Recent Comments

Prev  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  Next

Comments 92651 to 92700:

92651. alan_marshall at 20:30 PM on 14 March 2011
       Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
       John, This site has become what it is because of your vision, skill and selfless dedication, but most of all because of your love for humankind, and your passion for truth. The recognition of the site implied by the nomination is an encouragement to minor contributors such as myself to play our part and to seek excellence. May the truth prevail!
92652. PM at 20:29 PM on 14 March 2011
       Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
       Hi John Congratulations on the nomination and the iphone app. Info on the app comes in handy when responding to blogs on the ABC drum!
92653. PhysSci at 20:00 PM on 14 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Ben, You are mixing apples and oranges here, and obviously do not understand the subject being discussed... Your skin is a strong absorber of IR, but it is also a strong emitter of IR ... When I say 'IR trapping', I mean preventing of IR radiation generated inside from escaping to the outside. That prevention is done NOT through high-emissivity materials but by using low-e (thermally highly reflective) materials ... Talk to any engine mechanics, and he will tell you that in order to help cool an engine, they use black covers of high IR emissivity. That's because such covers help transfer more efficiently the IR heat generated by the engine to the outside environment ... I have done more reading about the radiative transfer theory than you can imagine. From your response regarding the First Law of thermo, I gather that you did not understand my points in the previous posting. Please, read it again and think it through one more time ... I'm not your 'garden variety' of 'climate skeptics', and believe me there is hardly anything you could tell me that I do not already know. On the other hand, I could probably tell you a few things that would enhance your knowledge on this subject ... For example, did you know that this 30 deg (or actually 33 deg) GH effect that's quoted in all popular literature, is mathematically wrong? One arrives at this number, when solving the S-B equation for temperature using observed solar irradiance and the Earth's total albedo. However, since radiation is a 4th power function of the absolute temperature, if one has a non-uniform distributions of temperatures such as on a spherical planet, one does NOT get the TRUE mean surface temperature by simply inverting the S-B equation. Mathematically, this is explained by Hoelder's inequality. The correct way to calculate the 'black-body' (airless) temperature of Earth (or any planet for that matter) is to first take the 4th root of the radiation absorbed at EVERY point on the surface, and THEN average (integrate) the resulting temperatures across the planet surface. When one does that, one finds that the actual GH effect is 133C. That's right - the presence of an atmosphere raises the average temperature on Earth by 133C, not 33C! ... This implies the presence of considerable EXTRA energy in the lower atmosphere above the amount supplied by the Sun. I hope this helps ...
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please check that you have the correct names of those to whom you respond. Please refrain from subjective judgment as to who understands what and lofty declaratives like "there is hardly anything you could tell me that I do not already know." Those kinds of statements do not serve to enhance your credibility. Please note also that you've claimed a lot of reading and have yet to cite a single scientific reference. The preferred style here at SkS is to make a point and immediately show some substantiation of it, preferably from a peer-reviewed publication. If you've read this thread from the beginning, you've noted that opinion-based science doesn't usually stand scrutiny - and those discussions do little except go in circles. If you follow these suggestions, you'll find that you can have a worthwhile debate.
92654. RSVP at 19:06 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       To: dana1981 I wrote, "...yet, how many people would still be alive, say, one year after a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption? " ...to which you wrote (dana1981 at 07:35 AM on 14 March, 2011 ), "RSVP - nobody is suggesting a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption. No strawmen please" ...OK, not a complete ban, so is it also a strawman to assume climate science has determined that there will be less human suffering on the whole if the big oil valve in the sky gets cranked to the right, (precisely at a historical point when world oil consumption is on the increase), and that the amount of this adjustment has been adequately determined? Here I am not questioning the effects of GHGs. I am only saying that there is no free lunch at this point. The world food supply depends on oil in a huge way, and any reduction in oil is going to affect world hunger, which means lives. I am comparing apples with apples, no strawman. If anything is a strawman, its your trite reply.
92655. Bern at 18:48 PM on 14 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       

       since IR radiation travels at the speed of light, it can only be trapped by materials of very low emissivity and (respectively) high IR reflectivity such as aluminum, polish silver etc.

