Science at its finest...

Science at its finest...

formatting link
...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
Loading thread data ...

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson doesn't seem to have noticed that the original article was a spoof, nor read through to the end where it is pointed out to be a satirical joke.

Jim may have gone to MIT, but he seems to have skipped his physics classes.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Ummmm, I don't know so I'm asking - is your sarcasm detector switched on and in proper alignment ?

Reply to
jurb6006

Sarcasm? From Jim? Seriously - is there any suggestion of sacrasm in what he wrote? Or any sign that he'd read far enough to detect that what he'd posted was a spoof?

If your superior powers of literary criticism can find any such evidence, tell us about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

I think the words "Science at its finest" indicate sarcasm. If you know som ething I don't know, well OK then. I think it's pretty political and comes back to democrat ways of spending too much money on bullshit (though the re publicans do just fine at it as well). If nothing else the source is politi cally based. Of course probably republican, you know the people who think t he Earth is 6,000 years old, Woman can't get pregnant from legitimate rape and it should be illegal to report on or use data pertaining to rising sea level. (that last one is only in one state, for now)

I really don't know everybody here because I was gone for some years. In fa ct most of the people I knew here are gone.

Anyway, whaddya think to repair that sound barrier, duct tape and coat hage rs or is there something better now ? I know, 3,000 tons of gorrila glue ! A new tax on speakers would pay for it of course.

Reply to
jurb6006

Sure does. But the article the URL was pointing too wasn't actually about s cience, but pointed to a spoof article, ostensibly satirising the Obama adm isinstration's willingness to support research on "science" that the author of the spoof didn't take seriously. Granting that many right-wing commenta tors don't understand the scientific basis of anthropogenic global warming, this could be pretty much anything.

So Jim seems to have thought that "scientific research proposal" that the s atirist described was real, rather than an imagined spoof.

So Jim was being sarcastic about something that everybody should be sarcast ic about - and if he'd read the URL through to it's end he would have reali sed this and posted something more like "satire at its most plausible".

tical and comes back to democrat ways of spending too much money on bullshi t (though the republicans do just fine at it as well). If nothing else the source is politically based. Of course probably republican, you know the pe ople who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, Woman can't get pregnant from legitimate rape and it should be illegal to report on or use data pertainin g to rising sea level. (that last one is only in one state, for now).

We seem to share a common understanding here.

fact most of the people I knew here are gone.

I've been posting here since 1996, and Jim Thompson was around then.

ngers or is there something better now ? I know, 3,000 tons of gorrila glue ! A new tax on speakers would pay for it of course.

Sadly, the sound barrier is a transient thing, and repairs itself without e xternal help. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is less transient - the time constant seems to be about 800 years, so it might be useful give it some at tention now. John Larkin's under-evolved brain seesm to be nostalgic for so rt of CO2 levels last seen at the Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 mi llion yuears ago, but the rest of us have noticed that our agricultural pra ctices are adapted to lower CO2 levels.

formatting link

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

external help. "

Don't tell me you missed my sarcasm, I really tried to make it obvious.

Actually I made a mistake, years ago I had just discovered this place when I lost my Usenet access. I had been on SER, not here and now they are both kind next to each other. I was an AOLer and got my Usenet access via that u ntil they discontinued it. I tried to set up the NNTP connection that but f ialed enough times so I said screw it. I was too busy to worry about it and at the time SER was going downhill anyway. In fact I think all newgroups, forums (fora ?) and blogs have gone downhill for some reason.

As far as the global warming thing goes, they have not put forth enough raw data to be publicly analysed for me to accept that we all gonna DIE !!!!!! Of course we are. Of course we add to the problem, we always have. I can't dismiss these traffic jams and think not only about the CO2 coming out of each of those tailpipes for HOURS, as well as the heat, but also the heat r ight from the engine itself. OK it all comes from burning the fuel but not all of it comes out of the tailpipe. Plus the fact that everything we do ma kes heat. Nuclear power even, it makes a hell of alot of heat but it is a b it more efficient at containing it - a bit. Even if you ran battery operate d air conditioners, all they do is pump heat out, they do not "destroy" the energy. That's against the law. But even charging the batteries to run the air conditioner makes heat at the electric plant if nowhere else, IF you c ould just dump the BTUs into space.

