Re: OT: Post Turtle

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:07:40 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:20:35 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is, as you can easily confirm, sci.electronics.design, and I
design electronics. Lots of it. If you really want to argue about
climatology, go do it with experts on climatology, on some other
group.

I suppose you could hide behind the denotation of "proven" in your
statement, "Whether CO2 causes warming is still not proven," back on
the 17th. Nothing in science is ever proven for all time, as
logically it isn't possible to know what the future will bring.

But I tend to see that kind of statement as rather provocative, John.
From as far back as the 1820's to 1860's, scientists have known not
only about the possibility but that some specific gases including H2O
and CO2 do have global warming effects. Although the modern
understanding is like night and day to those times (atomic theory,
subatomic particles, quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, etc.), if
anything your statement is very much like someone saying "Whether the
Earth is roughly spherical or entirely flat is still not proven," in
the modern context. Both are equally misleading, if not entirely
silly to make so boldly. One can stand pat claiming that absolute
proof is not had, of course. But it is equally senseless to take
either position. Yet you take one of them and it looks just as
dogmatic and dead wrong to me as the other would have. That you don't
see why only goes to show your ignorance on the subject. Nothing
else.

Frankly, if you are just remaining "skeptical" then I've no idea why
you write that way. Unless you just like wearing your ignorance on
this topic on your sleeves. The information isn't hard to find and
with someone having your experience in electronics design and sensor
physics, I'd imagine that a few bits of science understanding and a
differential equation or two wouldn't be a road block to you, if you
weren't really just looking for a fight.

The pressure broadening issue here was that a certain idler told me I
was stupid because I am skeptical about AGW

Elsewhere, you wrote, "If pressure broadening increases global
warming, the atmospheric pressure must be increasing." Yesterday, was
it? Do you seriously imagine that it makes any sense at all? Your
logic is horribly flawed on its face and if you knew much about the
subject you'd cringe from making such an error. It's as bad as
saying, "If dogs bark, then cats cover their ears." One might find
some distant sense in it, in a vague way. But it's not at all sound
reasoning. I'd expect better than that from someone as imaginative
and smart.

There is no question whatsoever that you are ignorant about AGW or GW,
generally. This doesn't make you stupid or dull. I like reading some
of what you write here and I learn from you here and there -- enough
to be worth the time.

But some of your statements on the subject are just asking for a punch
in the arm.

and cited my ignorance of
pressure broadening as an example. So what I'm trying to figure out is
how PB is a contributor to AGW, any more than it has been a heat
trapper for the last billion years or three. If manmade CO2 isn't
increasing atmospheric pressure, PB seems to not be an amplifier.

I cited a very specific place, which details in exact and quantitative
terms the hows and wherefores of pressure broadening in connection
with global warming. There are more than a few salient points on that
topic alone, each of which are categorized under "pressure broadening"
but where there are interesting and distinct facets which are
important to treat separately. If you are seriously "trying to figure
out" these details, please read the text in the regions I mentioned
and hopefully a little beyond there. I could try and put my own words
to it, but why should you take my word on anything? Better to get it
from someone who can put equations to the theory and where they can
show you how those equations yield the conclusions, when deduced
properly with specifics related to the Earth.

My position on AGW is

(as though you are in a position to have a position on it)

1. It's not quantified by any real science

Which is a conclusion by fiat that can only be made by someone nearly
completely ignorant of the modern state of the science.

2. It's not demonstrably happening;

Wrong. And again, a statement which obviously could only be made by
someone comprehensively informed on the subject and we already know
you are not. If you would dare to pull your head out of the ground
for a moment and study a little, you'd come to a different conclusion.
But you won't and you won't.

the hockey stick was a hoax.

No. But like a lot of science papers, the original publication had
some flaws which did NOT materially impact the broad conclusions of
the paper but where some of the details needed repair. Wasn't the
first such paper and it won't be the last. But it was not a hoax --
that denotes lying with the intent to deceive and that was not the
case here.

3. If it is happening, it's not necessarily bad

Hiding in the word, "necessarily," John? A poison released in your
city's water supply isn't "necessarily bad." Who knows? It just
might happen to cure cancer at the levels present.

It is happening and it spells out "rapid change." Some species cannot
migrate fast enough. For example, trees take quite some time to move
to a similarly comfortable locality. Animals have feet and can
migrate, though it's not as easy for them as you may imagine it. In
any case, it's going to give meaning to "may you live in interesting
times."

4. If it's bad, we're not going to do anything about it

Well, there I'm pretty much with you... at least, until it is way too
late to make the transitions much easier than very much harder.

5. It has no discernable effect on electronic design

hehe. Okay. I almost agree. But it did have an effect, at least
indirectly. Small molecule CFCs were used in large baths to clean
circuit boards "back in the day." These molecules were doing two
things -- drastically shifting the equilibrium balance in the ozone
layer AND significantly contributing to global warming, as well.

6. Why worry? We can do things to lessen human misery, things that
with little doubt do work, so we should do them. And I do.

Well, there is no point worrying for worrying's sake. And if you do
what you feel you can anyway then I'm fine with that. I just don't
feel that some of your comments here and elsewhere are wisely made and
they certainly show some difficulties you have with applying sound
logic or understanding your own limitations in the scope of your
knowledge about the world. There is nothing inherently wrong with
having such limitations... we all do. It's just a blemish on your
otherwise excellent contributions that you would say dogmatic things
about a subject you are rather ignorant about and seem to be unwilling
to change.

Do you guys ever design electronics?

Yes. But in my case I'm ignorant enough about electronics design that
I learn some important new ways to think about it, reading this group,
despite all the noise here.

Jon


OK, answer this:

How many gallons of gasoline do you personally use, per year, to move
your body around? Include cars, lawn mowers, any motorized vehicle. If
you share with other riders, make the appropriate adjustments.

How much does your household spend, per year, on energy utilities...
gas, oil, electricity, coal, whatever you use? How many people share
that energy?

How many miles do you fly per year?

Do you have a private plane or boat or RV or other non-transport
vehicle? How much gas do they use?

How much do you personally contribute (not through taxes, but through
choice) to helping feed/medicate/educate impoverished people in other
countries?

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Post Turtle
    ... and CO2 do have global warming effects. ... with someone having your experience in electronics design and sensor ... Elsewhere, you wrote, "If pressure broadening increases global ... There is no question whatsoever that you are ignorant about AGW or GW, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Post Turtle
    ... Nothing in science is ever proven for all time, ... with someone having your experience in electronics design and sensor ... Elsewhere, you wrote, "If pressure broadening increases global ... There is no question whatsoever that you are ignorant about AGW or GW, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Post Turtle
    ... Nothing in science is ever proven for all time, ... with someone having your experience in electronics design and sensor ... Elsewhere, you wrote, "If pressure broadening increases global ... There is no question whatsoever that you are ignorant about AGW or GW, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Post Turtle
    ... Sloman told me that I was ignorant of pressure broadening. ... Your postings on the subject of global warming aren't exactly original ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: [SLE] How to start a computer remotely - generic Q
    ... I was watching the program "Global warming - what you need to ... know" on discovery channel yesterday and learned that TV's, ... electronics use almost 40% of their normal wattage even when switched ...
    (SuSE)
Loading