       Er, no. Somehow, my skin (which is an awful long way from being aluminium or polished silver) traps IR radiation quite effectively - I know I quite appreciate that fact during the cooler months, standing under the heat lamps in the bathroom! To argue that IR is only trapped by materials that effectively reflect it is a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative heat transfer.

       This fact is well known in the insulation industry and is the basis for the so-called radiant barrier technology pioneered by NASA some 40 years ago.

       Er, again, no. The "radiant barrier technology" doesn't absorb IR - it reflects it. You know, bounces it back where it comes from. Foil layers in building insulation are used to do just that - reflect IR either back into the home (to warm it in cold climates) or back out of the home (to stop it heating up in warm climates). As for your comments as to why GH theory violates the First law of thermodynamics - sigh. I suggest you do a bit more reading about radiative heat transfer and the greenhouse effect. Pay particular attention to the bits about how the surface of the earth is about 30ºC warmer than a simple radiative balance with solar input would suggest.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Careful, the D-K is strong in this one. I fear you are in for a long slog in your efforts.
92656. PhysSci at 18:46 PM on 14 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       scaddenp - Read my posting above and it will answer some of your questions. Regarding the efficiency of energy transfer by radiation vs, convection, in the atmosphere (which is a fluid), convective cooling is much more efficient than radiative cooling, simply because radiative heat exchange depends on the 4th power of absolute temperatures, while convection depends on the simple difference between temperatures. That's with respect to sensible heat flux. Latent heat flux (i.e. cooling due to evaporation) can transfer heat even across zero or negative temperature gradients as long as there is a spatial gradient in water vapor concentrations. Most convective cooling of the Earth surface is due to latent heat fluxes. Globally, the convective cooling of Earth's surface (sensible + latent heat flux) is at least 2.5 times bigger than the long-wave radiative cooling. Check papers by Trenberth et al (1997, 2009). As I said in my previous posting, the lower troposphere contains more energy than supplied by the Sun. Where is that energy coming from?
92657. Dan Moutal at 18:38 PM on 14 March 2011
       Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
       Looks like archive.org is up and running again. So everything should be back to normal, and downloads should complete without a hitch.
92658. PhysSci at 18:29 PM on 14 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       This is a response to scaddenp from another blog. I've been asked to post this here as a more relevant place ----------------------- scaddenp - Yes, I have read the article "2nd Law of thermodynamics and greenhouse theory". Firstly, I never said that the GH theory violates the 2nd Law of thermo. I said it violates the First Law pertaining to energy conservation, which is even worse, because among the 4 laws of thermodynamics, only the First one is mathematically exact! Secondly, the above article makes a common mistake as many other popular publications do by using the 'blanket' analogy to describe the working of the atmospheric GH effect. Specifically it states: "The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer." Nothing can be more misleading! As I explained in a previous posting (now deleted!), blankets, coats, and real greenhouses preserve heat by obstructing convective heat exchange, not radiative cooling, i.e. by physically trapping air mass. The free atmosphere does not impose any restriction on the surface convective cooling. That is why the term 'atmospheric greenhouse effect' is a misnomer, and has been identified as such in the science literature back in the 1970s and 80s. In addition, since IR radiation travels at the speed of light, it can only be trapped by materials of very low emissivity and (respectively) high IR reflectivity such as aluminum, polish silver etc. This fact is well known in the insulation industry and is the basis for the so-called radiant barrier technology pioneered by NASA some 40 years ago. Since the atmosphere contains no IR-reflecting substances, and has a negligibly small heat storage capacity, it cannot physically 'trap' heat of any kind (radiative or convective)! Now, here is why the GH theory violates the First law of thermodynamics. These facts are well-known in the science literature, but not usually discussed in popular outlets such as this website - Satellite and surface based observations have determined that the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs on average 239 W m-2 solar (short-wave) radiation. At the same time, the lower troposphere emits towards the surface some 343 W m-2 long-wave radiation (the so-called down-welling thermal flux). If the GH effect were due to absorption and re-emission of IR energy by greenhouse gases ultimately traceable to solar input as claimed by the current theory, then how is it possible that the down-welling thermal flux exceeds the total solar input by 44% (343/239 = 1.44). Simply put, observations indicate that the lower troposphere of Earth contains significantly more internal energy than provided by the Sun. This situation is extreme on Venus, where the down-welling thermal flux is about 80 times larger than the average absorbed solar flux by the entire planetary system of Venus! Given the rather small heat storage capacity of the atmospheres on both planets, these data cannot be explained in the context of the current GH theory founded on radiation interception without violating the Firs law of thermo! ... Yes, the lower atmosphere does contain energy above and beyond of what the Sun provides, but the source of that energy is not IR radiation! It's something else and much more fundamental ... Can you guess what it is?