Solar could be a good option but I'm sure Murphy's law is going to come int o play. They are going to find some sort of deliterious effect on the soil or wind patterns or some shit. Enough windmills would have to have some eff ect. There is a law that states you cannot measure something without affect ing it, try using power from it ! Geothermal I think could be dangerous if applied on a large enough scale.

From what I hear now Greenland's ice is melting but they say the heat is co ming from the inside of the Earth. People have told me that the Milankovich cycles are not having a significant effect but I would like to see some pr oof. I haven't even heard them discussed, let alone even suppopsition on wh ether they are exaserbating or ameliorating the warming trend. What is righ t now, the Earth is closest to the sun in January ? Well the land/water dis tribution pattern is slightly different between the northern and southern h emispheres, so there has to be some effect. It should be looked into if for no other reason than to officially and scientifically give it less or no w eight in the calculations. What's more the Earth is a tremendous thermal ma ss. The warming we have now did not start yesterday.

And then when the sun reverses magnetic polarity, will that blow off part o f the upper atmosphere ? Hell, maybe we'll NEED those greenhouse gases.

This is all shit they think they know, and I do not accept it on face value no matter what the father of the internet or the modern Einsteins say. I b elieve that while science has advanced, scientists just ain't that good any more. It may be due to overload actually, which is probably why there is mo re specialization today. Not saying they're not smart, there's just alot mo re information now.

Either way, it would be foolish to deny global warming and most likely CO2 is a significant factor on top of the fact that all humans know how to do i s burn stuff. However I do believe that really fixing it is beyond current technology and it will stay that way as long as the almighty buck rules. Al l corbon credits do is suck more money out of our pockets. I don't care who anyone THINKS pays for this shit, the fact is that WE pay for this shit no matter what. What's more shipping all the industry overseas does nothing t o abate the problem, it just moves it into a different place in the same at mosphere, along with a bunch of money that we desperately need here.

How do we go green when we have such an infrastructure that the roads becom e massive live CO2 and BTU generating parking lots for a couple of hours tw ice a day ?

So really, the political humor is there. There is alot more but this is lon g enough. I think we should make a bunch of money and use that to find solu tions. It really shouldn't take money.

But it does.

Reply to
jurb6006

ut external help. "

It suited me to misunderstand your sarcasm ..

n I lost my Usenet access. I had been on SER, not here and now they are bot h kind next to each other. I was an AOLer and got my Usenet access via that until they discontinued it. I tried to set up the NNTP connection that but failed enough times so I said screw it. I was too busy to worry about it a nd at the time SER was going downhill anyway. In fact I think all newgroups , forums (fora ?) and blogs have gone downhill for some reason.

aw data to be publicly analysed for me to accept that we all gonna DIE !!!! !! Of course we are. Of course we add to the problem, we always have. I can 't dismiss these traffic jams and think not only about the CO2 coming out o f each of those tailpipes for HOURS, as well as the heat, but also the heat right from the engine itself. OK it all comes from burning the fuel but no t all of it comes out of the tailpipe. Plus the fact that everything we do makes heat. Nuclear power even, it makes a hell of alot of heat but it is a bit more efficient at containing it - a bit. Even if you ran battery opera ted air conditioners, all they do is pump heat out, they do not "destroy" t he energy. That's against the law. But even charging the batteries to run t he air conditioner makes heat at the electric plant if nowhere else, IF you could just dump the BTUs into space.

Global warming isn't about the heat we are dissipating, but rather the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere - it's a greenhouse gas, and our burning of fossil carbon (oil and coal) has pushed the level in the atmosphere from a bout 280ppm - which is what it has been since the start of the current inte r-glacial to about 400ppm now. The changing carbon isotope ratio in atmosph eric CO2 makes it clear that it is the fossil carbon that we are burning th at is making the difference.

nto play. They are going to find some sort of deliterious effect on the soi l or wind patterns or some shit. Enough windmills would have to have some e ffect. There is a law that states you cannot measure something without affe cting it, try using power from it ! Geothermal I think could be dangerous i f applied on a large enough scale.

