.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
taks
-
Posts
1960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by taks
-
-
One of my customers project managers gave me a christmas present today. It's an eight year old bottle of Bookers small batch bourbon. I'm having a little on ice right now. Very nice. Once you start drining the good stuff you never go back to the same ole same ole (namely Jack Daniels, Jim Beam et al).
i agree, good bourbon will lead you away from the standards quickly. i like maker's mark.
taks
-
Assume for the moment that the 'truth' is that man the cause, what can possibly be done?
adapt? why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
taks
-
No they don't, and you've already written that they don't. A scenario is a macro prediction.
the scientists explicitly state that the models aren't useful for prediction. whether you want to call them macro predictions is up to you, but they are not useful for this purpose and have proven themselves useless.
You're seriously asking me to prove that the majority of climate scientists believe that little gw global warming is happening?i responded to a statement that you claimed the majority of scientists think models are useful. i did not make any claim about whether scientists agree that warming is happening.
Dunno, but if you disbelieve their expert opinions, as with numbersman the onus is on you to provide reasonable evidence they're wrong beyond mere rote restatement that the models contain errors.sorry, but it is sufficient to state that the models have not predicted anything useful to demonstrate they are not useful. furthermore, i'm not sure what "expert" opinions you are referring to regarding models since even jim hansen says they aren't predictions. he runs GISS... sheesh.
If you think a RNG could do as well provide evidence that is true, if it's as self evident as you imply it shouldn't take too long.there you go reframing the question, another red herring. i said that models are inaccurate enough that an RNG would be just as useful, or as the case may be, equally useless. as i recall, the actual temperature record exhibits strong AR characteristics.
In any case, even models of 'simple' systems like the solar system tend to throw out things like Mercury crashing into the sun, Earth/Venus orbits crossing, moon crashing into the earth etc so the range of possibilities even in that simple model can be... odd.again with the red herrings. first, orbital dynamics are very well understood and are periodic functions - the analogy is not even remotely appropriate, and it is quite disingenuous of you to use it (you should know better). what they do not account for is the minor perturbations which require updates over time. a TLE is only useful for a few days as a result (they are updated publicly every 7 days or so).
the climate is not even remotely in the same ballpark. if minor unknowns can throw off a well understood periodic model in a few days, what happens when the fundamentals of a climate model aren't known at all over "macro" scales of decades? we're not talking about the variable effect of the solar wind on something in orbit. we're talking about floor to ceiling changes that result from tweaks in the fundamentals assumptions in the models.
Ain't a shade of emotion in that. Bangladesh has a high population and a lot of very low altitude land area. If nothing is done and sea levels rise they will get displaced.you need to look a little deeper into your own statements. doom and gloom arguments, particularly ones as specious as flooding bangladesh, are appeals to emotion (at the current rate, it will take several hundred years for a one meter rise) and only serve to enhance the urgency in which heretofore unproven assertions must be acted upon. what happens as a result of sea level rise has nothing to do with the validity of models or any other claim i have made. in other words, such arguments are evidence of nothing other than your personal bias.
unless you think potentially millions more refugees in south asia is a good thing.you spend all that effort explaining it away then... "OMG!!! millions of refugees!" sigh.
even with insurance, there is an assumption of reasonable risks. it isn't reasonable when the pace at which such a travesty would occur is over the course of millenia. it isn't even a travesty. there won't be millions of refugees, either, unless you still clinging to the belief that these people will all stand around long enough to be up to their necks in water, even after i already pointed out how silly that sounds.
if the likes of you were to become a non-issue, we might even be able to solve any such problem through our own wits. i mean, in 100 years when the seas have risen by a foot... imagine how much technology will have advanced without the hindrance of alarmism.