92659. PhysSci at 18:21 PM on 14 March 2011
       The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
       Rob Honeycutt - yes, the Holocene is much more stable than glacial periods, no doubt, and this has to do with orbital variations. Also, we currently live in one of the warmest (if not THE warmest) periods of the Holocene contrary to some skeptics, who try to prove that the global temperature has been much higher 7-8 thousands years ago. All these discussions about how warm the present is or how big the rate of temperature change over the past 100 years has been compared to past periods are besides the point. The point is, where is the empirical evidence that any of the temperature changes (past and present) were caused by variations in CO2 or any other so-called 'greenhouse gases'? I have researched this topic in detail, I can tell you with full confidence that is NO credible empirical evidence in the entire historical record that CO2 has had ever any impact on Earth's climate! The CO2-climate 'connection' ONLY exists is virtual realities generated by models, but not in our physical reality. In fact, the whole GH theory is based on radiative transfer models from the 1960s and 70s ...
92660. From Peru at 18:19 PM on 14 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       Chris Colose: But what a 50ºC or 70ºC hot, super-sauna Earth with enormous amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere (as in the Archaean Eon and in the snowball aftermath) would mean for the atmospheric dynamics? What kind of clouds cover would dominate the Earth, high level (cirrus), low level (cumulus and stratocumulus) or monstruous convective (cumulonimbus)? How much of the planet would be cloud-covered? Could it be near 100%? How big would be the Tropical Storms? Could they reach the warm Poles?
92661. Gilles at 18:09 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       sorry a whole bunch has disappeared after the "smaller than" sign. [snipped]
       Moderator Response: Once again discussion of the Greenhouse Effect should be discussed on The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics
92662. Dan Moutal at 16:54 PM on 14 March 2011
       Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
       Archive.org (which hosts the podcasts) is currently down. Hopefully this wont last long, but there is really nothing I can do to fix the issue. Sorry for the hiccup, and keep trying to download. It will work eventually.
92663. dana1981 at 16:33 PM on 14 March 2011
       Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
       It's my first interview, so don't go in with high expectations!
92664. Kevin Hood at 16:21 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       dhogaza I agree the grassroots effort thus far is a patchwork thus far. But I also think there is a potential for sweeping change at the municipal and possibly the state level. You make a good point about State's rights. There's always federal-state tension, but I agree that the strength of the bonds are going to be tested to new degrees soon. While I hear your frustration with nothing getting done, I am not sure that nothing is worse than passing cap-and-trade. deFazio's observations make it seem that cap-and-trade might simply give an illusion of progress where none has been made. It might be better to know nothing has been done. I also have a powerful skepticism as to using the same free-market/profiteering mechanisms that tanked the U.S. economy - and contributed mightily to the current climate change plight - for resolving the situation. I favor a carbon tax, preferrably an increasingly punitive one over time, where the proceeds go to renewable energy and efficiency efforts. Of course, the word "tax" is considered a death knell to any proposition - but I think that that paradigm is worth challenging. At least you have progressively idealistic representatives in Oregon. Here in Alaska our politicians would drill through their grandmother's graves to get a drop of oil.
92665. dhogaza at 15:47 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       

       Here's a good article as to why Cap-and-Trade is a Bad Idea by a US Congressional Representative (Peter deFazio, Democrat out of Oregon).

       I'm from Oregon, and I like DeFazio, but the problem is that he's wrong in the sense that doing *nothing* is definitely worse than Cap and Trade. And he has never offered an alternative that has had any chance of passing. His idealism also led to him voting against the health care reform law. Sorry, Peter, extending coverage to more people is better than sitting on our ass and being disappointed that the law didn't legislate Nirvana (it's an easier argument for him because the Oregon Health Care plan already provides basic coverage for everyone in the state, not as good as [say] Costa Rica, but better than any state other than perhaps MA (but we passed our law years earlier). So his stance wasn't hurting oregonians, necessarily - just red state poor people.
