Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

My reference is from LASP, which is the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. I believe they are astrophysicists.

I thought you were going to go fishing instead of pulling bogus questions from your keister? Don't you ever tire of making an a$$ of yourself?

College kids working on their theseis
I am fishing . Catching salmon this week was crabbing last month .

Fv Sakai

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have to be honest and say at this point, I have absolutely no clue what it is you are counter arguing about.

Sooo, that little fairy also robbed you of your ability to read? Or just comprehend?

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

"The problem isn't whether or not you recogize the 'truth' of the application of the inverse square rule to electromagnetic radiation, it's statements like these,

...my argument that the affects of aphelion are totally against July being capable of being the hottest of all months at the global scale."

"Which makes it very difficult to believe...that this has a significant effect on global average monthly temperatures."


that are problematic."

As well as the bolded, at best silly, statements made below.

"You're arguing that because air heats up quicker than water the air will become hotter if a heat source is sustained. That much is true. However, the sun is not a constant heat source at any single point on the Earth, so that same air will also cool quicker than the water. This is why "the oceans eat global warming" because they buffer the maximum (and minimum) temperatures. It could also be said that the oceans also assist in dissipating heat through the process of evaporation."

So what do you think happens to that heat after the "oceans eat it"? It gets shat into an abyssal black hole, never to be seen again? Or is that more <SARCASM>?

"However, we are talking averages. And that hot day will cool overnight whereas a body of water will retain the heat. And here's the clue why globally July is the hottest month in <SARCASM>forever</SARCASM>. It's because the "average global temperature" is both biased to land based stations and doesn't actually use temperatures averaged over a 24 hour day. It uses peak temperatures. Peak temperatures likely to be more widespread in the continental climate of the northern hemisphere. Therefore the Sun being an extra 5 million kilometres or so away has no effect."

So you've a citation for those bits of conjecture? Or are they just other examples of your 'beliefs'?

I did think after I posted that that I should have stuck with rocky planets as there is all that stuff and tidal friction too. Nevertheless, we've eliminated atmosphere greenhouse gasses as a heat source, even if Venus could almost possibly be debated on this.

Ah yes, the old bait-n-switch. GHG's are the source (root cause) of heating. They are not the "heat source", and no one's ever said they were or are.

That attribution science site is a junk science site. It attributes every natural disaster to AGW. Fires, floods, heatwaves. You name it. Even cold weather is because of "us".


They lost me with their claim that 93% of the GBR was bleached in 2016 and it was only going to get worse.

And with this little bit of foolish 'logic', congratulations; you've joined the exalted ranks of Newhaul and Exile.

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/about/


The World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative, a collaboration between climate scientists at the University of Oxford in the UK, KNMI in the Netherlands, IPSL/LSCE in France, and Princeton University and NCAR in the US, ETH Zurich in Switzerland, IIT Delhi in India and climate impact specialists at the Red Cross / Red Crescent Climate Centre (RCCC) around the world, has been founded to change this, and provide robust assessments on the role of climate change in the aftermath of the event. The initiative is led by Drs Friederike Otto at the University of Oxford and Geert Jan van Oldenborgh at KNMI.


Those paragons of 'junk science'. Your bubble-world of fantasy would be fascinating if it weren't so common (in multiple uses of the word 'common').

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Please provide proofs [or ANY evidence] ...

For anything you've [ever] said, on the subject.


"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" ~ Christopher Hitchens
Meaning: the burden of proof, regarding the truthfulness of a claim, lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further, in order to dismiss it.
Hitchens's Razor, as it is sometimes called, takes an even stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying, even, to non-extraordinary claims.

[GordMay]

Referring to LASP, the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, our favourite truck driver says:

Originally Posted by newhaul

College kids working on their theseis ...

No irony, there.
Periodically, LASP offer Undergraduate Research Assistant Opportunities.
➥ https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/about...#undergraduate
➥ https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/about/leadership/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Referring to LASP, the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, our favourite truck driver says:

No irony, there.
Periodically, LASP offer Undergraduate Research Assistant Opportunities.
➥ https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/about...#undergraduate
➥ https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/about/leadership/

Truck driver? Supposed to be another one of your personal slights because someone else has opinions you don't approve of?

