Re: OT: Post Turtle

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:19:17 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:17:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

I see. You imagine that by finding fault in me you might, in any way,
remedy your own staunch exhibition of a lack of sound judgment when
speaking as though you have some authority on something you know so
little about?

I'll give you some of your red meat to go chew on. But before I deal
with that misguided attempt, let me say this. I sincerely took you at
your word where you wrote, "We can do things to lessen human misery,
things that with little doubt do work, so we should do them. And I
do," and granted you that without any question or hint of one. I
would say about the same for myself and would hope that you'd accept
that, as well. Your misdirection here is sad, mostly because it is
pretentious, emotionally defensive, and avoids dealing with your own
well-exhibited errors here. Instead of dealing with what you've been
called to account for saying, you choose instead to see if there is
something to be found in order to put the other on the defensive. Oh,
well.

Like I said, I'll give you some red meat to attack. Not because it
helps you remedy your own errors here. Only because I've been lucky
and the answers might satisfy some curiosities.

I work entirely at home. I grow almost ALL of the food we eat here on
this property. Most of that is by hand labor, but I do use the
occasional power tool. I have free ranged chickens on the property
for that side of the diet, too. We use a well for our water supply
and it is electrically powered, but costs very little to run. I have
NO air conditioners and for heat I have a central oil heater, which I
use very rarely. Space heating is not used -- we use sweaters and
blankets. No beds in the house, at all. Just sleep where we want to.
I'm lucky enough to live in a rather moderate climate so the winters
aren't that cold and the summers aren't that hot... yet. Most winters
do not get much below 40F (which is t-shirt weather as far as I'm
concerned) and most summers rarely reach 100F even for a few days.
Currently, I'm hauling out some cold storage (about 200 sq ft of it)
from a hillside so that I can retire some of my refrigeration
requirements, as well. Eggs for example, in cold storage and placed
in water glass, will keep for a very long time -- 5-6 months. I
import wheat and sugar, a few spices, and some cheese. I may get a
goat or two and make the cheese here, though, perhaps starting this
year. I also buy tools, of course, and some wood supplies and nails,
and a few construction items like that. I build my own structures,
including barns, without hiring any help to do it. I have two
vehicles, used perhaps once every two weeks or so, for travel to town.
I keep two because we may be using one for a rare drive to a store
when my daughter may then have a grand mal seizure and breaks
something serious (she has broken her radius and ulna clean through
before, for example) requiring a hospital visit, so it is necessary to
have up to two transportation options available. We have five members
in the family here -- two legally, permanently disabled.

I fly exactly zero miles each year. I gave up a very high paying job
with Lockheed, in fact, which required regular travel. I have a
pilot's license, long since, but I haven't flown in decades. I very
much LOVE flying, though. And it is a personal sacrifice that you've
just reminded me about that makes me a little sad for the loss. I
very much did enjoy it.

But you are also asking the wrong person, John, if you are trying to
make some point. I also spend about 500-600 hours a year in volunteer
activities and I contribute about 30% of my remaining income after
taxes to those organizations I personally contribute time to, as well.
During the Reagan administration, I was personally involved in
transporting (it was a 'train' of sorts) people from El Salvador to
Canada and my involvement both with the poor around the world as well
as here in the US has continued, since. I have two disabled children
besides, which I take care of and one of them needs constant, daily
care. On top of that, I work to make a living and bring in cash from
elsewhere just like you do.

None of this has anything to do with the price of tea in China, John.

It appears to me to be nothing more than some feigned (and terribly
misguided) attempt on your part to find some "***" in my armor to
attack and it has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand,
which are your grossly negligent comments about something you are
almost entirely ignorant about and your inability to apply sound
reasoning and good judgment. The science is being done by real
scientists and if you are truly interested in understanding the
impacts of pressure broadening in the context of Earth's global
warming situation and the impacts humans are having, then you will
accept and read the volume I posted a link towards, yesterday. It's
there to be had, if you just look. I even pointed you towards the
pages to read more closely.

In any case, I've little to apologize for. I spend a significant part
of my life choosing, without coercion, to contribute back for the
accident of fortune for having been born in the US. All of next week,
in fact, from Monday through Friday, from about 8AM till 7PM each day,
will be spent in yet another of these volunteer activities.

Okay. I've indulged most of your little distraction. Now let's get
back to your exhibited lack of sound judgment when speaking as though
you have some authority on something you know so little about. It's
one thing to be ignorant about a topic -- we all are on most of them.
It's quite another to exhibit openly such a lack of sound judgment and
in the same breath disparage entire fields of knowledge you have no
place to speak about.

Two sayings come to mind here. A famous one, "Better to keep your
mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all
doubt." And one I made up a decade ago, "Having an equal right to an
opinion isn't the same as having a right to an equal opinion." I very
much enjoy reading your comments both here and in .basics, because you
have definitely helped me better understand things in electronics
design and I'm a better person for all of that. Thanks. Sincerely.
But it's obvious that climate science is mostly outside your field of
experience and knowledge and I think you know better than to speak so
brazenly when you know so little about it. It's my hope that you will
either choose to get better informed (and I can refer you to working
scientists in the field willing to help you gain a foothold, provide
free copies of important papers, or point you towards significant
textbooks) or else, at least, will treat other serious professionals
who are actively working in science as you'd like to be treated
yourself, were the shoe on the other foot.

I have changed almost everything our family does that I can manage to
change without placing us at serious risk. But what is your point? It
wouldn't matter in the least if I hadn't. The science would be just
the same and your behavior just as egregious.

Jon


I'm not attacking anyone. I was just interested to see if you are a
theorist or a practitioner when it comes to AGW. Sounds like you are
not a big part of the problem.

Egregious? Because I'm skeptical about the state of climate science?
I'm skeptical about any science that's not verified by experiment and
has a history of fudging data. Egregious because I ask for numbers
about pressure broadening as a contributor to GW, and don't get them?

So, given that man dumps, say, 100 PPM additional CO2 into the air,
how much does that increase IR retention by water vapor?

I keep discussing facts, or disputing what other people consider to be
facts, and some people, yourself included, respond with personal
insults. Big deal.

John

.

Loading