92666. dhogaza at 15:44 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       

       Spare me the discussion of how individual households represent only a miniscule part of the carbon emission equation - I get that. But members of these same households are those who work in industry and who have the mouths that require much agriculture and consequent transportation. Can we not push for reform/minimizing carbon footprints at our work?

       Etc ... Actually many states and municipalities have been taking action, for many years. It's patchwork, and not as effective as federal actions, and obviously those states with tards as governor (Wisconsin ...) aren't playing, but progress is being made. The really huge problem on the horizon will be the Right fighting States' Rights to do pollution control, with the Federal government forbidding such action. This fight's been going on for a couple of decades, at least, with the "States Rights über alles" extreme right insisting that it only applies to states that walk away from federal regulations on business, pollution, etc ... if states exceed federal law/regulation, "States Rights" flies right out the window for these people.
92667. dhogaza at 15:39 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       garythompson:

       This article seems to imply that if only Republicans were removed from office then Cap and Trade legislation would pass. But in 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a 'super majority' in both the House and the Senate and also occupied the Executive branch. They had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant and there wasn't anything Republicans could have done to stop them. Why did they not pass Cap and Trade?

       Fillibuster in the Senate. Obama put health care reform first, and since there are always a couple of Dems from coal-producing states, getting 60 votes on cloture was problematic from the beginning. Your claim that "they had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant" is false regarding cap and trade, because of those Dems from coal-producing states. With MA voting in a Republican, even the dream of getting 60 votes disappeared. Yes, if there had been no Republicans in the Senate, cap and trade would've been passed (actually, more likely, a straight carbon tax). The same would've been true if the Senate followed the more democratic rules of the House. But the combination of the fillibuster and a very small number (<5) of Dems who are beholden to the fossil fuel industry ... there was no chance.
92668. Kevin Hood at 15:22 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       PS: Here's a good article as to why Cap-and-Trade is a Bad Idea by a US Congressional Representative (Peter deFazio, Democrat out of Oregon).
92669. Kevin Hood at 15:09 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Considering that many of us here appear to be enduring ruling bodies suffering cranial-rectal inversions, here's a simple question: Why not just ignore them? Can we not affect immense change from the ground up? Spare me the discussion of how individual households represent only a miniscule part of the carbon emission equation - I get that. But members of these same households are those who work in industry and who have the mouths that require much agriculture and consequent transportation. Can we not push for reform/minimizing carbon footprints at our work? Can we not forsake cars and use public transport or nonmotorized means? Can we not consume only locally grown food, plant trees, minimize our consumer purchases? And so on - in say, a million different ways? Or are we dependent on the governing bodies above to come around and approve meaningful action? The bumperstickers "Think Globally, Act Locally" and "If enough people lead, the leaders will follow" have at least a kernel of truth.
92670. garythompson at 15:08 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Nothing like a political post to get the juices flowing....I posted on here at #2 and then 24 hours later it's over 100. Seems we have a lot of political steam to vent. While I can see the reason to do this occasionally on this website, I have to agree with others on here that I hope this is not going to be the norm for this site. I love this website and continue to view it daily and hope it doesn't turn into a RC clone. I've learned more on this website about Climate Science than all the others put together and I applaud those who make this site possible. There was a question from my post that I hope to clarify here. #15 - MattJ "Your idealized picture of the American personality is quite false. Why, now I have to play the part of the man from Missouri and ask YOu for the evidence for your stance: don't tell me, show me that such is the attitude of the majority of Americans." This article seems to imply that if only Republicans were removed from office then Cap and Trade legislation would pass. But in 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a 'super majority' in both the House and the Senate and also occupied the Executive branch. They had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant and there wasn't anything Republicans could have done to stop them. Why did they not pass Cap and Trade? Because they knew the majority of people didn't feel it was necessary and this included many Democrats. If the country wanted this, then the politicians would have felt secure in passing it. They didn't.