I've read the supposed 'smoking guns' and they aren't,um, i was right, you don't understand what i'm talking about. you need to look into the data itself, not the emails.
and just about everyone outside the strict denialist camp agrees that while there's a fair bit of pettiness exhibited that's pretty much it.couldn't resist yet another fallacy - argumentum ad hominem. the only people that think the emails are petty are those that are implicated, or those whose work is threatened, and the alarmists that support them in the face of undeniable evidence. that's the funny thing about religious beliefs, facts are easily ignored by the mind in order to continue the belief.
in any case, there is much more to it than just pettiness when scientists that are in charge of data, in charge of the science that gets into the IPCC, and in charge of 10s of millions of dollars of funding every year (michael mann's group brings in $55 M, so much for the well funded skeptics) are rigging the peer review process, then scoffing that skeptical arguments haven't been peer reviewed. when they openly discuss attempts to avoid FOIA requests, they are not simply being petty, they are breaking the law (conspiracy to commit a felony is... a felony).
taks
-
You do realise that is what I have been saying all along, right? That you cannot tell specifics from the models but they can be used for macro predictions?
i don't think you realize what i'm saying: they cannot be used even for macro predictions. the scientists themselves say this, and the results of the models confirm this. the pieces of the puzzle that are missing are not just little things, they are the very basis of our weather and climate. without a complete understanding of the energy budget or cloud formation, you might as well draw a line on a page and say "this is it."
The majority of scientists are of the opinion that they are good enough for it to be sensible to act on the scenarios they generate, not that the scenarios are gospel truth that will occur- any stochastic model inherently generates ranges of possibilities.prove "majority." maybe majority of those that get quoted for the media. furthermore, it is a red herring to say "any stochastic model inherently generates ranges of possibilities." you avoid the truth with this statement since the "range of possibilities" is large enough that falsification is impossible. just about any result is apparently within the range of possibilities, which leaves zero confidence in the results. perhaps these scientists that think such scenarios are reliable enough to use simply don't understand this simple point? certainly their stastical skills have been demonstrated as not up to the task, which leads me to the conclusion they really don't understand why the model developers refuse to call their models "predictive."
There is no requirement for absolute accuracy when making predictions, they are a model for generating risk assessment primarily.which is meaningless when a simple random number generator will provide equally valid results.
And as such it is eminently sensible to act on some things at least, like deciding where and how x million Bangladeshis will live if the sea level does rise significantly.ah, there you go with the emotional argument. couldn't resist the fallacy, eh? btw, do you think the bangladeshis are going to stay till the water gets up to their necks? are they that stupid? please refrain from the "oh noooes! what are we going to do about the XXXXX???" type arguments. you only serve to demean your own credibility by doing so.
And as I've said multiple times, there's barely anyone who doesn't think the earth is warming, the disputation is over how much it will, whether we've caused it and whether we can do anything about it.based on what i keep reading regarding the adjustments made to the primary source of the temperature data, much of the warming does seem to be man made. you can think about that statement for a bit if you'd like.
oh, and for the record, you can't average temperature in two different locations and yield a reasonable result unless they have identical atmospheric properties. this whole nonsensical idea doesn't really make any physical sense and i don't know why any legitimate scientist would agree to it.
And to reiterate, I think the 'solutions' suggested for anthropogenic climate change are silly and won't work.there is one, adapt. that is what we do. we will also then be prepared in the event of the reverse situation, which, contrary to popular belief, is much worse for humanity: an ice age.
taks
-
Anyway, do you have proof that glaciers as a collective are losing mass?
i already pointed out that we do not monitor enough of the glaciers to make any definitive claims. there are, as well, many glaciers that are growing, in spite of the inability of such crack investigators as lare to uncover them.
you have yet to produce anything that actually shows that climate models work as you claim they do.even the authors, you know, the guys that write the code, don't think they are very good. so why does zoraptor
taks
-
there aren't just "inaccuracies" in climate models. to say or imply that the problems with the GCMs are simply "inaccuracies" is not just disingenuous, it is an outright ignorance of the fact or a plain fabrication. a) scientists do not understand the very fundamental energy budget, i.e., the little nuanced bit of data that is the core of all GCMs, b) scientists do not understand, at all, the mechanism that drives cloud formation, i.e., those pesky fluffy things in the sky that ultimately drive the albedo (which in turn, drives the energy budget), and c) GCMs do not even come close to representing the actual circulation of the atmosphere (the C in GCM means circulation).