The effects of adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere are rather more immed iate and certain. The exact effect of each extra ppm of CO2 on the air can' t be predicted all that exactly, but you don't need to predict it particula rly exactly to know that more CO2 in the air isn't going to do us any good at all.

coming from the inside of the Earth.

Sure it is. But that heat flow hasn't changed - it's just that the thermal gradient is less steep so the ice is melting a little higher within the ice

-cap, and so the ice above it is more likely to slide off into the ocean

nt effect but I would like to see some proof. I haven't even heard them dis cussed, let alone even suppopsition on whether they are exacerbating or ame liorating the warming trend. What is right now, the Earth is closest to the sun in January ? Well the land/water distribution pattern is slightly diff erent between the northern and southern hemispheres, so there has to be som e effect. It should be looked into if for no other reason than to officiall y and scientifically give it less or no weight in the calculations.

It has been looked into in detail, and is still being looked into. The Mila nkovitch effect is tiny, but its just big enough to drive CO2 into and out of the oceans in big enough quantitities to flip us between interglacials a nd ice ages

formatting link

ow did not start yesterday.

The CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising progressively more rapidily - the half-way point between the pre-historic 280ppm and the current 400ppm - 34

0ppm was reached in 1981. Unsurprisingly, the consequent warming didn't sta rt sticking out above the noise until some ten years later, in the 1990's, which is when people started taking it seriously.

of the upper atmosphere ? Hell, maybe we'll NEED those greenhouse gases.

Probably not. A slightly more likely disaster - though still pretyy improba ble - has enough ice sliding off Greenland to stop the Gulf Stream, which c ould duplicate the Younger Dryas event which made Europe and the east coast of north America much colder from 12800 years ago to 11500 years ago, at t he end of the most recent ice age.

ue no matter what the father of the internet or the modern Einsteins say. I believe that while science has advanced, scientists just ain't that good a nymore. It may be due to overload actually, which is probably why there is more specialization today. Not saying they're not smart, there's just alot more information now.

Sadly, you don't seem to have been able to find enough of it.

2 is a significant factor on top of the fact that all humans know how to do is burn stuff. However I do believe that really fixing it is beyond curren t technology and it will stay that way as long as the almighty buck rules.

Probably true, through doubling the cost of energy - which is what it would take if we did it with today's technology, wouldn't wreck our economy, tho ugh it would chew up about three year's worth of normal economic expansion (which is about 3% per year for a modern economy when it's not in recession ).

In fact solar power is expected to get quite a lot cheaper as we use it on a larger scale - increasing manufacturing volume by a factor of ten typical ly halves the unit cost of the hardware being produced, and since the cost of solar power is all capital cost, simply deciding to go over to solar pow er would eventually make it cheaper than burning our ever-decreasing and pr ogressively harder-to-extract stocks of fossil carbon.

What is important is that the richest 1% in the US gets quite a lot of its money from digging up and selling fossil carbon, and they hate the idea of losing that income, and are spending lots of money on deceptive propaganda to persuade people that it isn't necessary

who anyone THINKS pays for this shit, the fact is that WE pay for this shi t no matter what. What's more shipping all the industry overseas does nothi ng to abate the problem, it just moves it into a different place in the sam e atmosphere, along with a bunch of money that we desperately need here.

Perfectly correct. But you'll pay a lot more for rebuilding New York and ev ery other costal city a few miles inland once global sea levels start to ri se rapidly, as Greenland's icey mountains slide off into the Atlantic.

ome massive live CO2 and BTU generating parking lots for a couple of hours twice a day ?

Better batteries and more electric cars, recharged from solar power plants.

long enough. I think we should make a bunch of money and use that to find solutions. It really shouldn't take money.

The problem with global warming is that it is already impacting our capacit y to divert money to tackle long term problems, and as it gets worse we wil l be even busier fighting the alligators, rather than draining the swamp.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.