92671. mothincarnate at 15:02 PM on 14 March 2011
       Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
       My votes in also!
92672. muoncounter at 14:46 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       "beginning immediately WW2 ended?" Hardly. Very little about US foreign policy before the 'fall' of the USSR had to do with exporting democracy. More to the point was a series of proxy wars. But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread, which is mired in the politics of here and now?
92673. TimTheToolMan at 14:45 PM on 14 March 2011
       What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
       This entire line of argument relies on model results that will become less reliable and relevent the further they get from the climate's component values against which they were built. The parametisation values will quickly move away from reality as new equilibriums are established in the real world for the case where CO2 was magically instantaneously removed from the atmosphere. Put another way, our models today have a snowballs chance in hell of being even vaguely accurate when moddeling climate heading towards a snowball earth.
92674. Susanne at 14:09 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       It's John's site and he can do what he likes with it. But it's of immense value to me and if this post heralds a change of direction towards discussing the politics of one nation - any nation - then I feel that its value will be reduced. The comments on this post, including my own, reinforce that feeling. Climate is a global matter. Politics is not. The political discussion in my country is just as brain-dead as the discussion in the US, but it's not the same discussion. I have a small chance of influencing the policy of my own government. I have none at all of influencing that of the US. This is one out of hundreds of posts. I sympathise with its content but to me as a regular reader and frequent referrer to Skeptical Science it really does seem out of place. I hope it's useful for you, meaning John and mods, to know that. Many thanks and best wishes.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion, as opinions matter and can make a difference. But there is a method to our madness. :) More science is coming, with yet more in the pipeline.
92675. Tom Curtis at 13:32 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd @97, you are apparently now equating the mere existence of laws with the rule of law. I am certain that the unholy trinity I mentioned had laws; but I am equally certain that they did not hold those laws to apply to themselves nor their enforcement agencies. I am even more certain they did not follow the procedures of the law in their various show trials, persecutions and progroms. Nor are they exceptional. Tyrants of all stripes have been as common as muck throughout history, and nearly all brought for a time, stability and discipline to their nation. (There are a few exceptions, such a Caligula, that did not.) Just because I mentioned only three examples does not mean I could not have found a hundred and more from just the 20th century alone - as you should know. Further, anarchy would have been much preferable in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot, and possibly better in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. To the extent that it was not, it was only because they attained the least of the virtues of government, whilst trampling over the greater. Because Somalia is (possibly) worse than Burma to live in; does that leave any question that it would be preferable to either to live in a democracy with the rule of law?
92676. Tom Curtis at 13:15 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       dhogaza @96, it is apparently important to you that the US not be considered a democracy. That is fine, I consider it sufficiently undemocratic that its government has only a borderline claim to legitimacy. However, denying that it was one of the most democratic nations on Earth in the 19th century, let alone in the 1950's seems a very long stretch. Suggesting (which is necessary for your counter argument) that making the US more democratic in the 1860's or 1950's would somehow have avoided the somehow avoided the abuses of slavery, and of African American civil rights is, I think, an even longer stretch. There is no evidence that at those times, the views of politicians were significantly out of step with their constituents (quite the contrary). Of course, a full and consistent implementation of the rule of law would have avoided those particular abuses; but not lifted African Americans from the poverty imposed by years of prejudice. As to your assertions about the intentions of the founding fathers, they all assented to the claim that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." That is a democratic principle if any, and if they fell short of their aspiration by not allowing the governed to indicate their consent or dissent because they were poor, or a woman, or black, that is to their shame (a shame from which we exonerate them due to the age in which they lived, but for which we would repudiate them if they expressed similar views now). What is more, Lincoln was quite clear about what sort of government was intended (if not fully effected in the US). It was democracy he fought for, so that "... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." No matter that the US has often fallen short of aspiration; its aspiration has been democracy from its birth. Finally, campaign funding laws and poor education and media are far bigger threats to democracy in the US than any feature of its Constitution.
92677. Daniel Bailey at 13:14 PM on 14 March 2011
       The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
       Anyone interested in the topic of mass extinctions - or at least if we're to be part of one - may be interested in the comment at the other end of this link. Not yet time for "Auld Lang Syne", but the time neareth. The Yooper
92678. johnd at 13:08 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       muoncounter at 12:41 PM, by "recent", I take it to mean beginning immediately WW2 ended?