furthermore, the ultimate test of any model is its predictive ability, and in the case of GCMs, not only do they continually fail to demonstrate what is yet to come, the authors openly admit that the GCMs are not predictive tools. their outputs are dubbed "possible scenarios," nothing more. this little understood fact is really just an admission that GCMs are incomplete to the point they should not be used for anything other than curious laboratory investigations.
oh, and in all likelihood, climate is not wholly periodic (other than some rather obvious periodicities), which implies chaos, which really can't be modeled in any realistic way anyway. the GCMs are simply tuned repeatedly to match to past climate (hindcasting), which is an assumption of periodic (or formulaic) behavior, and generally results in the rather well-known problem of overfitting. the error bars for "possible scenarios" are basically floor to ceiling, so just about any result is "consistent with the models." this is why you get outlandish claims like "cooling can result from global warming." yeah, how 'bout that bridge i just inherited in san francisco. anybody want to buy it cheap?
i can't believe anyone would actually defend GCMs even deeper than what the authors of the code are willing to do themselves. i mean, they openly admit they are not predictive tools, which implies they are otherwise useless as anything other than analytical curiosities in hopes of improvement for future use, yet people like zoraptor think these things simply suffer from "inaccuracies?" wow. just... wow.
taks
-
Well clearly there's more to that model or you wouldn't get hot lying about in the sun.
that's because your body does indeed absorb light which increases the kinetic energy of the molecules and hence, raises your temperature. the issue with CO2 in the atmosphere (as well as the other gases) is a bit more complicated.
zoraptor is correct, but even he is missing the point somewhat. first, you can't just simply say "50% is radiated back out to space." while in general that is true, in reality, since there isn't just a single molecule layer of CO2 in the atmosphere, the process of going back to the earth and back out to space is quite a bit more complex. when wavelengths change, various molecules sometimes cannot reabsorb the radiation (CO2 only absorbs in a few limited bands), which adds yet another layer of complexity. the atmosphere does not contain a uniform distribution of CO2, either. it is densest at the surface of the earth, and varies rather wildly across the globe even at the surface (in spite of homogeneity claims). then you start to get into the fact that the atmosphere is very dynamic, best represented by a fluid flow problem. there is also the age old PV = nRT, which somehow everyone forgets. ultimately, the "solution" to what happens will need to be a combination all the simple physics - PV = nRT, absorption, radiation, etc., combined with fluid dynamics, finite element mathematics, and probably a host of other areas that i don't even know myself. models do use basic fluid flow and finite element calculations, but the grids are 100km on a side, which is hardly sufficient for the atmosphere.
taks
-
link me to it. prove your claims.
already did, NSIDC. you were capable of going to the NSIDC to find arctic data, which i already noted as declining, but conveniently ignored antarctic data. is it that you did not realize the word "arctic" mean north pole, not global? i wouldn't be surprised... nah, given your subsequent responses you simply realized you couldn't refute me so you chose to erect a strawman, failing to note that i actually mentioned the arctic as declining (technically, the extent is sitting just below the 30 year average right now, though i don't know about its mass).
i meant that i'd like to see these numbers. please show a link that shows the percentage of glaciers have been studied, and that only half of them are melting. you throw around numbers with no sources.i throw around common knowledge. that your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to prove things for yourself is not my problem. this incessant need to have everybody post the same damned links time and time again is a joke.
but, since you choose to be intellectually lazy:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/summary.pdf
they (UNEP, data from the world glacier monitoring service) have inventoried over 100,000 (there are thought to be nearly twice that) and have measured the length of 1800, just under 2%, and the mass of 230, or only 0.23% of those inventoried. the percentages are even smaller if we consider the total number, which is nearly double what has been inventoried.
from the same summary, it says there is high variability, and they stop short of actually claiming an acceleration, though they do claim "rapid."
note, too, that the UN backs me up, and i find the UN to be the most dishonest organization on the planet.
well you've got one example of a glacier receding that isn't directly caused by global warming. it only proves that one glacier isn't melting because of global warming, nothing else.that's the one al gore always uses. it is rather easy to find a list of expanding glaciers. for you to suggest there aren't any simply because i didn't point out every one is even more proof of your dissonance.
