving what appears to be a denier whining society. You can find me at blogger dot com, Schneibster's Suggestions. Good luck; these people appear to be in favor of censorship despite their claims to be libertarian. That's standard; Libertardians always lie.

Have you no shame?

At long last, gentlemen, have you no shame?

[Schneibster]

Just one question for you, MSimon:

If the Sun weren't changing much away from a 22-year average, wouldn't you expect a straight temperature graph, not one that's going up?

And we know the Sun's output; we've been doing documented solar astronomy since the eighteenth century.

Maybe you forgot.

So where's the energy coming from, MSimon? Or do you not believe in conservation of energy?

Now don't threaten me again.

If you're honest.

[Diogenes]

So everyone is aware, Joe has threatened to kick me off if I don't lie and say I think the deniers are correct.

I find that assertion to be completely implausible. The one thing I can say unequivocally about Joe is that he will tolerate dissent. The probability is higher that you simply have a comprehension problem. (Or a reality problem.)

[Schneibster]

And BTW y'all are welcome to bend over and let the deniers have their way with you.

But don't call it anything else if you let them harass me off of here.

[Schneibster]

And last but not least note I brought my own thread so I didn't spam you. Delete it if you're chickensxxt enough.

[Schneibster]

I mean, dudes, you obviously cannot cook.

At 2 plus just a little bit where that chip on the stove control front marks the dial, it just barely bubbles. Nudge it up and it starts to steam off water with those bubbles; you have to add some water every little bit.

This is like, the atmosphere is short of CO2 and we have the Pleistocene, and then the Milankovic Cycle warms up just enough and we have the Holocene when the CO2 from the plankton builds up enough to create global warming and make it as warm as it was up until the eighteenth century. Then we started burning coal, forests, and oil, and atmospheric CO2 started building up. It's been all up since there.

We turned the gas up just a little teeny bit. And now it goes out of control. No cook can fail to understand how it can brew up and start burning and making nasty smells in just a bit 'cause it's just a bit too high. You have to turn it down a bit. Denying it is idiotic. You're burning it. Turn it down, idiot. The best cooks are all telling you so. That's why it's 14 thousand to 25.