92679. johnd at 13:06 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM, I never expect that there will be 100% compliance with any assertions made, nor should ones overall view be characterised by the exceptions. To imagine that the three examples given controlled their regimes without any rules or laws ignores the realities. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if there was a total power vacuum and thus anarchy? Agreeing or not with such rules is a different matter. Who would propose that anarchy would have been preferable? Democracy should not be defined by the labels regimes apply to themselves, but rather by whether they meet the required criteria or not. Clearly a regime that imposes slavery or denies civil rights is one in name only. Perhaps you can offer an alternative to the "greater good/ greater number" that contravenes the concept and does not merely reword it.
92680. David Horton at 12:55 PM on 14 March 2011
       Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
       Way to go John! And I totally agree with the nomination's notes about the large number of posts you manage to get up daily with little financial support and while doing a day job! The quality and quantity of the posts here is astounding for a basically one man operation (yes, I know behind every good man is a better woman), even taking into account the contributions from guest writers and moderators. Fingers crossed.
92681. dhogaza at 12:47 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       TomC: " There have been many democracies (or near approaches to democracy) which have been unequitable; which the history of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US should inform you of". Once again, the United States is not a democracy (and the Founders viewed the possibility with horror). During the antebellum era, US Senators weren't even elected by the citizens of their states. They were appointed by the state legislators. Many states had property requirements for voting, and women could not vote (even if they could, in many states, they would not have been legally able to own the requisite property - land - anyway). We're nearer a democracy today than then, but still a long ways from it. dana1981: "When a 41% minority can obstruct the will of a 59% majority, that's not even close to democracy." And remember that the fillibuster exists in a body that is already *highly* undemocratic in that each state has two senators regardless of population (as a citizen living in a smaller state, I happen to *like* that Oregon is on an equal footing with California in the Senate, but it *is* undemocratic in principle). It works out that Senators representing about 10% of the population of the United States are theoretically able to block legislation from passing the Senate ... Does this fit TomC's definition of "nearly democratic"? Now, when Obama was sworn in, the legislative branch *was* "nearly Democratic" :)
92682. muoncounter at 12:41 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd: "an over commitment in the expense involved in imposing democracy elsewhere in the world." No, the problems with US public education are far older than our recent fascination with giving others the gift of democracy, whether they like it or not. We were able to educate a generation of engineers when the Russians put the fear of rockets into our government. Since that crisis ended, we've been more interested in letting our children educate themselves and they've chosen to learn how to become first-person shooters.
92683. scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 14 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Posting here in hope PhysSci will respond in correct place? "Regarding satellite observations of atmospheric absorption of IR radiation emanating from the surface, they show just that 'absorption' and provide no evidence for a temperature change due to such absorption" Consider ground detectors of IR (DLR). If there is no evidence of temperature change at the surface, explain to me how these detectors work? You seem to be implying that energy absorption by the surface of the detector is not allowed? As to efficiency of radiation cf convection. Lets see surface radiation averages 390W/m2. Convection moves 12W/m2 (and zero off planet).
92684. Rob Honeycutt at 12:26 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd @ 88... No one is confusion politics and religion here. You keep jumping to conclusions. I'm talking about early years of science where scientific concepts were a challenge to the power structure, which at that time was a religious power structure. For the most part, religion tends to be a very minor influencer in the issue of climate change. But we are very clearly embroiled in a situation today where science is telling us something that is politically inconvenient to one side of the political spectrum. It's this case that causes basic aspects of physics to become a political tennis ball.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
92685. Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd @84, let me assure you that Stalin was all about discipline (as also Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung). They were not, unfortunately, about the rule of law. If you meant "rule of law" when you wrote "discipline" you should have chosen your words more carefully. But do not, whatever you do, mistake one for the other. You are correct that institutional stability (but not stability of policy) is a prerequisite of democracy; but that does not make it the greater virtue. Stability is desirable because of the conditions it allows us to achieve; and therefore is no more valuable than those condistions. Democracy is desirable of itself. Further, equity and democracy are not the same thing. There have been many democracies (or near approaches to democracy) which have been unequitable; which the history of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US should inform you of, even if the Terror in France (or the Murder of Socrates) have slipped your memory. Finally, the greater good for the greater number is consistent with the torture, rape and murder of the small minority; and the later has occurred in pursuit of the former more times in history than can be enumerated. Therefore "the greater good for the greater number" cannot be primary objective of government, still less its basis.