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
i couldn't find any data on global sea ice levels, just regional data and it all says it's decreasing. if you have data that backs your claim up please post it.not in the antarctic, it is growing. since antarctica is the largest body of ice on the planet, it serves to reason that it could easily balance out the arctic losses.
it says it is in mass balance and it's losing coastal ice, not that it's gaining mass like you claimed. you learn how to read.i read your article fine. i said its interior is gaining mass. you should learn to read.
heh, resorting to name calling are we? as i said i couldnt find any data on GLOBAL ice and i already said that the antarctic is probably in balance or gaining mass slightly. if you have that data please post it.yes, because yet again, you posted a reply about the arctic ice in response to a comment about global ice, then somehow made the leap to me being wrong. when someone repeatedly makes such fallacious claims, i begin to surmise they aren't the brightest in the lot. had you actually been more intellectually honest, i would have treated you with more respect, but instead, we get the same old ill-informed alarmist nonsense becuase it is about belief to you, not truth.
no i just think it's funny, you being so arrogant yet having no proof of anything you say at all.everything i said is either proven, or easily provable. this debate has raged for years with the same ridiculous talking points. there's a point at which people simply need to analyze what is there, without ignoring the obvious just because it does not fit with their belief system.
i have a hard time believing that there's no concrete evidence that an increase CO2 in the earths atmosphere increases the temperature as well, but i guess i can't disprove it either.you have a hard time because you don't understand the basics of the physics. there is nothing wrong with that, but making the claim that "the basic physics says so" (paraphrased) is disingenuous at best.
i do happen to understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation, and what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. however, it is much, much deeper than that. for starters, an absorbed photon causes an electron to step up to a higher state, but the electron will step back down abd reradiate another photon almost instantaneously. in order to raise the temperature of a gas, some energy needs to be transferred to kinetic energy, which does not happen in the simple absorption process. something is missing from the description, even in the published literature. what complicates things further is that the atmosphere is extremely dynamic, and stored heat in the atmosphere is dominated by water vapor. this in turn is vastly overwhelmed by the massive amount of water stored in our oceans, which has, as i noted, over 3000 times the capacity.
this is the physics that i am currently trying to understand myself, for the record. it needs to be explained in enough detail that someone like me with a rather extensive technical background can analyze, as well as a high enough level for the lay person to understand. so far, what has been proposed does not pass the smell test.
however i am very spectical.i would assume you mean skeptical (or perhaps, i've seen it spelled sceptical). in light of that, i would recommend you not make claims you cannot back up either with your own knowledge, or that of someone else.
taks
-
according to physics an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase it's temperature.
nope, at least, this has not been shown to be true.
its based on math, not opinion.where's the math? even the IPCC report does not go into any detail.
now if you want to know how much CO2 is needed to increase the temperature of earth you'll gonna have to take a pencil and start doing math. or trust people who have.to date, nobody has actually done the math. it is an assumption that absorbing photons increases heat, one that originates with arrenhius (sic?) over 100 years ago in a paper that has since been shown to be deeply flawed.
your choice.apparently there is only one choice, to do it ourselves.
taks
-
Edit: You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.
indeed, this is the one thing nobody has ever proven to exist. all the "evidence" has shown is warming, and few argue this, but no cause-effect relationship has ever actually been uncovered (at least, none that overcomes the effect of the oceans, which have a heat capacity of over 3000 times that of the atmosphere). even the physics argument is sorely lacking (and absent from any legitimate discussions). it's usually arm-waved as "outgoing radiation is absorbed" but never goes any deeper into the process by which kinetic energy of the CO2 increases (which is required to raise the temperature).