[Exile]

Here's one from an aerospace engineer about the prospects for nuclear fusion technology, and why, like nuclear fission, it may ultimately be opposed not for valid environmental reasons but for thwarting the underlying goals of much of the authoritarian "Progressive" Left. Try not to hyperventilate over the source (the evil William Buckley, blah, blah, blah), or attack the messenger (a lowly truck driver truth be told ).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...on-revolution/

[jimbunyard]

Seems like "our favorite truckdriver" is a term of endearment.

But hey, if the 'radical right' want to (continue) claiming preemptive victimhood, that's their prerogative...doesn't say much for their 'street cred' though.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Seems like "our favorite truckdriver" is a term of endearment.

But hey, if the 'radical right' want to (continue) claiming preemptive victimhood, that's their prerogative...doesn't say much for their 'street cred' though.

And there it is the political death knoll .

[newhaul]

An update to my forecast of hurricane Ida. She will be a strong cat4 when she makes initial landfall due to an m4.7 solar flare and associated CME coming at us on the heels of a high C class CME that will hit Sunday morning . The m class will likely be only hours behind the c class .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Simple physics pressure = heat.

Sorry pressure does not equal heat in any physics equation. Perhaps you are are confused by the universal gas law (PV=nRT)? There are two other variables in that equation that are very important.

To generate heat (raise the temperature) requires addition of energy, like for example pumping up a tire. You can have something under high pressure at any temperature (like a scuba tank).

As for your statements about CO2 percentages in the atmosphere, that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the physics involved. Percentage of CO2 to a gases that are mostly transparent (oxygen and nitrogen) to infrared is not relevant. Without that .03% of CO2 in the atmosphere you dismiss, the earth would be a frozen world (about 25C colder on average).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here's one from an aerospace engineer about the prospects for nuclear fusion technology, and why, like nuclear fission, it may ultimately be opposed not for valid environmental reasons but for thwarting the underlying goals of much of the authoritarian "Progressive" Left. Try not to hyperventilate over the source (the evil William Buckley, blah, blah, blah), or attack the messenger (a lowly truck driver truth be told ).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...on-revolution/

It has a few shovelfuls of fertilizer tossed in, I guess to play to the NR's usual audience:

...funds that should have gone toward building the generation of tokamaks that could have taken us beyond the near-breakeven results TFTR and JET ultimately achieved in the early Nineties were diverted to sending high-level bureaucrats to an unending series of summits in Vienna and Kyoto and other posh spots around the world.

How many expensed dinners equals one tokomak, I wonder... there are a thousand other questionable draws on the public purse. And fusion has been "10 years away" for 50 years now? Fusion is such an immense undertaking that I don't know if private companies could achieve anything without massive government funding. So it's debatable that supporting several independent efforts will work better and be more efficient than a more cooperative united approach.

First, put aside the issue of whether stopping carbon emissions should be a societal priority: If anyone actually wanted to decarbonize electricity production, they could do so now, using nuclear-fission reactors. The French have already done so. The Malthusian movement — a.k.a., “Greens” — opposes this vigorously, because nuclear power threatens to solve a problem they need to have. As soon as fusion power becomes practical, they will oppose it too, for the exact same reason, as in fact the Sierra Club already does.

Double eye-roll. Some elements of the right need to create this one monolithic green strawman, falsely call them all Malthusians and anti-nuke, inbue them with a sekrit soshulist agenda, and blame them for why new reactors aren't being built. The truth is of course much more complex and messy. How about the fossil-fuel industry downplaying that there's a climate problem, so nuclear isn't a priority; lets just frack some more.

If one accepts the idea that resources are limited, then all nations are fundamentally enemies, and the only issue is who is going to kill whom in order to claim what’s available. At bottom, this was the source of the major catastrophes of the 20th century. It could cause far worse in the 21st. This mindset, however, is false. We are not threatened by there being too many people. We are threatened by people who think there are too many people.