92686. Marcus at 12:03 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       John D, the running down of education in the US is down to the simple fact that *both* sides of politics in the US are fearful that a well-educated populace might decide to get rid of the whole lot of them. That fear will only increase in light of recent events in North Africa.
92687. johnd at 12:00 PM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Tom Curtis at 11:39 AM, you don't think that public education in the US is being run down not due to a lack of commitment to democracy, but rather an over commitment in the expense involved in imposing democracy elsewhere in the world.
92688. Marcus at 11:59 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Also, nofreewind, I can't allow your claims regarding climate change post 1998 to go unchallenged. However you try & cover yourself, your obvious hope was to convince everyone of the Denialist Meme that the planet has been cooling since 1998-by cherry-picking the date that coincides with the strongest El Nino recorded in the 20th century & by cherry-picking the data sets that have most consistently shown the lowest warming trends (funny how HadCru data is suddenly "Beyond reproach", after the Denialists have spent the better part of the last 12 months falsely pillorying them over "Climate-gate"). Yet in spite of *all* of that cherry-picking, you still weren't able to show a cooling trend, let alone one of statistical significance. Your follow-up post on the subject was nothing more than a desperate attempt to cover yourself after your attempted misrepresentations were exposed.
92689. Marcus at 11:50 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       nofreewind, you really don't get it, do you? You tried to assert that the Senator's claims that "Cap & Trade" will reduce US dependence on foreign oil are rubbish-by simply focusing on a single sector of the US economy. My post showed how your claims were rubbish, & your most recent postings do nothing to alter that. You go on about the number of electric vehicles *currently* on US roads as though its relevant to the debate. For the record, though, there are currently 1.6 million hybrid vehicles on US roads, & several *thousand* full-electric vehicles-not bad for a relatively new transport technology, how long did it take petrol-powered vehicles to take off at the turn of last century? Anyway, I digress. The point is that a cap-&-trade is meant to impact on *future* behaviour. In transportation alone, its hoped that a cap-&-trade mechanism will (a) encourage more Americans to car-pool, use public transport or tele-commute in order to get to work; (b) encourage companies to ship goods, long distance, by rail rather than truck & (c) encourage the uptake of alternative fuel vehicles (electric, hybrid, compressed natural gas, bio-diesel or ethanol blends). The overall impacts of such behavioral changes will be to simultaneously reduce the energy intensity of the transport sector & reduce the oil dependence of the transport sector-which would have the overall effect of reducing US oil dependency-just as the Senator claimed. If similar reductions in energy intensity & oil dependence can be achieved-via Cap-&-trade-in the commercial, residential & industrial sectors, then this will reduce US dependence on oil even further still (&, by extension, dependence on foreign oil). So however you look at it, its the Senator who was bang on the money Nofreewind, ( -Snip- ).
       Moderator Response: [DB] Let's dial back a bit on the emotion. You've made your point eloquently (your 2x4 with a nail suffices; no need for a field tactical nuke).
92690. johnd at 11:45 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM, your mention of the term religiously prompts the observation to be made as to how religion itself is often confused with the politics of religion, just as now the subject of science is being confused with the politics of science.
92691. scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Maybe it's a media misconception (I dont trust media), but it also appears that many US citizens would prefer their children to be poorly educated (especially in science) for fear that education might result in them acquiring values they actively reject.
92692. Tom Curtis at 11:39 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       muoncounter @83, I'm not sure that "begin to see" is the correct phrase about something that has been a dictum for me for over a decade. However, yes, public education is being run down due to a lack of commitment to democracy. This is partly because public education is seen as a sort of economic subsidy (ensuring an educated work force) rather than as an essential of civil society. That is aided, I am sure, by the fact that many politicians do not like educated citizens calling them to account (although I doubt that is often an explicit motivation).