taks
-
already addressed, but very misleading and not about the subject at hand
it is not misleading at all if melting is used as proof of warming.
i'd like proof of these numbers.for god's sake the information is available everyehwere. i cannot help it if you choose to be ignorant of basic facts.
also if we're only monitoring 1% of all glaciers worldwide how can you make any counter-arguments to the claim that they're melting either? are you monitoring more glaciers than the scientific community?i didn't make any claim other than to agree that many that we monitor are melting (my words were about half). nice try, but let's be a little more intellectually honest in the future.
again misleading. sure the glaciers have been melting since the ice age (maybe because back then all of europe was under a glacier?
). the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times.no it hasn't. do you have proof. you made the claim of accelerating, prove it, hypocrite.
deforestation and huge droughts are linked to global warming. weather patterns are changing and becoming more extreme because of global warming. thats the theory anyway.and your point is? my only point was that kilimanjaro can be directly linked to absolute changes at its base, i.e., it is not due to "warming." are you capable of addressing what i said, or only on erecting strawmen?
again i'd like to see some proof that either polar cap is gaining more mass than it's losing. i guess it's possible than the antarctice is gaining mass or is at least not losing any, but the north polar region is definitely losing its mass.uh, can you read? i said that the ARCTIC is losing mass. duh. let's be smarter, please. the NSIDC has information on the antarctica mass. it's mass and extent (which are different) is growing.
this is plain false unless you have some solid evidence that contradicts mine.read your links a bit better... nothing in there contradicts what i said. greenland's coastal areas are calving ice, true, but that is because of an increase of mass in its center, i.e., because it is getting thicker.
so false.god you're an idiot. you post a link about ARCTIC sea ice extent but you replied to a comment i made about GLOBAL ice. ARCTIC means north pole, which i already said is declining. so, what you have done is post a link that agrees with what i said, so no, not false.
i just checked and the GLOBAL anomaly is statistically flat, but the antarctic is statistically up, so my statement that global ice is up is incorrect.
lolindeed, you can't even address the points i made nor did you manage to actually find anything that disagrees with me. the one point i got wrong (global ice) you didn't even catch! maroon.
taks
-
It would seem your contribution is overdue, taks.
people tend to get all bent out of shape when i post facts, so i've been quiet.
taks
-
Just look at the melting glaciers and ice caps. If that is not caused by global warming then what is causing it.
sigh... i suppose i should finally post something.
a) the nifty thing about ice is that it melts at 32 F, so once it is warm enough to melt ice in some particular area, it will melt whether temperatures continue to rise or not (as long at it remains above freezing). i.e., melting ice is evidence of warmer, not warming.
b) we only monitor a very small percentage of the known glaciers on the planet (like under 1%), and only about half are receding (not to be confused with melting).
c) the glaciers began melting at the end of the last ice age, loooong before humans had any chance of a noticeable impact. in other words, once it was warm enough, glaciers affected began to melt.
d) of those that are receding, not all of them are doing so because of warming. kilimanjaro, al gore's favorite example, is receding because of a drought at the base which is exaggerated by land-use changes (so man made, yes, but not warming).
e) the icecaps are not both melting. the arctic ice extent is decreasing, but it is actually a combination of wind pattern changes and warming. antarctica is actually gaining mass and only a very small portion, the west antarctic ice shelf, has exhibited any decline. other than the peninsula that sticks out into the southern pacific, antarctica is never above freezing, so it can't melt.
f) greenland is also gaining mass.
g) overall, global sea ice is increasing.
i realize you're getting your information from the news, but you need to take a deeper look at what they really say in these articles, or follow the references. the bit about the arctic/antarctica, for example, is always tucked into the details of the stories, or the story will only focus on the artic sea ice.
the NSIDC has all the information on these things, btw.
taks
-
Afterwards I watched the Nebraska-Texas game and came to the conclusion that neither of those teams deserved to be playing even on the same day as Florida or Alabama. What a stinky game.