Fusion power can save us by utterly refuting the limited-resource thesis. ... With enough energy, we can rearrange [used resources] back, recycling it faster and faster from one form to another. We will never run out of anything.

Greenie blaming and bogus Malthusian accusations aside, this is a very important and interesting point to discuss. Could unlimited energy free us from all human want, suffering and conflict? Why yes, it possibly could. With the following observations:

• We already receive more energy than we could use. Sunlight. The main impediments to using more of it are the logistics of storage and distribution... which at this point might be easier problems to solve than achieving and commercializing fusion.
• Net, we already have lots of available energy; but we refuse to share it around.
• Note the reference to recycling? Any particular reason why recycling would be ok then, but is an object of derision now?
• Control is power, and those with it will not give up their hegemonies easily. So fusion will benefit some, but not all because of putting profit before need, and the desire to maintain dominance.

(quoting again)

The fundamental issue is this: Are resources limited or unlimited? If they are limited, then every person is the enemy of every other person, every nation is the enemy of every other nation, every newborn child is a menace, and the key role of government must be to suppress human numbers, activities, and liberties. But if resources are really the unlimited result of human creative activity, then every person is potentially the friend of every other person, every nation can ultimately be the friend of every other nation, every newborn child is a blessing, and the key role of government must be to protect human liberty at all costs.

Again, a very interesting point. But with a very narrow focus here - the author is only considering resources that easily convert to wealth. He is not considering land, air, water, soil, natural habitats, biodiversity, or any notion of preserving some semblance of the planet that first nurtured us. Just consume, profit, consume. And of course the obligatory NR pledge of allegiance to libertarianism, 'cos cooperation and altruism is just unthinkable.

So, yes - unlimited energy would be a boon, no doubt. But the rest of that 'exploit everything without pause, it'll be great!' mindset ignores the very real limits and responsibilities of living on a planet.

[jimbunyard]

Hmmmm, just copying your brother.

...not for valid environmental reasons but for thwarting the underlying goals of much of the authoritarian "Progressive" Left....

(which by the way is not in the passage plagarized from Arthur Turrell by the Mars crank Robert Zurbin's article in the 'Capital' section of the Neoconservative party media mouthpiece National Review. What is conveniently 'left out' is that the responsible parties for putting the mostly imaginary kibosh on fusion research were bureaucrats in the Reagan (mis)administration.)


So's that the 'death knoll' Oswald's 'accomplish' was hiding behind?...

As for your oxmoronic 'forecasts'; because, as we all know, the 'solar wind' (the major percentage of which is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field), has a much 'huger' effect on storm intensity, than say, forward speed, or ocean heat-layer depth, or wind shear, or regional pressure profiles and their comparative range differences, and on and on?

Will be interesting to see where the 'forecast' 'secondary' landfall is expected to be. Guess it'll be that Nebraska beachfront...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It has a few shovelfuls of fertilizer tossed in, I guess to play to the NR's usual audience:

...funds that should have gone toward building the generation of tokamaks that could have taken us beyond the near-breakeven results TFTR and JET ultimately achieved in the early Nineties were diverted to sending high-level bureaucrats to an unending series of summits in Vienna and Kyoto and other posh spots around the world.

How many expensed dinners equals one tokomak, I wonder... there are a thousand other questionable draws on the public purse. And fusion has been "10 years away" for 50 years now? Fusion is such an immense undertaking that I don't know if private companies could achieve anything without massive government funding. So it's debatable that supporting several independent efforts will work better and be more efficient than a more cooperative united approach.

First, put aside the issue of whether stopping carbon emissions should be a societal priority: If anyone actually wanted to decarbonize electricity production, they could do so now, using nuclear-fission reactors. The French have already done so. The Malthusian movement — a.k.a., “Greens” — opposes this vigorously, because nuclear power threatens to solve a problem they need to have. As soon as fusion power becomes practical, they will oppose it too, for the exact same reason, as in fact the Sierra Club already does.