92693. johnd at 11:38 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM, I believe the original intention of this venue was for the participants to present their own views on such matters based on their understanding of the science. I believe there is a difference between debating someone in the appropriate thread and countering their arguments with the objective of it being a learning experience for one, both or all participants, and trying to discredit an absent politician for his opinions.
92694. Riduna at 11:25 AM on 14 March 2011
       The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
       Idunno – thank you. I didn’t want to sound alarmist when mentioning methane – other than point to it already poses a problem, which is not going to diminish. But since you mention its capacity to induce anoxia in the atmosphere, it should be remembered that it can produce those conditions in seawater. This has probably contributed to previous extinction events, particularly of marine life.
92695. johnd at 11:25 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM, discipline is all about applying the rule of law. By definition you simply cannot have one without the other. Whether the rules are considered right or wrong in the eyes of others becomes subjective, and is irrelevant anyway as the only alternative is no rules and hence anarchy. Democracy is based on equity, and that simply cannot be achieved without stability, be it political or economic. The most basic requirement of government is that what has to be done is of the greater good for the greater number. In Australia, the cultural basis for democracy is founded on political apathy.
92696. muoncounter at 11:10 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       TomC "a commitment to democracy does imply a free, universal system of high standard public education." Now you begin to see the situation. Perhaps the reason our public education in the US has remained so tragic for so long is that an educated electorate is more difficult to fool. And those in power enjoy fooling those without. I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again
92697. Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd @ 75... The whole gist of this article is that the EPA's findings on CO2 were firmly based in physics. Now one political party in the US is attempting to regulate away physics in favor of their preferred political position. The lines between physics and politics are sufficiently blurred in order to make it nearly impossible to discuss climate change without it being political. I believe that discussing the physics of climate change is fully in keeping with SkS, my point is that now even just discussing physics has become a political position. This certainly is not new for science. Science has continually been confrontational with the status quo of political power, that political power often being religiously based in the past.
92698. Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd @79, clearly the purpose of this site is to discuss the views on the science of the so called skeptics. That is what it says on the home page. That a person is unqualified to have views on the science does not prevent them from claiming knowledge, and expressing an opinion. Nor does it prevent them, if they are in Congress, from attempting to legislate that opinion. Clearly when they do so, they make the opinions they express (or legislate) legitimate topics for posts at this site. What is more, suggesting that only the views of "sceptics" who happen to have a PhD in Atmospheric sciences can have their views legitimately discussed here (as you appear to be doing) is clearly intended to allow the erroneous nonsense of the vast bulk of deniers to be given a free pass from criticism. You are playing the back yard lawyer, in other words, for rhetorical reasons; not out of genuine conviction. Please do not stop doing so. I like it when deniers make themselves look silly.
92699. Riduna at 11:01 AM on 14 March 2011
       Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
       Congratulations John! A well deserved nomination for a site which provides scientific rigour, credible information, excellent moderation and, so important, valuable contributions from climate scientists who know their stuff and deal far more patiently than I ever could with the most obdurate denialists.
92700. Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 14 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       johnd, it is perhaps indicative that you have left out the most important element. My priorities are: 1) Rule of law; 2) Democracy; 3) Equity; and 4) Stability; Discipline is not a virtue of governments at all, beyond the discipline needed to exhibit the above virtues. It is true that for many nations, they do not have the institutional structures for the rule of law, or for democracy. Therefore somebody attempting to provide stability for the nation cannot directly provide democracy. But every action they take to provide stability must be so chosen as to enhance the prospects of a transition to rule of law, and democracy. Otherwise it is unethical. So while circumstance may force a person to participate in a government that it unethical in its constitution; that government should be making an immediate transition to rule of law; and preparing the ground work for a transition to democracy in the short to medium term. Otherwise, the government is unethical in its practice as well as in its constitution. If we do not accept this stricture, the consequence is that we must consider the actions of Mubarak and his secret police as ethical; whereas it was only (for the West) convenient. And we can have no ethical objection to the rule of the Ayotollahs in Iran (who certainly provide stability) however much we pragmatically despise them. Further, your points are completely irrelevant to the situation in the US (and Australia) where there is no constitutional bar to democracy; and where the cultural basis for democracy is strong.

Prev  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  Next