it was awful. my buddy, a TX fan, was talking about how good each defense was. i watched the game too, it wasn't about good defense, it was about bad offense. bad play calls (unbelievable at times), very bad throwing by both QBs, failures on the line (9 sacks yet they still give up 13 points?), zero running by either team (news flash: don't run INTO the guy that wants to tackle you!). 3 hours of my life i won't get back: i watched while at copper mountain with my ski-buddy (and his family), another TX fan... i had no choice.
yeah, i was up at copper all weekend. going back thursday after a foot or two of snow drops, and again saturday/sunday. joy.
taks
-
hmm... why the need to kill? i'd gladly give up 50 lbs. of my fat to anyone that wants it.
taks
-
AMD did not release their first x86-64 chips until 2003. And they were the first to do so with consumer CPUs. So that is incorrect.
he never said that intel was or was not first. the only point was that intel's last 32-bit release (well, major release) was the P4 in 2000. the P4 was ported to 64-bit with the prescott in 2004. 4 years between major releases was what gave AMD a huge lead in the market as i recall (i was using them back then, too). they have since squandered that lead, obviously (i'm back to intel).
taks
-
funny that coyotes are your problem, GD. out here, it's deer (they eat everything), bears (they destroy everything), and mountain lions (they eat small pets). fortunately, i live far enough from the actual mountains, far enough from trees in fact, that i never see anything in my yard other than the odd fox or two running around and this pain in the ass cat that's driving mine insane.
taks
-
****ing smash something, I always say.
i'm replacing a couple doors to the tune of $160.
taks
-
But my job isn't really all that stressful these days.
hehe, my "job" isn't very stressful, either.
that's pretty much what worked out to be my ultimate cure, too. once all the stressful events had passed, or moved on to the back of my thoughts (like my dad's death), i slowly begain to recover. ringing ears, however... grrr.
taks
-
interestingly, NASA is saying that LCROSS did find water in the south pole of the moon, btw.
taks
-
Unfortunately I don't have many choices. After living with unmedicated bipolar for over 7 years, I'm pretty drained. It's gonna be a long time before I have the will to manage it myself again(and I'm not sure I'd even want to do that now).
i was doing zoloft for anxiety attacks (and ultimately, general anxiety disorder), which was directly attributable to what one friend of mine called the "perfect storm of stress." that's the sort of thing that can, and will, go away with time as the stress eases, and a little effort on my part (if i excercised, it would have gone away quicker even). true bipolar disorder, or depression, is not in the same category.
i agree, alanschu, society is generally over medicated. every body that suffers mood swings gets labeled bipolar, or has a bad day gets labeled depressed, but there are legitimate cases that need medical attention. the worst, IMO, is with kids and any one of the myriad attention deficit problems they seem to have drugs for these days. when i was a kid, it was called hyper, or bored, or simply obnoxious. a swift swat to the butt solved many of those problems quickly (my son takes the cake in this regard... he fidgets more than i ever did).
taks
-
But instead, what then happens is that the 'ambush' triggers and enemies literally appear out of nowhere next to the rest of your party.
it doesn't seem to be doing this in the NWN (1 or 2) fashion in which you get pulled into the middle of the room and then surrounded. the forced cut-scene configurations always piss me off.
taks
-
hoping on an anal probing?
i like the futurama concept: herd the most educated of us into a group for forced mating.
taks
-
His response to 'we need to talk about our relationship' was 'if you break up with me I will jump off the balcony' (he lives on the 14th floor).
her response is then "oh goody, i guess i won't have to put up with you pestering me for the next 6 months if you succeed."
taks
). the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times.
Would Scandinavia please take Obama?
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
hehe, camping equipment. i should get a bunch of propane, too, to run my stoves. we're geared well enough to survive the mountains in the winter, actually. the only stocks i have ever owned are in 401(k) plans - well, IRAs, my last company did a SIMPLE IRA.
taks