Double eye-roll. Some elements of the right need to create this one monolithic green strawman, falsely call them all Malthusians and anti-nuke, inbue them with a sekrit soshulist agenda, and blame them for why new reactors aren't being built. The truth is of course much more complex and messy. How about the fossil-fuel industry downplaying that there's a climate problem, so nuclear isn't a priority; lets just frack some more.

If one accepts the idea that resources are limited, then all nations are fundamentally enemies, and the only issue is who is going to kill whom in order to claim what’s available. At bottom, this was the source of the major catastrophes of the 20th century. It could cause far worse in the 21st. This mindset, however, is false. We are not threatened by there being too many people. We are threatened by people who think there are too many people.

Fusion power can save us by utterly refuting the limited-resource thesis. ... With enough energy, we can rearrange [used resources] back, recycling it faster and faster from one form to another. We will never run out of anything.

Greenie blaming and bogus Malthusian accusations aside, this is a very important and interesting point to discuss. Could unlimited energy free us from all human want, suffering and conflict? Why yes, it possibly could. With the following observations:

• We already receive more energy than we could use. Sunlight. The main impediments to using more of it are the logistics of storage and distribution... which at this point might be easier problems to solve than achieving and commercializing fusion.
• Net, we already have lots of available energy; but we refuse to share it around.
• Note the reference to recycling? Any particular reason why recycling would be ok then, but is an object of derision now?
• Control is power, and those with it will not give up their hegemonies easily. So fusion will benefit some, but not all because of putting profit before need, and the desire to maintain dominance.

(quoting again)

The fundamental issue is this: Are resources limited or unlimited? If they are limited, then every person is the enemy of every other person, every nation is the enemy of every other nation, every newborn child is a menace, and the key role of government must be to suppress human numbers, activities, and liberties. But if resources are really the unlimited result of human creative activity, then every person is potentially the friend of every other person, every nation can ultimately be the friend of every other nation, every newborn child is a blessing, and the key role of government must be to protect human liberty at all costs.

Again, a very interesting point. But with a very narrow focus here - the author is only considering resources that easily convert to wealth. He is not considering land, air, water, soil, natural habitats, biodiversity, or any notion of preserving some semblance of the planet that first nurtured us. Just consume, profit, consume. And of course the obligatory NR pledge of allegiance to libertarianism, 'cos cooperation and altruism is just unthinkable.

So, yes - unlimited energy would be a boon, no doubt. But the rest of that 'exploit everything without pause, it'll be great!' mindset ignores the very real limits and responsibilities of living on a planet.

It was good to read you found it interesting and thought-provoking L-E. Thanks for some worthwhile comments.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Seems like "our favorite truckdriver" is a term of endearment.

But hey, if the 'radical right' want to (continue) claiming preemptive victimhood, that's their prerogative...doesn't say much for their 'street cred' though.

Didn't realize anger, incivility, and outright nastiness were so related to political orientation. Until relatively recent times that is.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Hmmmm, just copying your brother.

(which by the way is not in the passage plagarized from Arthur Turrell by the Mars crank Robert Zurbin's article in the 'Capital' section of the Neoconservative party media mouthpiece National Review. What is conveniently 'left out' is that the responsible parties for putting the mostly imaginary kibosh on fusion research were bureaucrats in the Reagan (mis)administration.)


So's that the 'death knoll' Oswald's 'accomplish' was hiding behind?...

As for your oxmoronic 'forecasts'; because, as we all know, the 'solar wind' (the major percentage of which is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field), has a much 'huger' effect on storm intensity, than say, forward speed, or ocean heat-layer depth, or wind shear, or regional pressure profiles and their comparative range differences, and on and on?

Will be interesting to see where the 'forecast' 'secondary' landfall is expected to be. Guess it'll be that Nebraska beachfront...

I suspect your hatreds of people who don't think like you go even further back than the Reagan administration. Just a hunch.

Speaking of which, what's so offensive about someone making a harmless hurricane forecast that can be easily tracked on the NOAA website, and probably every other media outlet in the area?